Utahs Hunt Application vs Weapons Allowed

[Ballistic]

3/23-4/27 is the application period for Utah big game in 2023. The technologies committee has until April to make weapons restriction recommendations.
I’m trying to plan for time off and this is making it hard. Vacation calendars are rolled out now - not in April.
And so is everyone else - especially hunters that have high points. The below is copied from the latest (DWR newsletter) elk management plan dated December 2,2022 for the 2023-2024 season. This is part of the approved changes. The language below does not specifically address just restricted (including HAMS) weapons hunts or does it ? I’m not sure if limited entry or any other hunt could be affected by this ? Does anyone know the date in April that the tech board is meeting as the timing for this is possibly the end dates for the application (3/23-4/27) or at least half way through it ?
We all like to plan how we are going to hunt and it would be upsetting to find out what weapon you could use after you put in your application. DWR needs to get this done (tech committee recommendations) now in January - not sometime in April - even if it only addresses restricted weapons (not entirely sure what this means right now) hunts. JMO. Any thoughts would be appreciated. I’m hoping the below is just for HAMS hunts ?

“Proposal to weapons allowed in restricted weapons hunts​

The Utah Wildlife Board previously tasked the DWR with establishing a technology committee to revisit which types of new technologies and weapons should be allowed for hunting in Utah. A diverse committee of various stakeholders was formed to identify emerging technologies and propose some updated rules. As a result, the DWR recommended a few changes to the weapons allowed in restricted-weapons hunts for archery, handguns, muzzleloaders, shotguns and rifles, including during the HAMS (handgun, archery, muzzleloader and shotgun) hunts.

However, the wildlife board voted to table the vote on the proposal until the board meeting in April to give the technology committee and the DWR more time to flesh out that proposal and the other technology-related recommendations.”

 

[JakeH]

Any changes they make will not affect the 2023 season. Unless you are putting in for a HAMS hunt, I wouldn't worry about it for this year.

If you are putting in for a HAMS hunt, there could be a few changes from what they have allowed the last couple of years, but I doubt that as well.

Most likely, any changes made will not take effect until 2024.

 

[BrowningRage]

Does anybody know of ANYBODY who hunted a HAMS hunt with anything other than a Muzzy..?

 

[JakeH]

Does anybody know of ANYBODY who hunted a HAMS hunt with anything other than a Muzzy..?

Me and my dad put in for one the first year, but didn't draw out. I was going to set up my shotgun for the hunt if I did.

 

[slamdunk]

Any changes they make will not affect the 2023 season. Unless you are putting in for a HAMS hunt, I wouldn't worry about it for this year.

If you are putting in for a HAMS hunt, there could be a few changes from what they have allowed the last couple of years, but I doubt that as well.

Most likely, any changes made will not take effect until 2024.

Correct.

We actually have a meeting Wed the 4th, I'll pass along information next day.

 

[slamdunk]

The Division admitted they dropped the ball on the Technology Committee recommendations, mostly because of the heavy focus on the Elk Management Plans and the WB requested we reconvene and better distinguish and define Weapon Restrictions.

As stated above, current weapons descriptions will remain in place for 2023.

On a brighter note, muzzleloader scopes were rediscussed and I was able to suggest a maximum power of 3x for general season hunts would be a better sale to public and it passed unanimously (as a recommendation).

We meet again on the 26th of this month for further work.

 

[JakeH]

The Division admitted they dropped the ball on the Technology Committee recommendations, mostly because of the heavy focus on the Elk Management Plans and the WB requested we reconvene and better distinguish and define Weapon Restrictions.

As stated above, current weapons descriptions will remain in place for 2023.

On a brighter note, muzzleloader scopes were rediscussed and I was able to suggest a maximum power of 3x for general season hunts would be a better sale to public and it passed unanimously (as a recommendation).

We meet again on the 26th of this month for further work.

Really wish you would have went 4x and only because there it a lot more scope options on the table at 4x then there is at 3x.

I'm fine with 3x I just know when I've looked in the past the max 3x scope options was limited. But at 4x there was a multitude of options.

And why limit it to just general season hunts? Stop complicating things for the sake of complicating things. We don't need 10 different rules for muzzleloaders for hells sake. Should be a muzzleloader hunt, and a HAMS hunt not a dozen different muzzleloader hunts all with there own special regulations.

 

[Ballistic]

The Division admitted they dropped the ball on the Technology Committee recommendations, mostly because of the heavy focus on the Elk Management Plans and the WB requested we reconvene and better distinguish and define Weapon Restrictions.

As stated above, current weapons descriptions will remain in place for 2023.

On a brighter note, muzzleloader scopes were rediscussed and I was able to suggest a maximum power of 3x for general season hunts would be a better sale to public and it passed unanimously (as a recommendation).

We meet again on the 26th of this month for further work.

Will the scope recommendation be brought up in future RAC meetings ? Or will it take affect in 2023 hunts ?
That brings me back to my original question that started this post if weapons are being restricted this year.
Thank You.

 

[slamdunk]

Yes, absolutely it'll be brought up in RAC's as part of the process before being voted in or out by the board.
No Technology changes in affect for 23.

 

[slamdunk]

Really wish you would have went 4x and only because there it a lot more scope options on the table at 4x then there is at 3x.

I'm fine with 3x I just know when I've looked in the past the max 3x scope options was limited. But at 4x there was a multitude of options.

And why limit it to just general season hunts? Stop complicating things for the sake of complicating things. We don't need 10 different rules for muzzleloaders for hells sake. Should be a muzzleloader hunt, and a HAMS hunt not a dozen different muzzleloader hunts all with there own special regulations.

"Modern" it could very well end up 4x in the end.

For HAMS, "Restricted" it's been recommended no scopes.

"Primitive" would be percussion style weapons.

3 Muzzleloader Types

 

[JakeH]

"Modern" it could very well end up 4x in the end.

For HAMS, "Restricted" it's been recommended no scopes.

"Primitive" would be percussion style weapons.

3 Muzzleloader Types

OK, when you said general hunts I figured you ment just the general season hunts, so limited entry muzzleloader hunts would have a different definition.

 

[slamdunk]

OK, when you said general hunts I figured you ment just the general season hunts, so limited entry muzzleloader hunts would have a different definition.

There is discussion that was tabled until next time to discuss the LE muzzleloader, it might get interesting.

 

[JakeH]

There is discussion that was tabled until next time to discuss the LE muzzleloader, it might get interesting.

Well in that case I stand by my original post. Stop complicating things just to complicate thing.

Your guys did your job by defining the 3 muzzleloader types, its not up to you guys to decide what weapon gets to hunt what season or hunt type.

The technology committee needs to stay in your lane, the rest of that stuff was figured out by the elk committee.

 

[slamdunk]

Well in that case I stand by my original post. Stop complicating things just to complicate thing.

Your guys did your job by defining the 3 muzzleloader types, its not up to you guys to decide what weapon gets to hunt what season or hunt type.

The technology committee needs to stay in your lane, the rest of that stuff was figured out by the elk committee.

Lol....that's all we're doing Jake, "recommendations".
Our lane is dead bottom and simply a starting point, we don't make the rules, you know that.

The LE twist was actually suggested by someone much higher and broader than us on the totem pole because of the Elk Committee

 

[JakeH]

Lol....that's all we're doing Jake, "recommendations".
Our lane is dead bottom and simply a starting point, we don't make the rules, you know that.

The LE twist was actually suggested by someone much higher and broader than us on the totem pole because of the Elk Committee

Care to elaborate on the "LE twist" and who Suggested it.

If it's going past the three definitions you posted earlier, then you guys are getting way into the weeds. I know you guys don't make the rules but you are the starting point, which means you guys can get some crappy stuff started.

My personal opinion, the primitive weapons stuff is a waste of time and energy. If people want to use that stuff they already have every opportunity too, it's such a small portion of people that care to do it it's not worth the time and effort being put into it.

 

[Airborne]

If there were specific unit(s) and hunts that were primitive weapons only I think you would see more than a 'small portion' of folks participate in those. Like have one general deer unit be Primitive weapon only for a year and see where the demand is just to try it out? Maybe I'm wrong but there could be higher demand for something like that than many think.

 

[slamdunk]

If there were specific unit(s) and hunts that were primitive weapons only I think you would see more than a 'small portion' of folks participate in those. Like have one general deer unit be Primitive weapon only for a year and see where the demand is just to try it out? Maybe I'm wrong but there could be higher demand for something like that than many think.

This is exactly why the WB needed a distinct definition created between "Restricted" and "Primitive" in the event a Primitive Weapon only opportunity is created.

We have 3 muzzleloader definitions.

 

[slamdunk]

My personal opinion, the primitive weapons stuff is a waste of time and energy. If people want to use that stuff they already have every opportunity too, it's such a small portion of people that care to do it it's not worth the time and effort being put into it.

You are correct, people can use a percussion style muzzleloader on any muzzleloader hunt if they choose, or even on the "Any Legal Weapon" hunts.

We were simply asked to create the definition, not the hunt.

 

[Ballistic]

There is discussion that was tabled until next time to discuss the LE muzzleloader, it might get interesting.

Will that possibly have it’s affects for the 2023 season on LE muzzleloader hunts ?
Thank You.

 

[slamdunk]

Will that possibly have it’s affects for the 2023 season on LE muzzleloader hunts ?
Thank You.

Absolutely no.
Nothing has been officially adopted for 23.

 

[falcon63]

Slamdunk,
Has the technology committee been asked or has there been discussion about scope limitations on ALW hunts? IMO when technology exists that allows or even promotes shooting at game animals 1000 to 2000 yards away, I believe that has crossed the line from hunting and landed in the non-fair chase world. What about a discussion on limiting technology on scopes to include illumination, windage and bullet drop technology, limit the power to 9x, 12, or whatever.
In regards to the previous posting about ML scopes, I would agree that 4x or even 6x gives a lot more options for buying a scope and could still accomplish the goal of less technology/advantage.

 

[hossblur]

Givee back the old muzzy season, I'll bust out my Thompson New Englander in 2 seconds.

 

[slamdunk]

Slamdunk,
Has the technology committee been asked or has there been discussion about scope limitations on ALW hunts? IMO when technology exists that allows or even promotes shooting at game animals 1000 to 2000 yards away, I believe that has crossed the line from hunting and landed in the non-fair chase world. What about a discussion on limiting technology on scopes to include illumination, windage and bullet drop technology, limit the power to 9x, 12, or whatever.
In regards to the previous posting about ML scopes, I would agree that 4x or even 6x gives a lot more options for buying a scope and could still accomplish the goal of less technology/advantage.

Yes, all weapons have been discussed and recommendations have been made for the Board to present to RAC's.

It has been recommended that no electronics allowed in scopes with the exceptions of illuminated reticles and dots.
Any automated range finding or drop compensation devices built into a scope would not be legal, such as the Burris Eliminator.


The laws for all weapon descriptions will remain open for discussions as Technology emerges throughout the future.

 

[Ballistic]

Slamdunk,
Has the technology committee been asked or has there been discussion about scope limitations on ALW hunts? IMO when technology exists that allows or even promotes shooting at game animals 1000 to 2000 yards away, I believe that has crossed the line from hunting and landed in the non-fair chase world. What about a discussion on limiting technology on scopes to include illumination, windage and bullet drop technology, limit the power to 9x, 12, or whatever.
In regards to the previous posting about ML scopes, I would agree that 4x or even 6x gives a lot more options for buying a scope and could still accomplish the goal of less technology/advantage.

As a former (early days) PRS event competitor - I share your sentiment -mostly. In the long range steel game the winners circle usually is the same 3-5 when the awards are handed out. The rest do ok with some not well at all. The same is true for long distance hunting- my opinion. The difference is most long distance hunters do not do well - not even close - again my opinion. Those that do well (small percent) have put in 100,s -1000,s of rounds in practice. Those that don’t put any time in practicing -get lucky and some wound animals never to be found. This is just my observations watching hunts occur w a spotting scope - not my hunts. I’ve talked with many hunters that have the newest tech and long range systems from everyone now that’s selling the systems. I’ve shot a few of the new systems as well.

Current technology (Burris and Sig) and others might just be crossing the line that needs to be established. When a rangefinder can establish wind directions all the way to the target -and plot a holdover dot in the scope - the line might be getting crossed. Currently (my opinion) those systems aren’t accurate enough for 1st round hits on steel for me at longer distances - but do really well out to 600-700 yards. But where will we be 5 years from now when these type of systems will give 1st round hits out to 1 mile ?

The tech committee (even if I don’t like it) has to establish some type of boundaries for emerging tech. If they don’t - forget about ever seeing a nice buck or bull again.
Limiting tech will not stop the small percentage that can hunt long range well from still doing well. They will still practice and perform above others limits.

I can only hope that the tech committee isn’t made up with the same 75% non hunters groups that know absolutely nothing about hunting or fire arms or scopes or muzzleloaders. Those 75% are heavily influenced by the 25% that have a special interest agenda - which has been proven many times over with the utah DWR

Why not get the archers/muzzy/rifle hunters together to establish our future ?

A prime example is the 2022 efforts to remove scopes on muzzleloaders. Nothing on the table for archery or rifle restrictions.
Just muzzleloaders. Who’s making these recommendations ? Not special interest groups - not a chance………
Removing scopes on muzzleloaders won’t stop rifle shooters from taking 1 mile shots with the newest Burris rangefinding scope.
A 4X scope on a muzzy could be a good compromise for a muzzleloader. What about rifles - what’s being talked about there ? Archery I don’t see the need for changes but it could have a few.

I believe the electronic communication between a scope and a rangefinder crosses the line. I believe a scope that ranges and plots a dot crosses the line. A scope with a dial or holdovers - I think it’s ok. A rangefinder is also ok and needed. But do you need a 10,000 yard rangefinder with a ballistic solution in it ?

The above is what I think should and shouldn’t be allowed and I’m a long distance competitor and have shot animals at long distance as well. I only represent a small number and most will not like what I have to say.

If all the electronic systems are ok to use going forward - but scope restrictions on muzzleloaders are the spotlight - the special interest group (tech committee) will prove they have zero knowledge about hunting and weapons. I’m hoping for the best with the emerging tech committee but don’t have much faith.

 

[slamdunk]

@Ballistic
Excellent post, thank you.

Most everything you mentioned has been addressed and answered in numerous comments and other posts.

As for the make up of the committee members-
We are a very broad group all of whom are avid hunters and skilled shooting enthusiasts of all weapons.
We have members who are archers, muzzleloaders, rifle hunters, and most do or have done all three.
We have special interest group members, 3 law enforcement officers, attorneys, social media influencers and people who also serve on other committees and occasionally have Board Members present duringour meetings.
All of us are avid hunters with the same end goal in mind.......drawing a line in the sand with current and emerging technologies.

 

[AZGuy]

You can still shoot 500 yards with a 4X scope. So not a lot of change, that’s awesome.

 

[Ballistic]

@Ballistic
Excellent post, thank you.

Most everything you mentioned has been addressed and answered in numerous comments and other posts.

As for the make up of the committee members-
We are a very broad group all of whom are avid hunters and skilled shooting enthusiasts of all weapons.
We have members who are archers, muzzleloaders, rifle hunters, and most do or have done all three.
We have special interest group members, 3 law enforcement officers, attorneys, social media influencers and people who also serve on other committees and occasionally have Board Members present duringour meetings.
All of us are avid hunters with the same end goal in mind.......drawing a line in the sand with current and emerging technologies.

Of course - I didn’t read the previous post you had sent just before I posted…. Sorry for that. I know this has been discussed a great deal - with past discussion aimed on muzzleloaders mostly. That has been very frustrating. And it has tested my faith in the boards process. On this issue - should be done by hunters - my opinion.
Emerging tech has to be addressed - not an option. I would also like to see the communication (sig rangefinders to Sierra Sig scopes) also eliminated. It’s almost exactly the same tech as the Burris eliminator. I have friends that have both systems that don’t like what I’m saying -might cost some friendships even. The rangefinder is great - just don’t allow it to communicate to the scope (remove the electronic scope)

If you only address the Burris eliminator = loopholes my friends. They will just keep coming.

It was good to hear a new direction is making progress with emerging tech. The board should try to include someone that has vast amounts of Knowledge with the latest tech. Does the board know about the sig rangefinder to scope communication ?
If not it will be viewed as a failure and a loophole and set the committee up for further scrutiny.
Thank you for your posts as well. I like a majority of them.

 

[slamdunk]

Of course - I didn’t read the previous post you had sent just before I posted…. Sorry for that. I know this has been discussed a great deal - with past discussion aimed on muzzleloaders mostly. That has been very frustrating. And it has tested my faith in the boards process. On this issue - should be done by hunters - my opinion.
Emerging tech has to be addressed - not an option. I would also like to see the communication (sig rangefinders to Sierra Sig scopes) also eliminated. It’s almost exactly the same tech as the Burris eliminator. I have friends that have both systems that don’t like what I’m saying -might cost some friendships even. The rangefinder is great - just don’t allow it to communicate to the scope (remove the electronic scope)

If you only address the Burris eliminator = loopholes my friends. They will just keep coming.

It was good to hear a new direction is making progress with emerging tech. The board should try to include someone that has vast amounts of Knowledge with the latest tech. Does the board know about the sig rangefinder to scope communication ?
If not it will be viewed as a failure and a loophole and set the committee up for further scrutiny.
Thank you for your posts as well. I like a majority of them.

All three weapons will have restrictions, the muzzleloader has just been the hot topic as it is the one that has seen the most significant advantages to emerging technologies.

The regulations will be written by attorneys and will most definitely address all types and brands of scopes, alongwith their intended mechanisms.
My comment about the Burris was only meant as an example, I apologize for not being more clear.
The ONLY electronic allowed on any scope will be the illumination of reticle and dots.

Also addressed is emerging technologies like "Nanotechnology" already used by military and law enforcement that allows the target to be seen through fog, smoke, etc.

As mentioned previously, these regulations will leave doors open to discuss anything unforseen as it comes along in the future.

 

[slamdunk]

You can still shoot 500 yards with a 4X scope. So not a lot of change, that’s awesome.

Agreed.
It was only brought up at the last meeting by me after receiving so much feedback and as a possible compromise and as a better sale to the public.
It was tabled until the next meeting.

If I were king for a day, I'd rather see less magnification versus more.
By that I mean 3x maximum.
I do know 1x actually reduces our natural magnification.

 

[Silentstalker]

I really think if you’re going to recommend any changes to the muzzleloader scope option you need to look at what’s available to the consumer.

As mentioned by Jake, 3x scopes are very limited. Make it 4x at a minimum. There are hardly any 4x scopes as it is in the popular brands of scopes. How could the committee vote unanimously on a rule of 3x with virtually zero options to the hunter?

I will say it again, Limiting muzzleloader scopes in the name of “saving bucks” is like pissing in the wind. Rifle hunters kill thousands more deer annually and it’s not debatable.

 

[slamdunk]

I really think if you’re going to recommend any changes to the muzzleloader scope option you need to look at what’s available to the consumer.

As mentioned by Jake, 3x scopes are very limited. Make it 4x at a minimum. There are hardly any 4x scopes as it is in the popular brands of scopes. How could the committee vote unanimously on a rule of 3x with virtually zero options to the hunter?

I will say it again, Limiting muzzleloader scopes in the name of “saving bucks” is like pissing in the wind. Rifle hunters kill thousands more deer annually and it’s not debatable.

The scopes available power will be heavily discussed at the next meeting, availability will definitely be a factor, I agree 100%.

As for "saving bucks"-

The scopes were never solely the reasons for these regulations as some data provided only a slight uptick in success the first year or two after implementation.

The initial muzzleloader hunt was never intended for easily making 400+ yard kills, it was a "short range weapon" hunt with low success rates which created opportunity with higher numbers of tags alloted.

That may sound contradictory, but we all know full well high power scopes on muzzleloaders have dramatically changed that particular weapon, otherwise there wouldn't be so much opposition in making the changes backwards.

Ask anyone what the best hunt on the Paunsaugunt is, and why.

Numerous people on this very committee have told their own stories of long range muzzleloader kills, including one at 1100 yards.

People aren't buying high end inlines and $1000+ dollar scopes to kill animals at less than 200 yards.

This isn't an issue of what weapon kills the most animals, the Centerfire Rifle has owned that title since it's very inception and always will regardless of regulations being put on them as well.

This is about a "short range weapon" that has turned into a single shot long range rifle because of the variable scopes, period.

If we don't draw that line in the sand, emerging technologies will continue to stretch the capabilities and also creates more competition amongst manufacturers which equates to lower consumer costs and more LR muzzleloaders in the field.
The results of that definitely wouldn't be fewer and smaller bucks harvested.....

 

[falcon63]

While I agree to the idea of a limit in technology, in both ML and ALW, something about managing for low success but higher numbers of permits doesn't sound great to me. It hits my ears as, "here are a bunch of permits that you can have, you probably won't' succeed but look at the revenue for the State." I would rather hear something like, "let's balance the number of permits given, with quality of bucks (or bulls, etc) , quality of experience, acceptable chance of success."
Do I think that's an easy assignment? Not at all, but I do believe it is the assignment that the governing bodies should be looking at. If they already are looking at it, I think they are falling short.

As for the Tech committee, it sounds like there is some sound discussion going on. I appreciate the efforts.

 

[JakeH]

The scopes available power will be heavily discussed at the next meeting, availability will definitely be a factor, I agree 100%.

As for "saving bucks"-

The scopes were never solely the reasons for these regulations as some data provided only a slight uptick in success the first year or two after implementation.

The initial muzzleloader hunt was never intended for easily making 400+ yard kills, it was a "short range weapon" hunt with low success rates which created opportunity with higher numbers of tags alloted.

That may sound contradictory, but we all know full well high power scopes on muzzleloaders have dramatically changed that particular weapon, otherwise there wouldn't be so much opposition in making the changes backwards.

Ask anyone what the best hunt on the Paunsaugunt is, and why.

Numerous people on this very committee have told their own stories of long range muzzleloader kills, including one at 1100 yards.

People aren't buying high end inlines and $1000+ dollar scopes to kill animals at less than 200 yards.

This isn't an issue of what weapon kills the most animals, the Centerfire Rifle has owned that title since it's very inception and always will regardless of regulations being put on them as well.

This is about a "short range weapon" that has turned into a single shot long range rifle because of the variable scopes, period.

If we don't draw that line in the sand, emerging technologies will continue to stretch the capabilities and also creates more competition amongst manufacturers which equates to lower consumer costs and more LR muzzleloaders in the field.
The results of that definitely wouldn't be fewer and smaller bucks harvested.....

Doug, I appreciate you coming on and laying out how the committee is going and what they are talking about. I wish more people from these committees would do as you have and try to generate positive constructive dialog on what the committee is discussing. Much like Carl did several weeks ago after the elk plan. I only wish he had come on before the votes had been taken. I wish more of the WB members would do the same.

Thanks again for stepping up and laying it out in an open dialog that anyone can participate in.

 

[Silentstalker]

The scopes available power will be heavily discussed at the next meeting, availability will definitely be a factor, I agree 100%.

As for "saving bucks"-

The scopes were never solely the reasons for these regulations as some data provided only a slight uptick in success the first year or two after implementation.

The initial muzzleloader hunt was never intended for easily making 400+ yard kills, it was a "short range weapon" hunt with low success rates which created opportunity with higher numbers of tags alloted.

That may sound contradictory, but we all know full well high power scopes on muzzleloaders have dramatically changed that particular weapon, otherwise there wouldn't be so much opposition in making the changes backwards.

Ask anyone what the best hunt on the Paunsaugunt is, and why.

Numerous people on this very committee have told their own stories of long range muzzleloader kills, including one at 1100 yards.

People aren't buying high end inlines and $1000+ dollar scopes to kill animals at less than 200 yards.

This isn't an issue of what weapon kills the most animals, the Centerfire Rifle has owned that title since it's very inception and always will regardless of regulations being put on them as well.

This is about a "short range weapon" that has turned into a single shot long range rifle because of the variable scopes, period.

If we don't draw that line in the sand, emerging technologies will continue to stretch the capabilities and also creates more competition amongst manufacturers which equates to lower consumer costs and more LR muzzleloaders in the field.
The results of that definitely wouldn't be fewer and smaller bucks harvested.....

I appreciate your efforts and explanations, I really do.

I have been hunting this state since the ‘80’s. I don’t remember the muzzleloader season ever being called a “short range weapon” hunt. Does the committee or DWR have documentation to support this? Or, is this just the assumption of some people that it “should be” a short range weapon hunt?

I have no issues with limiting the 1000 yard muzzy shot but do have to ask, Why? What is the difference of a deer or elk dying to a 1000 yard muzzleloader or a 1000 yard rifle? Why is it ok for a rifle hunter to do it but not a muzzleloader hunter?

What about the wound/loss rate that will occur when scopes are restricted to some degree and those shots still occur? Shouldn’t we be managing for herd health in all decisions we make?

I’m genuinely curious the committees thoughts on those two questions.

 

[falcon63]

I appreciate your efforts and explanations, I really do.

I have been hunting this state since the ‘80’s. I don’t remember the muzzleloader season ever being called a “short range weapon” hunt. Does the committee or DWR have documentation to support this? Or, is this just the assumption of some people that it “should be” a short range weapon hunt?

I have no issues with limiting the 1000 yard muzzy shot but do have to ask, Why? What is the difference of a deer or elk dying to a 1000 yard muzzleloader or a 1000 yard rifle? Why is it ok for a rifle hunter to do it but not a muzzleloader hunter?

What about the wound/loss rate that will occur when scopes are restricted to some degree and those shots still occur? Shouldn’t we be managing for herd health in all decisions we make?

I’m genuinely curious the committees thoughts on those two questions.

If I remember correctly it wasn't called or designated at a short range hunt, but I do believe it was classified as a "Privative Weapon" along with archery.

 

[Silentstalker]

If I remember correctly it wasn't called or designated at a short range hunt, but I do believe it was classified as a "Privative Weapon" along with archery.

That could be the case, I’m looking for documentation to that fact.

My biggest struggle is the “why” to it. I totally understand limiting technology for herd survivability or benefit.

Cutting scopes on muzzleloader does nothing to benefit the herd. What it could benefit is the rifle hunters who will continue to kill at up to and beyond 1000 yards fairly routinely.

I support the removal of the Burris type scopes on rifles mentioned above. If we’re limiting technology for herd benefit that is not near enough.

A quick glance at the 5 general units which give the most tags: Cache, Manti, Nebo, chalk creek, and wasatch west - muzzleloader harvest in ‘21 was 1455 bucks. Rifle harvest was 4194 bucks. That’s a significant difference even if the “success rates” are virtually the “same”.

Why is it okay for a rifle hunter to kill a buck at 1000 yards but not a muzzleloader hunter? Why is the rifle hunter entitled to that technology? Why is it not okay for the best hunt on the Pauns. to be a muzzy hunt? A dead buck is a dead buck regardless of which weapon fires the fatal shot.

Makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. And to be clear, I’m a bow hunter who has done more rifle hunting in the last 10 years than any other weapon. I have only muzzleloader hunted deer two times and general elk twice in my 34 years hunting Utah.

 

[Ballistic]

I should probably start a new post and call it “myth or fact -the 1000 yard muzzleloader”

Given the restrictions that are currently in place in utah for muzzleloaders and using the best tech that law allows (which I am using) I will agree that a muzzleloader can be shot at 1000 yards. I will also disagree as a probability of a hit is low at best. Blackhorn 209 (and other blackpowder substitutes) is a very temperature sensitive powder. For every degree of barrel temp the speed changes 2 fps. Barrel temp is important as a barrel warms close to 20 degrees after 1 shot and then more for the next shot(s) How many hunters actually understand this ? I do because I’ve used the powder and documented it with 50/45/40 cal muzzys and I’m on forums with groups that experience the same.

Another factor $$$$ and component availability. Blackhorn 209 powder has been hard to get and when found it costs $75 for an 8 ounce container.
To make long shots takes a lot of time and effort and lots of range time. Who’s out actually doing this ? If you find a 1/2 lb container it’s likely the only one you might get. I know several hunters that couldn’t get any of this powder last year.

So here’s a scenario. Ballistic has practiced at the range and has a load developed that shoots 2600 fps. He’s shooting before the muzzy hunt in early September at the range in 80 degree temps. In late September the temps drop to 40 degrees. Ballistic doesn’t understand that his range tested speeds dropped to 2520 fps due to temps dropping. The 80 fps drop in speed results in a low miss at 1000 yards. His 100 yard zero also dropped to complicate the matter. His team has a spotting scope and tells ballistic he has hit 3 moa low.
Ballistic reloads and dials up 3 moa. It’s unknown that the barrel has warmed up 20 degrees (speed has just raised 40 fps) and he shoots again. This time the impact is 2 moa high- another miss. This is what happens when shooting at targets at long range with the best components available with a muzzleloader.

Will the scope fix the issues (real tested) I have described above ? Will it matter if I have a top dollar nightforce high powered scope -will that make the shot happen ?

Can a target or animal be shot at 1000 yards with a muzzleloader ? Absolutely.
What is the probability of a hit at that distance ? The odds are low and follow up shot odds are also low -just my opinion.

Are there shooters and hunters out there with big egos -that might be stretching the truth some ?

And by the way - the above scenario will result in low and high hits/misses on targets at 500 yards.

It’s my opinion (and I shoot long range targets often) that the 1000 yard muzzleloader is greatly exaggerated. Those that can make the shots are very few and far between. If scopes are limited to 4X max it’s a decent compromise to keep a limited weapon accurate.

Will the best muzzleloader compete with a rifle at 1000 yards - not a chance. The same can be said for 100-500 yard shooting as well.
Are they reaching out further and getting better at bridging the gap -absolutely.

I personally don’t agree with limiting scopes is the fix all answer. I’m ok with limiting it to 4X to try and keep it real. Open sights will result in wounded and wasted animals. Muzzleloaders are not rifles. The focus of attention shouldn’t have been on muzzleloaders and scopes in 2022. It should have been on electronics and emerging technology - which it currently appears to be on.

 

[slamdunk]

Excellent posts and input, thank you.

To clarify my comment about a muzzleloader being a short range weapon, it has never been called that by descriptions, no, but by the nature of the weapons ability, yes absolutely without debate......until today's era.
As someone mentioned, it used to be categorized as a "Primitive Weapon" but I believe the description was changed when inlines came around and were accepted as a legal weapon because it still loaded from the muzzle.

@Ballistic brings up very good points about the average nimrod dropping serious coin on LR muzzleloaders. Their abilities to squeeze out it's full performance will be minimal because of how components are extremely finicky with conditions.
But.....they are much better at reaching 3x what they did 10 years ago and if limits aren't set, it will only continue upwards and onward.

Let's be realistic here and set aside our egos and emotions.
When inlines were introduced, the GP hunters were excited and elated to have a "muzzleloader" that would reach it's advertised capabilities to kill at 200 yards versus our percussion style "Primitive" weapons.
Those inlines haven't changed very much as far as mechanical goes, it's the scope that has caused all the changes in components to stretch the capabilities.
Limit the scopes, the components are useless......fact.
They aren't making high BC projectiles for 200 yards, right?

As for the comparison to Centerfire rifle success......that gripe needs to just stop.
Centerfire rifles have and always will lead the success rates, always and forever.
If we are a bowhunter, are we upset about muzzleloaders hunts following our hunt with higher success by killing bucks at 400 yards that we missed at 80?

Wound rate increase due to limited power scopes?
Think about @Ballistic's comments about how finicky components are, he indirectly answered it there perfectly.
Stretching inaccurate shots out to 400 yards and beyond will bring more gut shots than closer ranges.

At the end of the day, we all know that emerging technologies has got to be controlled, some of us are just upset because some of our current gadgets are being threatened now.

How many fishermen in this group are there?
Look at what "live scope" is doing to the underwater world.
It's not "fishing", it's "catching" and is even starting to be banned by various bass fishing circuits.

Emerging technologies have got to be regulated if we want to continue doing what we love to do into the future.

 

[nvguy2]

This is a great post. Thanks for your efforts slamdunk and keeping us posted. I am a Nonresident and considering switching my efforts from Early Rifle LE elk to muzzleloader before the switch only because I’m tired of the wait and like the idea of having a 9x scope. Just bought a CVA Accura LR last year. I know there’s better long range out there(Paramount), but still have a hard time imagining 1000 yard shot with a Muzzleloader! Wow! I still like the idea of getting as close as I can with a Muzzleloader and even if I can get accurate at 300, will be trying to get 200 or closer if I draw! Would be curious to know what the average distance of harvests truly would be! I would hope that even though that’s impossible to know, it would be less than 300 yards!

 

[slamdunk]

This is a great post. Thanks for your efforts slamdunk and keeping us posted. I am a Nonresident and considering switching my efforts from Early Rifle LE elk to muzzleloader before the switch only because I’m tired of the wait and like the idea of having a 9x scope. Just bought a CVA Accura LR last year. I know there’s better long range out there(Paramount), but still have a hard time imagining 1000 yard shot with a Muzzleloader! Wow! I still like the idea of getting as close as I can with a Muzzleloader and even if I can get accurate at 300, will be trying to get 200 or closer if I draw! Would be curious to know what the average distance of harvests truly would be! I would hope that even though that’s impossible to know, it would be less than 300 yards!

I definitely don't doubt or even argue the assumption of average being 300 or less, but stretching that 300 yards is growing at a pace along with the components availability.

No one is saying we can't use our long range muzzleloader set ups, we are perfectly legal to use them on the ALW hunts all we want.

If we continue the upwards trend in the muzzleloaders capabilities, success rates will climb and tags and opportunities will decrease.

The mission isn't to increase success rates, it is to keep or lower success rates to maintain and even increase opportunities and quality.
If there becomes high success rates, opportunities and tags are cut.

Give me back my Hawkin and give me a tag every year.

 

[falcon63]

I definitely don't doubt or even argue the assumption of average being 300 or less, but stretching that 300 yards is growing at a pace along with the components availability.

No one is saying we can't use our long range muzzleloader set ups, we are perfectly legal to use them on the ALW hunts all we want.

If we continue the upwards trend in the muzzleloaders capabilities, success rates will climb and tags and opportunities will decrease.

The mission isn't to increase success rates, it is to keep or lower success rates to maintain and even increase opportunities and quality.
If there becomes high success rates, opportunities and tags are cut.

Give me back my Hawkin and give me a tag every year.

I think increasing opportunities AND quality are conflicting if not impossible mutual goals. I think it's one or the other. But I do think there can be balance and hopefully that is where we land.

 

[slamdunk]

I think increasing opportunities AND quality are conflicting if not impossible mutual goals. I think it's one or the other. But I do think there can be balance and hopefully that is where we land.

The direction we are going without restrictions on technology, you are correct.

 

[rmanwill]

I definitely don't doubt or even argue the assumption of average being 300 or less, but stretching that 300 yards is growing at a pace along with the components availability.

No one is saying we can't use our long range muzzleloader set ups, we are perfectly legal to use them on the ALW hunts all we want.

If we continue the upwards trend in the muzzleloaders capabilities, success rates will climb and tags and opportunities will decrease.

The mission isn't to increase success rates, it is to keep or lower success rates to maintain and even increase opportunities and quality.
If there becomes high success rates, opportunities and tags are cut.

Give me back my Hawkin and give me a tag every year.

Thanks for all you do. Agree with all of this you stated here.

Tags are harder to come by and the family hunt with all/most included in the hunt having a tag is not the normal anymore. I still make a hunt a family/friend hunt, I just do it with a family member or a friend with a tag and not having to be me pulling the trigger. I had five family hunts this past year and only personal had two tags. Enjoyed everyone and made some awesome memories on each one.

So many have to be successful and have bragging rights anymore to share on the internet to call a hunt a memory and/or successful.

Wish more would get back to enjoying the hunt for the time in the mountains with friends and family and not just the size of the rack and the distance of the shot.

Hunting has changed from hunting/fair chase and the hunters skills to just shooting and the equipment and the hunters skill with that equipment.

The game is really at a disadvantage now days. Currently the technology guys are the high successful ones and don't want to give up their high successful technology. If it is not addressed and controlled before long even the current technology guys will not be satisfied with the quality of the game and all they will have is the bragging right of taking a 2x2 at a extreme distance .

I started hunting with open sights and moved to the 4x scope and then to the 3x9 to the current day turret scope on a couple rifles and the 3x9 on my muzzleloader. Why? Because it made it easier and more successful. I can admit it!!! I'm a long way from the top end technology guys and have never taken game even close to the 1000 yard mark (By my own choice - call it personal hunting ethics).

Sorry for the long rant, but agree that the resources can't continue to with stand with all the technology these days. Hope the task force and the wildlife board gets it under control. Thanks again for all your time Slam.

 

[slamdunk]

@rmanwill
Thank you 👊

 

[middlefork]

What is really sad is that anyone thinks they have to shoot 100+ yards at a Utah LE bull hunting during the rut.

 

[Silentstalker]

@slamdunk Why does the discussion of success rate need to just “stop”? Because it’s a legitimate question? Because it goes against your thoughts?

There is no question that muzzleloaders have improved. But guess what, so have rifles.

What is the point of this change? If it’s not to reduce harvest or success rates, why are we doing it?

Why are we reducing the technology on one weapon and not on another? Why is it okay to make a drastic change to the muzzleloader but not the rifle?

In the same general time frame muzzy’s have turned into “1000 yard guns” - rifles have gone from the majority carrying a 4x or a 3x9 variable using Kentucky windage and holdover to utilizing turrets and drop charts. They have both changed drastically and all you’re going to propose against a rifle is future technology and Burris type scopes?

Where is equity in that?

Why is it okay for a rifle hunter to shoot 1000 yards and not a muzzleloader hunter?

 

[slamdunk]

@Silentstalker
The Rifle Hunt isn't a "Rifle Hunt", it's an "Any Legal Weapon" hunt and has always and will continue to have the highest success rates.

It isn't a competition between the three weapon types.

We aren't hearing archers complain and compare success rates to muzzleloader hunters because there isn't a comparison, one is simply more successful than the other by nature.
They all have their respective advantages and disadvantages.

 

[Ballistic]

Actually when it comes to weapons debates the archers have put in their 2 cents.
“It’s not fair has been heard many times by all 3 weapons”
An example was a Debate several years (about 10) back called “1000 yards is too close”
A hunter was setup on a shooting bench w a 50 bmg and telling other hunters he was looking for something close to 1 mile and that 1000 yards was too close. That set off a major disruption with archers and muzzleloader hunters as well as rifle hunters. It was argued that time of flight was faster for a 50 bmg at 1000 yards than an arrow at 60 yards and a muzzleloader at 200 yards. That is was unfair and unethical for a rifle shooter to take the long shot. The rifle shooter had valid points as well on what could go wrong with a bow and a muzzleloader with similar time of flights for each weapon used.
I personally don’t have any issues with an archer that takes shots at 100 or more yards. Or a muzzleloader hunter that shoots over 500 yards. Or a rifle hunter that shoots over 1000 yards.
If you have the skill level to do it - it’s none of anyone’s business to tell you what you can do -my opinion.

I think the difference in todays world is everything has improved and dramatically.
If a hunter wants to get close and call it hunting -thier choice. From longer distances -again their choice.

The difference now is current tech is cheating someone out of the skills that should have been required to be out in the field. Hunters safety required shooting accurately enough to “pass” and it wasn’t from a desktop and keyboard.
The top shooters (long distance) aren’t using the newest tech to its full potential yet. It’s not good enough yet. But it’s getting better and it’s just a matter of time when they will all be using it. Hunters will do the same.

New tech is promoting irresponsibility to acquire skill. It could also be argued that new tech will make a shot that couldn’t have been made otherwise and that’s also valid. I’ve made my posts clear on removing scopes on muzzleloaders as a bad decision. Although I don’t like the 4X proposed scope restriction I think it’s a good compromise to promote some sort of responsibility. The same is true of removing electronic scopes on rifles. Your ability to shoot long range isn’t being taken away with those restrictions. You can still do it - You will have to put the time in to acquire an actual skill.
If everyone was to use the latest tech - hunter success wound raise to nearly 100% I believe - with tech we haven’t seen yet. Could a future 2 point deer hunt turn into a once in a lifetime hunt if something isn’t done ? Or will a hunter need an escort (drone) and permission to engage the target (animal) in the near future ?
The word “hunt” has surely changed from where or what it used to be. I’m willing to compromise to have some freedom to hunt today. Tomorrow it will be different….

 

[slamdunk]

@Ballistic
Perfect said

 

[Silentstalker]

@Silentstalker
The Rifle Hunt isn't a "Rifle Hunt", it's an "Any Legal Weapon" hunt and has always and will continue to have the highest success rates.

It isn't a competition between the three weapon types.

We aren't hearing archers complain and compare success rates to muzzleloader hunters because there isn't a comparison, one is simply more successful than the other by nature.
They all have their respective advantages and disadvantages.

Slam, I agree with this 100%.

The question yet to be answered is - Why are you looking to severely limit one weapon type over another?

Rifles, bullets, and scopes have significantly improved for rifles as well.

What is the point of this tech committee? What is the goal?

To reduce one weapon type back to training wheels while allowing another to dial turrets and maximize magnification for no achievable goal other than “we don’t like it” is ridiculous.

I completely support reducing technology across the board in regards to lasers, night vision, and all the other high tech BS that gives an unfair advantage to the hunter. But to target one weapon type specifically is not an equitable “solution”.

 

[slamdunk]

Slam, I agree with this 100%.

The question yet to be answered is - Why are you looking to severely limit one weapon type over another?

Rifles, bullets, and scopes have significantly improved for rifles as well.

What is the point of this tech committee? What is the goal?

To reduce one weapon type back to training wheels while allowing another to dial turrets and maximize magnification for no achievable goal other than “we don’t like it” is ridiculous.

I completely support reducing technology across the board in regards to lasers, night vision, and all the other high tech BS that gives an unfair advantage to the hunter. But to target one weapon type specifically is not an equitable “solution”.

All three weapons are being regulated on emerging technologies, not just the muzzleloader, it's just getting the most feedback because it's scope magnification is what makes it what it is becoming.

Night vision and FLIR are already regulated in taking of big game.
Drone usage for scouting is also being heavily discussed by the Committee.

 

[Silentstalker]

All three weapons are being regulated on emerging technologies, not just the muzzleloader, it's just getting the most feedback because it's scope magnification is what makes it what it is becoming.

Night vision and FLIR are already regulated in taking of big game.
Drone usage for scouting is also being heavily discussed by the Committee.

I’m glad the drones are coming up. Last year on the LE wasatch elk we had a guy buzzing us while we were working a bull. They spooked the herd on us.

What are the specifics of the current discussion involving rifles? Does it go beyond the “Burris” type technology?

 

[slamdunk]

I’m glad the drones are coming up. Last year on the LE wasatch elk we had a guy buzzing us while we were working a bull. They spooked the herd on us.

What are the specifics of the current discussion involving rifles? Does it go beyond the “Burris” type technology?

"Any Electronics" with the exception of illuminated reticle and Dot.
The decision was made to word it as such to cover any automatic ranging, bullet drop compensation, IR, etc, etc.
That would obviously cover any scope for any type of weapon.

Turrets will be allowed as every scope has a turret whether it adjusts by fingers or a simple coin in your pocket like we've all used when sighting in.

As for drones, your encounter is very common and is agreed upon to be an issue that will continue to grow if not stomped in the mud now.

 

[elkhuntn247]

I just want to see muzzleloader laws more streamlined between all western states. “North west” laws aren’t my favorite. But CO,NV, and now NM laws are good imo.

 

[nripepi]

I have said before and was laughed at, but the most crucial piece of information is the rangefinder. Why not limit that, can't range over 800 yards for rifle, 400 for muzzle, 80 for bow or whatever you come up with. If caught in the field with a better rangefinder, your tag is voided. Appreciate everyone's work from the committee on this.

 

[txhunter58]

“In the long range steel game the winners circle usually is the same 3-5 when the awards are handed out. The rest do ok with some not well at all. The same is true for long distance hunting- my opinion.”

This is my opinion as well!

 

[Deerlove]

I have said before and was laughed at, but the most crucial piece of information is the rangefinder. Why not limit that, can't range over 800 yards for rifle, 400 for muzzle, 80 for bow or whatever you come up with. If caught in the field with a better rangefinder, your tag is voided. Appreciate everyone's work from the committee on this.

That's alot of field checks.

 

[slamdunk]

I have said before and was laughed at, but the most crucial piece of information is the rangefinder. Why not limit that, can't range over 800 yards for rifle, 400 for muzzle, 80 for bow or whatever you come up with. If caught in the field with a better rangefinder, your tag is voided. Appreciate everyone's work from the committee on this.

We spoke heavily last night at the technology committee meeting about RF's.

It was determined that if limited technology on the short range weapons is implemented, the use for RF's becomes a critical tool for accuracy and ethical kills as there is substantial drop in a muzzleloader projectile and arrow.....especially the arrow.

 

[nripepi]

We spoke heavily last night at the technology committee meeting about RF's.

It was determined that if limited technology on the short range weapons is implemented, the use for RF's becomes a critical tool for accuracy and ethical kills as there is substantial drop in a muzzleloader projectile and arrow.....especially the arrow.

I 100% agree that rangefinders are crucial to ensure ethical kills. What I was getting at was limiting the distance one can range to keep people from taking shots they shouldn't be taking based on their skill level. For example, a decision is made to limit rifle scope powers to 10X or muzzleloader scopes to 4X. Many shooting 10X rifles may still attempt a 1000 yard shot or a muzzleloader with a 4X scope will try a 500 yard shot when most hunters have no business taking those shots at lower powers. Could you not say, rangefinders for rifles cannot range past 600 yards and scopes are limited to 10X....rangefinders cannot range past 300 yards for muzzleloaders and scopes are limited to 4X or whatever you come up with. I know this likely sounds crazy to many, but limiting power without limiting the distance ranged could easily lead to more wounded game where people are taking 1000-yard shots with 10X rifles. Sure it can be done by the best of the best, but it shouldn't be tried by the average person. This is a really tough topic to try and tackle and I appreciate your and others work on it.

 

[Bigwiffy]

We spoke heavily last night at the technology committee meeting about RF's.

It was determined that if limited technology on the short range weapons is implemented, the use for RF's becomes a critical tool for accuracy and ethical kills as there is substantial drop in a muzzleloader projectile and arrow.....especially the arrow.

So what does that mean? Sounds like a good work around for rifle guys to keep their rangefinders is all I'm hearing.

 

[slamdunk]

So what does that mean? Sounds like a good work around for rifle guys to keep their rangefinders is all I'm hearing.

Spin it however you'd like, rifles weren't even a factor in the RF discussion, it was to benefit archers the most......you.

 

[nripepi]

That's alot of field checks.

Somewhat similar to checking a scope power, I doubt there would be a ton of field checks, just trying to keep the honest folks in check from trying unethical shots.

 

[slamdunk]

I 100% agree that rangefinders are crucial to ensure ethical kills. What I was getting at was limiting the distance one can range to keep people from taking shots they shouldn't be taking based on their skill level. For example, a decision is made to limit rifle scope powers to 10X or muzzleloader scopes to 4X. Many shooting 10X rifles may still attempt a 1000 yard shot or a muzzleloader with a 4X scope will try a 500 yard shot when most hunters have no business taking those shots at lower powers. Could you not say, rangefinders for rifles cannot range past 600 yards and scopes are limited to 10X....rangefinders cannot range past 300 yards for muzzleloaders and scopes are limited to 4X or whatever you come up with. I know this likely sounds crazy to many, but limiting power without limiting the distance ranged could easily lead to more wounded game where people are taking 1000-yard shots with 10X rifles. Sure it can be done by the best of the best, but it shouldn't be tried by the average person. This is a really tough topic to try and tackle and I appreciate your and others work on it.

Thank you, and yes it is a very tough topic with give and take on both ends of all three weapons.

We will recommend to the WB than only hand held devices be allowed and with nothing but distance capabilities within the device.

 

[Bigwiffy]

Spin it however you'd like, rifles weren't even a factor in the RF discussion, it was to benefit archers the most......you.

Just so I understand correct. The tech committee discussed range finders, but limiting them or banning them never was discussed how that would impact rifle guys???? Haha c'mon Slam I don't buy that for a second. Maybe it was just never on the table to ban RF's for rifle hunts which unfortunately makes the most sense. I do buy that making it out like your doing the muzzy and archery guys a favor by not banning them is a way to keep them for rifle guys as well, which banning them from the rifle hunts would limit technology (the committees job) in a very simple/effective way.

 

[slamdunk]

Just so I understand correct. The tech committee discussed range finders, but limiting them or banning them never was discussed how that would impact rifle guys???? Haha c'mon Slam I don't buy that for a second. Maybe it was just never on the table to ban RF's for rifle hunts which unfortunately makes the most sense. I do buy that making it out like your doing the muzzy and archery guys a favor by not banning them is a way to keep them for rifle guys as well, which banning them from the rifle hunts would limit technology (the committees job) in a very simple/effective way.

As I mentioned in my previous post, RF's were not being discussed as a "factor" with Rifles in mind other than the built in scope models and ballistic capabilities within.
The focus was on the tool being crucial for the shorter range weapons where 20 to 60 yards or 100 to 300 are present major drop issues, especially archery equipment.
Continued RF use across the board will be recommended to the WB.

 

[Bigwiffy]

As I mentioned in my previous post, RF's were not being discussed as a "factor" with Rifles in mind other than the built in scope models and ballistic capabilities within.
The focus was on the tool being crucial for the shorter range weapons where 20 to 60 yards or 100 to 300 are present major drop issues, especially archery equipment.
Continued RF use across the board will be recommended to the WB.

That is so nice to consider the short range weapons that are already less effective haha. If the purpose of these tech bans is to limit technology why are you starting at the already least effective weapons? Why would you not start at limiting long range rifle capabilities first then working to the next effective, then the next. Sounds like rifles aren't/haven't even been discussed, but yet there has been extensive conversation on limiting archery to recurve, no Garmin, muzzy to flintlock, no scope, etc.

Why not start with rifle restrictions first???

 

[slamdunk]

That is so nice to consider the short range weapons that are already less effective haha. If the purpose of these tech bans is to limit technology why are you starting at the already least effective weapons? Why would you not start at limiting long range rifle capabilities first then working to the next effective, then the next. Sounds like rifles aren't/haven't even been discussed, but yet there has been extensive conversation on limiting archery to recurve, no Garmin, muzzy to flintlock, no scope, etc.

Why not start with rifle restrictions first???
View attachment 101185

That was the whole point, not limiting already limited weapons wise guy 🙄

Learn to actually read what has been clearly stated as recommendations, and then try your hardest to absorb and comprehend.
I realize it's a challenge for you, but at least try.

Your weapon and season are least affected, in fact you gain a lot in 2023 with season date changes in your benefit.
It's been recommended that electronics aside from illuminated pins come off.
I'm sorry we are suggesting you remove your laptop extension from your bow so you actually have to just use your rangefinder and brain to make a 40 yard shot.

If you're so upset, I suggest you get off your *ss and get involved versus being an internet warrior.

 

[Bigwiffy]

That was the whole point, not limiting already limited weapons wise guy 🙄

If you're so upset, I suggest you get off your *ss and get involved versus being an internet warrior

I'm a member of UBA and support common sense. As a tech committee you started restriction discussion on the least effective weapon. Discussing limiting compounds to recurves haha c'mon Slam can't you wrap your head around that, how stupid that is??? Trail cams are gone, baiting is gone, Garmins are gone, compounds are too effective, muzzy scopes need to go.....meanwhile it doesn't sound like much is being discussed on the highest level of fair chase killing technology called a scoped RIFLE. I'm getting involved by voicing my opinion on how bassakwards the tech committee approach to tech is to a member of the tech committee (you). What restrictions are on the table for rifles? Anything yet?

 

[JakeH]

I 100% agree that rangefinders are crucial to ensure ethical kills. What I was getting at was limiting the distance one can range to keep people from taking shots they shouldn't be taking based on their skill level. For example, a decision is made to limit rifle scope powers to 10X or muzzleloader scopes to 4X. Many shooting 10X rifles may still attempt a 1000 yard shot or a muzzleloader with a 4X scope will try a 500 yard shot when most hunters have no business taking those shots at lower powers. Could you not say, rangefinders for rifles cannot range past 600 yards and scopes are limited to 10X....rangefinders cannot range past 300 yards for muzzleloaders and scopes are limited to 4X or whatever you come up with. I know this likely sounds crazy to many, but limiting power without limiting the distance ranged could easily lead to more wounded game where people are taking 1000-yard shots with 10X rifles. Sure it can be done by the best of the best, but it shouldn't be tried by the average person. This is a really tough topic to try and tackle and I appreciate your and others work on it.

And what company makes these RF's with limited range capacity? And if a guy hunts with all 3 weapons he now has to purchase 3 different range findsers?

I'm not a fan of that idea at all even if we currently had the capability at this time which we dont. People are looking into this stuff way to much. Keep it simple you don't have to reinvent the wheel.

 

[Ballistic]

“In the long range steel game the winners circle usually is the same 3-5 when the awards are handed out. The rest do ok with some not well at all. The same is true for long distance hunting- my opinion.”

This is my opinion as well!

This couldn’t be a more true statement.

The very few that can make the shots -will keep making them. They aren’t using built in rangefinders that plot dots in the scope. Or external rangefinders that plot the dot in the scope.
They shoot through environmental changes that include many other variables besides altitude and temp changes. The average and intermediate shooter don’t realize this. And some of the self declared pros don’t either. Where does this leave the average or even seasoned hunter when it comes to long range engagement with a rifle or a muzzleloader ?
How many realize that a cold bore shot is usually not in the same spot as the warm (2nd shot) bore and that the speed is almost always different -enough for a miss at long range ? And that’s just one example and that’s for rifles -muzzleloaders are much harder and I have one of the best that current law will allow.
Future tech will most certainly address these issue and let you program how your rifle shoots from cold bore to 10 shots for example.
And then each variable will be added (wind can be detected in the scope now with the Burris).
The rangefinder is not the issue - knowing the range is necessary for all weapon types.
Shots aren’t always perfect -follow up shots are sometimes needed. Animals can spook and move at 20 yards -resulting in misses or wounds even with rifles.
I’ve heard the stories and also seen firsthand - animals with a leg swinging in the air. Hunters wishing they had a way to put that animal down but don’t have the rangefinder or the ability to do it. So limiting your rangefinder to x amount of yards -you will wish you didn’t ask for that.

Current electronic tech in the scope is promoting the average hunter to shoot beyond there abilities -JMO

Future tech - I think we all know where it’s going -
I don’t believe that limiting the power to 4X is the answer on muzzleloaders - but I can live with it. Limiting a rangefinder to x amount of yards is a bad idea.

 

[slamdunk]

This couldn’t be a more true statement.

The very few that can make the shots -will keep making them. They aren’t using built in rangefinders that plot dots in the scope. Or external rangefinders that plot the dot in the scope.
They shoot through environmental changes that include many other variables besides altitude and temp changes. The average and intermediate shooter don’t realize this. And some of the self declared pros don’t either. Where does this leave the average or even seasoned hunter when it comes to long range engagement with a rifle or a muzzleloader ?
How many realize that a cold bore shot is usually not in the same spot as the warm (2nd shot) bore and that the speed is almost always different -enough for a miss at long range ? And that’s just one example and that’s for rifles -muzzleloaders are much harder and I have one of the best that current law will allow.
Future tech will most certainly address these issue and let you program how your rifle shoots from cold bore to 10 shots for example.
And then each variable will be added (wind can be detected in the scope now with the Burris).
The rangefinder is not the issue - knowing the range is necessary for all weapon types.
Shots aren’t always perfect -follow up shots are sometimes needed. Animals can spook and move at 20 yards -resulting in misses or wounds even with rifles.
I’ve heard the stories and also seen firsthand - animals with a leg swinging in the air. Hunters wishing they had a way to put that animal down but don’t have the rangefinder or the ability to do it. So limiting your rangefinder to x amount of yards -you will wish you didn’t ask for that.

Current electronic tech in the scope is promoting the average hunter to shoot beyond there abilities -JMO

Future tech - I think we all know where it’s going -
I don’t believe that limiting the power to 4X is the answer on muzzleloaders - but I can live with it. Limiting a rangefinder to x amount of yards is a bad idea.

The ONLY REASON 4x was even recommended by me at the meeting was to "sell" the reduction in power to the GP as a compromise.
I'm all for removing them completely, but we left that as the "Restricted Weapon" option on HAMS hunts.

 

[elkhuntn247]

The ONLY REASON 4x was even recommended by me at the meeting was to "sell" the reduction in power to the GP as a compromise.
I'm all for removing them completely, but we left that as the "Restricted Weapon" option on HAMS hunts.

I’m with you on removing them completely. But 4x is a good compromise, and at least draws a line in the sand.

 

[slamdunk]

I’m with you on removing them completely. But 4x is a good compromise, and at least draws a line in the sand.

Thank you....I agree 100%.
@Bigwiffy wants flintlock for muzzies and lever 30-30's for rifles but anything goes for archery including 30 day hunts and endless gadgets.
He wants to level the playing field without any comprehension that all three hunts are not created equally by nature....."Duh" 🙄🤷‍♂️

 

[Bigwiffy]

Thank you....I agree 100%.
@Bigwiffy wants flintlock for muzzies and lever 30-30's for rifles but anything goes for archery including 30 day hunts and endless gadgets.
He wants to level the playing field without any comprehension that all three hunts are not created equally by nature....."Duh" 🙄🤷‍♂️

You are right on one thing all three aren't created equal. Did you know rifles are easier to kill with than a bow and arrow? Apparently you think bows can shoot 1000 yards. Hahaha endless gadgets on a bow??? It is a stick and a string Slam. That's the stupidest argument I have heard on this issue. You still haven't answered my question on what tech ban is on the table for rifle and all the rifle gadgets??? Please help us understand why you and the committee didn't start the tech bans on the most tech heavy/highest succes rate weapon?

 

[slamdunk]

You are right on one thing all three aren't created equal. Did you know rifles are easier to kill with than a bow and arrow? Apparently you think bows can shoot 1000 yards. Hahaha endless gadgets on a bow??? It is a stick and a string Slam. That's the stupidest argument I have heard on this issue. You still haven't answered my question on what tech ban is on the table for rifle and all the rifle gadgets??? Please help us understand why you and the committee didn't start the tech bans on the most tech heavy/highest succes rate weapon?

I've already posted the recommendations for the ALW season months ago, you just choose to continue arguing for the sake of personal entertainment.

 

[elkhuntn247]

From a general season hunt standpoint I feel like people on here don’t pay attention to the season structure. They want to see restrictions on the ALW hunts. ALW hunts are structured for mass tags, high pressure, low opportunity, and low to moderate success. Muzzleloader and archery season see less pressure, but high opportunity, and see the same moderate success rate.

I’m sorry but muzzleloader hunters chasing summer range mule deer vs the rifle hunters chasing nocturnal secondary range mule deer are not the same. Same goes for the rifle hunter chasing October post rut bulls vs the muzzleloader hunter chasing November migration bulls in a foot of snow.

I’ve hunted elk in every general season hunt Utah offers. Ive shot 5 bulls. All died by muzzleloader. If you asked me what the most deadly weapon to hunt Utah with is? I’d tell you a muzzleloader for deer and elk.

 

[Bigwiffy]

I've already posted the recommendations for the ALW season months ago, you just choose to continue arguing for the sake of personal entertainment.

If I remember that thread right it was "rifles are more complicated to restrict" and possibly limiting scopes with rangefinder capability. Did I miss anything?

 

[Dangbig]

It is amazing how much us hinters who all love the outdoors ***** about what’s fair let’s outlaw this and that. Mines bigger than yours…. We are our worst enemy the activists much sit and watch this site and giggle. I was shooting deer at 80 + in the late 80s with a PSE with tiny round cams, we practiced at 100 “just in case” I once shot a deer at over 900 with a non turret scope took a few shots but we gotter done. ( I must be going to hell for doing that one according to some here) What did they both have in common?They were all a blast and nobody judged nowadays we judge everything someone does and try to impose our ideals on them. Everyone needs to go back to why we hunt, it’s fun and if ya get one cool.

 

[Ballistic]

From a general season hunt standpoint I feel like people on here don’t pay attention to the season structure. They want to see restrictions on the ALW hunts. ALW hunts are structured for mass tags, high pressure, low opportunity, and low to moderate success. Muzzleloader and archery season see less pressure, but high opportunity, and see the same moderate success rate.

I’m sorry but muzzleloader hunters chasing summer range mule deer vs the rifle hunters chasing nocturnal secondary range mule deer are not the same. Same goes for the rifle hunter chasing October post rut bulls vs the muzzleloader hunter chasing November migration bulls in a foot of snow.

I’ve hunted elk in every general season hunt Utah offers. Ive shot 5 bulls. All died by muzzleloader. If you asked me what the most deadly weapon to hunt Utah with is? I’d tell you a muzzleloader for deer and elk.

I will agree and disagree with your statement of the muzzleloader being the most dangerous weapon. For you -that is true and that tells the story of how you plan your hunts for success. And you are good at it. I hope your success continues.

For the muzzy deer hunt - the deer have had plenty of pressure from the archers. The transition of hormones (velvet is off) has pushed the mule deer deep into the cool timber- making the muzzy deer a more challenging hunt. I have seen way more bucks on the earlier archery and considerably more on the October rifle hunt than the muzzleloader hunt. I’ve been a dedicated hunter several times - I don’t take days off for the muzzy deer. Buts that’s my experience.

As far as the muzzy elk (last hunt). Snow is needed to push the elk through migration routes. Sometimes you get lucky and sometimes you don’t. How many years have we went (utah) where snow didn’t fly until late November - enough to push the elk out of the high country -with PUSH being what it takes ?

If the general season muzzy hunt for elk is so fantastic - they why is the early post rut rifle elk hunt limited to 15,000 plus tags ?

For most hunters the muzzy hunt is not their number 1 choice - for good reason. My experience with a muzzleloader has been positive - but I work hard and go where others won’t. So I agree and disagree with your statement.

Again - Hats off to you for getting the job done on 5 elk with your muzzleloader. I just don’t believe that it is a better opportunity hunt - more like leftovers. JMO

Back to the previous posts on tech limitations across the board. The tech committee has a lot to cover on all 3 weapons. It’s not going to be perfect overnight. We need to fight for what we have. The good ole days are right now.
Tomorrow (this year 2023) we will be dealing with unlimited sales of elk tags over the counter for the general season (2nd season and muzzy) elk hunt - the leftovers from the 1st hunt.

I believe the days of harvesting elk 5 years in a row - might be over. I hope I’m wrong.

 

[slamdunk]

Yep,

If I remember that thread right it was "rifles are more complicated to restrict" and possibly limiting scopes with rangefinder capability. Did I miss anything?

You sure did.
Start digging, I'm done arguing with you.

 

[Bigwiffy]

Yep,

You sure did.
Start digging, I'm done arguing with you.

I went back through the 520 posts in the thread and the only mention of rifle restrictions was "they were being discussed" quite a can of worms has been opened. I'm not holding my breath much good will come from any of it, but I'll quit heckling you Slam.

 

[JakeH]

I went back through the 520 posts in the thread and the only mention of rifle restrictions was "they were being discussed" quite a can of worms has been opened. I'm not holding my breath much good will come from any of it, but I'll quit heckling you Slam.

The restrictions on rifles will be no electronics other than a lighted retical on scopes. This makes a lot of the new and emerging tech for the long range rifles illegal to hunt with, such as the new scopes with computers in them that can range, and set the dope of the cross hair automatically, or that communicate to a phone, or rangefinder that is doing the same work and takes alot of the skill out of the shot.

 

[Silentstalker]

Ultimately this all comes back to the simple question of why?

Why are we hell bent on limiting muzzleloaders?

Why is it okay for the ALW hunters to shoot 1000 yards but it’s the end of all mankind when a guy does it on the internet with a muzzleloader? VERY FEW PEOPLE CAN DO THIS!

The point your missing Slam is this:

In a lot of people’s minds, the only reason to limit technology is to limit harvest. By far and away, the greatest harvest occurs in the ALW hunt.

You are asking for a removal of variable scopes saying it’s not okay on a muzzy - meanwhile you’re personally carrying a 338 lapua with a high variable scope.

Why are we reducing technology on a muzzy? Save a Buck in Sept so he can be shot on Oct….

It does not make any sense no matter how you spin it.

So for those that think like me, Why?

 

[Airborne]

@Silentstalker

You are correct in that this is a question of why, but your missing the biggest 'Why' question that just happens to answer all the other questions:

Why is there a muzzleloader hunt in the first place?

Why was it started?

What's the point?

Answer that and you will see why folks want to limit tech

If your muzzy is essentially a single shot rifle then why even have a muzzy season? Let's save a step and just have an early rifle and then a late rifle hunt.

 

[Silentstalker]

@Airborne

I appreciate your answer.

Your why- is to eliminate the season all together or limit it significantly.

I disagree. A muzzleloader is not “essentially a single shot” rifle. Any inference to that effect is nothing short of BS. You have load/pressure inconsistencies, ignition issues, humidity, etc. There are very few people capable of shooting long distance beyond 250 yards with any muzzy.

There has been an established muzzleloader season for decades. In the time that muzzys have advanced, rifles have too. Laser range finders, the utilization of turrets for most hunters, laser rangefinders, etc.

Slam, what is your why, what is the why for this committee?

 

[Airborne]

@Silentstalker

Don't talk for me--I never mentioned my why, I don't want to eliminate the season nor limit it significantly. I want to go back to pre 2016 rules is all--that is not radical.

Muzzy tech is getting better every day and it's not stopping. A CV paramount shoots 2,200 FPS, with some of the 45 CAL high BC bullets it is easily in the single shot rifle category.

Ya know there are muzzy's out there that can handle smokeless powder and use LRM primers--Crazy accurate, load from the muzzle, 3,000+ FPS, high BC bullets, can shoot 1,000 yards easy. Because they use smokeless powder all the issues you list are gonzo. Good luck regulating smokeless when rifles become affordable and start hitting the muzzy scene. Single shot rifles indeed!

You didn't answer my question about why there is a muzzy season. You said they have been around for a long time--so what. The question is why do they exist? I don't care about rifle tech, the question is why do we have a muzzy season? Can you answer that?

 

[Airborne]

I'll give you a hint--the reason is in the same vein as to why we have an archery season

 

[Ballistic]

-Luke Horracks (asg muzzleloaders)
-Jeff Hankins (Hankins custom muzzleloaders)
The 2 above build custom smokeless muzzleloaders. They have the best of components available to build them.
They have competitions every year out to 500 yards - sometimes less and rarely longer - but it does happen. There are simple to use plug and play recipes that make it easier for new and old shooters to shoot well.
I say well but not amazing like a rifle. Sure there’s some postings of amazing 100 yard groups - but few and far between of long range targets.
I know a few of the shooters that compete and 1 of them has a previous 1000 yard benchrest record with a centerfire rifle so they could be considered pros easily.
When competing - many a shot can’t be found or impacts from misses seen. Some of the rounds hit the targets sideways. When this happens this group of shooters just look at each other and say -“Darn -it’s just a dang muzzleloader!” They shrug their shoulders and continue shooting. Even with all of the latest tech a smoke pole is at a disadvantage. And these hunter/shooters try to limit shots to 200 yards or less when hunting. If you asked them to give up scopes (eastern US) you’d be dealing with a mob -lol.
The above is with smokeless powder - we don’t use it in Utah.
Blackhorn 209 or substitutes are much worse. The amount of shooters that can make a long shot - few and far between.

I personally believe that wound rates will skyrocket if scopes are removed entirely. Variable power help old eyes like mine see the animal. A straight 4 is a compromise but will also have its issues. How many hunters are carrying spotting scopes to take a good close look at an animal before shooting ?
I know someone that shot a bigger bull than a spike in a spike unit. He said the bull must have had its head tilted moving through some heavy oak brush. He could only see the eye guards - mistook them for single spike horns. He turned himself in and payed dearly for that mistake. He had a variable 3-9 power scope and the elk was 300 yards away. After that he bought a much higher power scope - not for shooting - but for getting a much better look. How does the no scope or 4X scope issue deal with these kind of scenarios ?

The above is a valid argument for leaving scopes alone and where they are now -not sure if the committee has thought about this ? Likely it has- would like to hear the answer……..
Again - I disagree with limiting scopes to 4X but that’s a much better compromise than open sights.

 

[Bigwiffy]

-Luke Horracks (asg muzzleloaders)
-Jeff Hankins (Hankins custom muzzleloaders)
The 2 above build custom smokeless muzzleloaders. They have the best of components available to build them.
They have competitions every year out to 500 yards - sometimes less and rarely longer - but it does happen. There are simple to use plug and play recipes that make it easier for new and old shooters to shoot well.
I say well but not amazing like a rifle. Sure there’s some postings of amazing 100 yard groups - but few and far between of long range targets.
I know a few of the shooters that compete and 1 of them has a previous 1000 yard benchrest record with a centerfire rifle so they could be considered pros easily.
When competing - many a shot can’t be found or impacts from misses seen. Some of the rounds hit the targets sideways. When this happens this group of shooters just look at each other and say -“Darn -it’s just a dang muzzleloader!” They shrug their shoulders and continue shooting. Even with all of the latest tech a smoke pole is at a disadvantage. And these hunter/shooters try to limit shots to 200 yards or less when hunting. If you asked them to give up scopes (eastern US) you’d be dealing with a mob -lol.
The above is with smokeless powder - we don’t use it in Utah.
Blackhorn 209 or substitutes are much worse. The amount of shooters that can make a long shot - few and far between.

I personally believe that wound rates will skyrocket if scopes are removed entirely. Variable power help old eyes like mine see the animal. A straight 4 is a compromise but will also have its issues. How many hunters are carrying spotting scopes to take a good close look at an animal before shooting ?
I know someone that shot a bigger bull than a spike in a spike unit. He said the bull must have had its head tilted moving through some heavy oak brush. He could only see the eye guards - mistook them for single spike horns. He turned himself in and payed dearly for that mistake. He had a variable 3-9 power scope and the elk was 300 yards away. After that he bought a much higher power scope - not for shooting - but for getting a much better look. How does the no scope or 4X scope issue deal with these kind of scenarios ?

The above is a valid argument for leaving scopes alone and where they are now -not sure if the committee has thought about this ? Likely it has- would like to hear the answer……..
Again - I disagree with limiting scopes to 4X but that’s a much better compromise than open sights.

I think for the scenario you mentioned the guy should have made sure the bull was a spike before pulling the trigger, that probably would have prevented it.

 

[Airborne]

You're smokin crack it you think a Hankins Muzzleloader shoots rounds sideways.

I borrowed my best friends Hankins for an ALW doe goat tag I had. You can guess the range but it was over 300 yds. I've seen these guns shoot and it's crazy how accurate they are--they are in the same league as regular rifles. Hells Bells, I would be tempted to use one on an LE ALW hunt because I've seen em shoot, hundreds of rounds--tiny group accuracy

Let's take your wounding argument to it's logical conclusion-->anything but the most high end custom rifle/scope should only be allowed to hunt with because anything less is a wounding machine. The wounding argument is so dang dumb if you think about it. I've said it 100's of times before, guys really want muzzy scopes for these reasons:

1. It makes killing stuff at distance easier
2. It makes killing stuff at low light easier
3. They already bought and mounted a scope and don't want to take it off

I'm a broken record

 

[Ballistic]

View attachment 101456

You're smokin crack it you think a Hankins Muzzleloader shoots rounds sideways.

I borrowed my best friends Hankins for an ALW doe goat tag I had. You can guess the range but it was over 300 yds. I've seen these guns shoot and it's crazy how accurate they are--they are in the same league as regular rifles. Hells Bells, I would be tempted to use one on an LE ALW hunt because I've seen em shoot, hundreds of rounds--tiny group accuracy

Let's take your wounding argument to it's logical conclusion-->anything but the most high end custom rifle/scope should only be allowed to hunt with because anything less is a wounding machine. The wounding argument is so dang dumb if you think about it. I've said it 100's of times before, guys really want muzzy scopes for these reasons:

1. It makes killing stuff at distance easier
2. It makes killing stuff at low light easier
3. They already bought and mounted a scope and don't want to take it off

I'm a broken record

Ok
So do this.
Call Jeff Hankins
Ask if bullets have missed the target at the Kentucky challenge ? Or went through sideways ?
Errors happen…..loading issues -seating pressure. Loose bullets -tight bullets. Jeff’s builds are amazing and are accurate.
It’s not a centerfire where rounds are forced into the riflings -and never will be when stuffed through the muzzle.

If modern muzzleloaders are on the same playing field as a centerfire -then where are the benchrest records to prove it ?

Good shot on the antelope.

 

[Ballistic]

I think for the scenario you mentioned the guy should have made sure the bull was a spike before pulling the trigger, that probably would have prevented it.

For the sake of this discussion - you are correct. Why did this hunter decide to go to a higher magnification scope after the citation ? Hunters aren’t all packing spotting scopes. Though I don’t agree -rifle scopes are used in place of them. Your standard 10 power binos and a 4 power scope - this scenario will repeat itself.
Again - you are correct on the hunter making the mistake.

 

[Silentstalker]

@Silentstalker

Don't talk for me--I never mentioned my why, I don't want to eliminate the season nor limit it significantly. I want to go back to pre 2016 rules is all--that is not radical.

Muzzy tech is getting better every day and it's not stopping. A CV paramount shoots 2,200 FPS, with some of the 45 CAL high BC bullets it is easily in the single shot rifle category.

Ya know there are muzzy's out there that can handle smokeless powder and use LRM primers--Crazy accurate, load from the muzzle, 3,000+ FPS, high BC bullets, can shoot 1,000 yards easy. Because they use smokeless powder all the issues you list are gonzo. Good luck regulating smokeless when rifles become affordable and start hitting the muzzy scene. Single shot rifles indeed!

You didn't answer my question about why there is a muzzy season. You said they have been around for a long time--so what. The question is why do they exist? I don't care about rifle tech, the question is why do we have a muzzy season? Can you answer that?

I’m quantifying what you listed as the why. You’re now saying that’s not your opinion? Ok. But you said it.

Going back to 2016 rules is pretty drastic when the harvest numbers do not support it. There are 5x more deer harvested annually on the ALW hunt.

I couldn’t agree more about the smokeless powders and fire stick igniters etc. That is what I would consider technology worth addressing. IMO this committee is exactly where they should be looking to ban smokeless powders and LMR primers. If you all are against the efficiency of these newer modern muzzleloaders you could easily control them by limiting powder types and ignition systems rather than flock shooting the entire group.

To answer your question. There are a couple reasons we have a muzzy season. IMO the first is the same reason we gave 5 LE elk seasons. To spread out hunters for higher hunter satisfaction. The second would be a special interest group wished for a season of their own - pushed for it and got it.

Why is it okay for any weapon hunters to shoot 5x more animals with a 338 Lapua (1000 yard guns) but it’s not okay for a muzzy hunter to have a 3-9 or 4-12 scope?

If it’s mot about limiting harvest, then why does it matter?

 

[Airborne]

Ok
So do this.
Call Jeff Hankins
Ask if bullets have missed the target at the Kentucky challenge ? Or went through sideways ?
Errors happen…..loading issues -seating pressure. Loose bullets -tight bullets. Jeff’s builds are amazing and are accurate.
It’s not a centerfire where rounds are forced into the riflings -and never will be when stuffed through the muzzle.

If modern muzzleloaders are on the same playing field as a centerfire -then where are the benchrest records to prove it ?

Good shot on the antelope.

I'm sure sh!t happens and there is definitely more going on with loading muzzy's and such but my buddy has been in this high end muzzy game for a while and if you do your part these guns are crazy accurate and very dependable. I like that there is no brass prep, nor blue printing actions. When dealing with smokeless muzzys you can get some great velocities that blow most regular rifle rounds out of the water. They are something to behold and I don't think a lot of guys understand their capabilities. As with anything, overtime they will get cheaper. They can handle a lot of BH209 in these guns if you want to run em Utah legal. Great velocities.

Imagine the next 'black powder substitute', maybe this will blow Blackhorn out of the game. Tech doesn't stop and the next thing ya know guys will be saying they will need that so they don't wound critters.

This is why I want pre-2016 muzzy rules back. I know the capabilities of these guns and they are only going to get more common.

 

[Airborne]

I’m quantifying what you listed as the why. You’re now saying that’s not your opinion? Ok. But you said it.

Going back to 2016 rules is pretty drastic when the harvest numbers do not support it. There are 5x more deer harvested annually on the ALW hunt.

I couldn’t agree more about the smokeless powders and fire stick igniters etc. That is what I would consider technology worth addressing. IMO this committee is exactly where they should be looking to ban smokeless powders and LMR primers. If you all are against the efficiency of these newer modern muzzleloaders you could easily control them by limiting powder types and ignition systems rather than flock shooting the entire group.

To answer your question. There are a couple reasons we have a muzzy season. IMO the first is the same reason we gave 5 LE elk seasons. To spread out hunters for higher hunter satisfaction. The second would be a special interest group wished for a season of their own - pushed for it and got it.

Why is it okay for any weapon hunters to shoot 5x more animals with a 338 Lapua (1000 yard guns) but it’s not okay for a muzzy hunter to have a 3-9 or 4-12 scope?

If it’s mot about limiting harvest, then why does it matter?

Going back to 2016 rules is not drastic regardless of harvest stats. Guys enjoyed the muzzy hunt then just like now. It's just easier to kill stuff at distance now or in low light. Easier being the key word.

Your second reason for the 'why' we have a muzzy season is the correct one. A bunch of mountain man reenactors wanted to harken back to the good old days when men were men and huntin was tough. Key word there is 'tough', same with archery. Hunters wanted to make it tougher on themselves by using less efficient means of killin. DWR was there to oblige and bam, we had a muzzy and stick flipper season. Stick flippin is still tough regardless of wheels on bows because of it's nature albeit easier than it once was but muzzy's have gained so dang much killin prowess with Tech over the years it's nuts. It's just a totally different game now from wanna be mountain men and cap & ball guns.

If you keep harping on harvest stats being the same then let's save a step and turn the current muzzy hunt into an early ALW hunt. When the killin power of muzzys is approaching rifles there is no reason to separate them. I think we are getting there and the scopes make things a ton EASIER.

I do understand your point of view, but just disagree with ya--it's not a big deal, just two different points of view.

 

[Silentstalker]

@Airborne

Just for clarification,

I have never said that the harvest #’s are the same. In fact I have stated the exact opposite. There are 5x more bucks killed during the ALW hunts based on last years harvest numbers in the 5 biggest units of Utah’s general hunts. That’s not an anomaly either.

I understand your point too. No one is wrong in what they personally would like to see. That’s what’s great about this country. We’re all entitled to our own opinions.

It sounds to me like your buddy has one of these extreme muzzys which I would have no problem removing from the hunt. That’s exactly the weapon I keep hearing about in these threads.

My opinion is we should and could - regulate muzzleloader technology by banning smokeless powder, rifle primers, waterproof ignition systems, variable scopes over 9x or maybe 12x.

There are very few options out there for a fixed 4x scope. A lower variable scope is much more accessible to the consumer and seems like a very good compromise.

 

[Bigwiffy]

The restrictions on rifles will be no electronics other than a lighted retical on scopes. This makes a lot of the new and emerging tech for the long range rifles illegal to hunt with, such as the new scopes with computers in them that can range, and set the dope of the cross hair automatically, or that communicate to a phone, or rangefinder that is doing the same work and takes alot of the skill out of the shot.

Ok, my question is how does that limit the current long range setups that are killing deer at 1000+ yards and ALOT more of them? There isn't a whole lot of "skill" involved in today's long range setups. I think that's great "new" tech is on the table for rifles, but muzzy and archery are stepping back in time. If that's the route the tech committee is taking on rifles, then archery should keep Garmin sights, bait, and trail cams, muzzys should keep their scopes, powder, primers and just ban any emerging/new tech.....see how stupid all these bans are? It's not to help the herds, it's to pacify a majority group of whining rifle hunters that this state has catered to for years.

 

[JakeH]

Ok, my question is how does that limit the current long range setups that are killing deer at 1000+ yards and ALOT more of them? There isn't a whole lot of "skill" involved in today's long range setups. I think that's great "new" tech is on the table for rifles, but muzzy and archery are stepping back in time. If that's the route the tech committee is taking on rifles, then archery should keep Garmin sights, bait, and trail cams, muzzys should keep their scopes, powder, primers and just ban any emerging/new tech.....see how stupid all these bans are? It's not to help the herds, it's to pacify a majority group of whining rifle hunters that this state has catered to for years.

I can't argue that logic.

I agree the limitations should focus more on the emerging tech then the existing.

 

[slamdunk]

Ultimately this all comes back to the simple question of why?

Because if it's not done now, where will it be in 10 years at the pace technology is going?

Why are we hell bent on limiting muzzleloaders?

Because it's no secret the muzzleloader capabilities have quadrupled over the last decade.

Why is it okay for the ALW hunters to shoot 1000 yards but it’s the end of all mankind when a guy does it on the internet with a muzzleloader? VERY FEW PEOPLE CAN DO THIS!

The rifle hunts have been and always will be the longest range weapons of the three, and success rates higher for obvious reasons.

The point your missing Slam is this:

"I" am not the Committee, i take one seat of 20 and have one vote.

The WB are the ones who asked for a technology committee to be organized, i was just asked to be part of it.
We are not policemen or politicians, our job is to make "recommendations" for the WB to work off of, they have final say.
There is a desperate need to limit and govern emerging technologies and it should have been implemented a decade ago.
Anyone who doesn't understand this has their head in the sand and can't see that a line needs to be drawn.

In a lot of people’s minds, the only reason to limit technology is to limit harvest. By far and away, the greatest harvest occurs in the ALW hunt.

Again, the ALW hunts will always dominate success rates regardless of restrictions.
Make it a scopeless lever action only hunt and it will still be the highest.
Rifle scope technologies are taking a hit here as well before everyone has a Burris Eliminator type of optic riding on top of their rifles and muzzleloaders with successrates so high that opportunityis lost.

You are asking for a removal of variable scopes saying it’s not okay on a muzzy - meanwhile you’re personally carrying a 338 lapua with a high variable scope.

As I have stated numerous times over the last few months, the Lapua I USED to hunt with has taken 2 muley bucks and one bear, all 3 of which were 100 yds or less.
I am not a "long range" killer just because wiffy says I am 🙄

Why are we reducing technology on a muzzy? Save a Buck in Sept so he can be shot on Oct….

So you ARE admitting muzzies do benefit from variable power scopes👏
Archers miss August bucks so they can be shot at in September, no?🤷‍♂️

It does not make any sense no matter how you spin it.

So for those that think like me, Why?

It's been explained why for several reasons.
Why do so many surrounding states have muzzleloader restrictions?

The point YOU are missing is the key words "Emerging Technology"

A muzzleloader was once a 100 yard weapon until inlines "emerged", then they instantly became 200.
Then more technology "emerged" in components, powders, projectiles, ignition systems, etc, etc.
Remove or limit scopes, advanced components are completely unnecessary and effectiveness crippled.

Why?
As the interest in killing trophy game has exploded, technology grows to help us become more successful, especially as trophy quality drops along the way.
Snowball affect.

Question to you now.
"Why do you feel your muzzleloader needs to be able to keep up to the rifles?"

What was your initial reasoning for muzzleloader hunting to begin with?
Less spooky deer?
Bucks are still grouped up?
Less people?
Better weather?
All that couples up very nicely with a 400 yard "average" set up.

Bottom line-
Hunters complaining about the thoughts of removing variable scopes are doing it for one reason only.......because they know it cripples them "no matter how you spin it".

I am primarily a muzzleloader hunter in Utah.
I fully support restrictions on my scope to limit my current effective range.
If it ends up 4x or 1x, I will just have to hunt a little harder, and or hunt a little differently.

Carry on.......

 

[Ballistic]

Bigwify
I think the real enemy in all of this is the utah DWR. Unlimited elk tags with 3 years before looking at impacts on herds - tells the story. It’s about revenue. Unlimited rifle second season general elk tags isn’t about anything else but $$$
There’s a reason why 250,000 tags on deer was reduced to 97,000. I won’t be surprised when that gets sold to us again.

You are 100% correct that the muzzy (not 100% sure on archery) hunters are getting the boot. I don’t necessarily think that this is the rifle hunters fault - but since a majority of hunters are using rifle - it stands to reason.

We are all getting conquered by division. Stories of 100 plus yard shots by archers and muzzleloaders that are as deadly as single shot rifles at 1000 yards -are extremely exaggerated to make us believe the average hunter is doing this. That’s not the case but those weapons are getting better. Better than centerfire rifles - not a chance. Your old 270 won’t hold a candle to a 6.5 Prc for example.