# No more muzzy scopes?



## Pokesmole (Oct 29, 2016)

Am I reading this right??


----------



## MooseMeat (Dec 27, 2017)

No you’re not. Minutes from a RAC meeting are simply just that. For new laws and regs to be passed through this system, the Wildlife Board has to do it. They discussed the topic regionally (when it wasn’t even on the agenda or proposed) and that’s as far as it’s made it… for now.


----------



## MrShane (Jul 21, 2019)

Than’s fine as long as muzzy tags come out of their own allotment, not combined with rifle tags.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

If I was listening correctly during the RAC motions portion, 2 RACs voted to prohibit variable scopes on muzzleloaders even though it was not on their agenda. The board didn’t even discuss the topic except for in passing, and did not vote on that issue. So no change, for now. (As moose said) 

Out of the technology changes we’ve seen I’m guessing that’s the first to go, however. Stay tuned. You’ll see this officially on a board agenda before 2024, I’m guessing.


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

It will take a bit before they get their "technology committee" formed. But once they do the sky is the limit.

What I will find interesting will be the logic behind any recommendations. It won't be saving herds.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

I highly doubt they will ever fully ban scopes, too many old guys with bad eyes and alot of money to influcence that vote. Restricting power to a lower amount I could see possibly happening, say 4x or even 2x. 

But worst case, my Remington has great open sights.

-DallanC


----------



## MooseMeat (Dec 27, 2017)

DallanC said:


> I highly doubt they will ever fully ban scopes, too many old guys with bad eyes and alot of money to influcence that vote. Restricting power to a lower amount I could see possibly happening, say 4x or even 2x.
> 
> But worst case, my Remington has great open sights.
> 
> -DallanC


I wouldn’t bet on that. They seem pretty hell bent on restricting everyone except the rifle hunters and guides. Everyone else is slowly getting their equipment weeded out one meeting at a time.


----------



## CPAjeff (Dec 20, 2014)

I'd be completely fine with scopes being banned on muzzleloaders.


----------



## taxidermist (Sep 11, 2007)

MooseMeat said:


> I wouldn’t bet on that. They seem pretty hell bent on restricting everyone except the rifle hunters and guides. Everyone else is slowly getting their equipment weeded out one meeting at a time.


Don't forget to add the Youth hunters to the list of "Not Restricting".


----------



## taxidermist (Sep 11, 2007)

CPAjeff said:


> I'd be completely fine with scopes being banned on muzzleloaders.


I cant see chizz anymore trying to shoot open sights. Like Dallan said....old aging eyes. I guess if they do restrict optics, I can always head out and shoot in the general direction of a deer in hopes I can kill it.


----------



## 2full (Apr 8, 2010)

They let all of us put scopes on. 
Then they ban them ??
Ya that's just about par for the course. 

I waited for years to put one on my gun. 
I was against them. But as I got older and my eyes went downhill, I finally figured, why not it's legal ?
I've been muzzle hunting since '84. 
I bought a new muzzleloader this year and put one on it from the get go. 
Well, peep sights do work quite well.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

If you can't see with open sights try a peep sight. If you want something more modern go to the SeeAll Sights web site and check out their delta sight.

The SeeAll delta sight is legal in Colorado 

Sent from my SM-J737V using Tapatalk


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

middlefork said:


> What I will find interesting will be the logic behind any recommendations. It won't be saving herds.


This is a narrative that needs to stop. Nobody, and I mean, NOBODY that has any clue thinks any of this is about “saving herds.” The wildlife board was very open about the trail cam discussion- it was not biological. It was all about hunters and what they want. It has nothing to do with herd health, and the decision makers have been clear about this. Trying to use a straw man on biology for this has got to stop. It’s nothing but a red herring, at very best.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

There is a ton of logic in restricting scope types on muzzleloaders. The muzzleloader hunt was never intended to let people kill animals at 600, even 800 yards. You want to do that, jump into the rifle pool and go let it fly. 

But again, this is social not biological.


----------



## 7mm Reloaded (Aug 25, 2015)

I just need my 1x back and I’d be fine with it. I have them ready and sighted to go back on. I can’t see well enough for open sights


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

A few years ago I had the pleasure of helping on a Muzzy elk tag. The hunter borrowed one of the new super duper muzzy's so he could shoot out to 500 yards just in case. We told him just make sure you can hit what you are aiming at at 40 yards. I think his bull he shot was at 42 yards. Crazy that people think they can't get closer.


----------



## KineKilla (Jan 28, 2011)

Dang it. Just got a new scope on my MZ. Haven't even sighted it in yet.

Guess I better draw my LE Elk tag before they outlaw them.

Sent from my SM-N976U using Tapatalk


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

I can just hear the uproar now if the WB does anything to get rid of even variable power scopes.

Once they opened it up they should of realized how unpopular it would be if they shut it down or went back to 1x scopes. 

If they go back they might as well ban pellets and saboted bullets as well.

Sent from my SM-J737V using Tapatalk


----------



## 2full (Apr 8, 2010)

I finally put a scope on my 'ol Knight MK 95 3 years ago. I shot my bull that year at under 100 yards. 
Then in 20 I went muzzle deer and shot my deer at 85 yards. 
I'm not looking for "long range shots" never have. 
I tend to try to get too close if anything. I guess that's the 'ol bow hunter in me. 
I won't be upset (aside from the money I spent).
I didn't think they should have been allowed to begin with. It is supposed to be a primative hunt.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

2full said:


> I didn't think they should have been allowed to begin with. It is supposed to be a primative hunt.


Its never been defined as a primitive hunt. Neither is the archery hunt. The day they start putting restrictions on bows, we can talk about limiting muzzleloader or center fire weapons. I know alot of people who routinely kill deer with a compound bow at further ranges than most of my ML deer are killed at.

Seems we have this discussion every 10 years or so... about the time enough new members that dont know how many times we've rehashed this, reach critical mass and it suddenly becomes "an issue" to discuss.

-DallanC


----------



## Slayer (Feb 3, 2013)

7mm Reloaded said:


> I just need my 1x back and I’d be fine with it. I have them ready and sighted to go back on. I can’t see well enough for open sights


I agree open sights or a 1x scope would be good!


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

Vanilla said:


> This is a narrative that needs to stop. Nobody, and I mean, NOBODY that has any clue thinks any of this is about “saving herds.” The wildlife board was very open about the trail cam discussion- it was not biological. *It was all about hunters and what they want.* It has nothing to do with herd health, and the decision makers have been clear about this. Trying to use a straw man on biology for this has got to stop. It’s nothing but a red herring, at very best.


So, what premise are hunters using then to restrict optics on muzzleloaders? Fair chase? The nostalgia of hunting with a more primitive setup? Or, because the common hunter believes it will help with saving herds by not making it so easy to pick off the best gene contributors?



Vanilla said:


> There is a ton of logic in restricting scope types on muzzleloaders. *The muzzleloader hunt was never intended to let people kill animals at 600, even 800 yards. *You want to do that, jump into the rifle pool and go let it fly.
> 
> But again, this is social not biological.


It's not the scope that makes an 800 yard shot capable. It's the rifle (barrel), powder, and bullet that does. The margin of error does increase with less magnification, but a $2,000 4 - 16 x 50 scope on a muzzleloading rifle at 135 yards won't help if the rifle is subpar on quality and the load is just slapped together.


----------



## taxidermist (Sep 11, 2007)

*The margin of error does increase with less magnification, but a $2,000 4 - 16 x 50 scope on a muzzleloading rifle at 135 yards won't help if the rifle is subpar on quality and the load is just slapped together.*

I agree with this statement. 

I know of two individuals that have the Remington "Super Muzzleloaders" and brag about them, say they spent thousands on the rifle/scope set up. I asked how they like the recoil of 200 grains of powder. Each one of them said they shoot the same load they use in their "regular" rifles. I'm confused....Why would you spend that kind of money on a rifle and not use it to its potential?? It's like buying a corvette and only driving around the neighborhood. These are the ideates that will take a 400+ yard shot on a game animal. 

It all boils down to KNOWING and USING your effective range of any weapon, and, being proficient. Practice can make perfect.


----------



## Ray (May 10, 2018)

I’ve never attended a RAC meeting and had my voice heard but if they start pushing restrictions on muzzleloader optics, I’ll certainly start!


----------



## Lone_Hunter (Oct 25, 2017)

High Desert Elk said:


> It's not the scope that makes an 800 yard shot capable. It's the rifle (barrel), powder, and bullet that does.


Honestly, I think it's all of the above. Scope included. I look at it this way, I was running an rear peep sight up until last year. I couldn't find a front bead that i could see, that would give my any reasonable accuracy past 100 yards. Everything's got a fiber obtic on it nowadays. That fiber optic takes up an entire paper plate at 100 yards. Any deviation on my part, and I miss it. With a scope... I think my zero was 150, and I was shooting out to 170-200 ish and hitting. Same load, same bullet. I wouldn't attempt that with the rear peep I had on previously, granted I know it has a lot to do with the front bead, but i'd say my range, ethically with just irons was inside 100 yards - not that I haven't attempted farther in the heat of the moment. 

edit: 
Side note, I know the point of aim is supposed to be the top a fiber optic on a front sight post, however, it's effing impossible for me not to want to center it in the rear aperture, it draws my eye in that way every stinking time. On top of that middle age isn't doing my eyes any favors either, so the fiber optic helps in that regard, but at the same time, I hated having a round bead. The rest of the post just disappared, and all i'd see is the red dot my eye wanted to center in the rear sight.


----------



## Pokesmole (Oct 29, 2016)

I was definitely a killer with a muzzy back with the old sight rule. However, I’m not necessarily old but I know my eyes aren’t as good as they were when I was picking them off open sighted and with a 1x 
Im no sniper either. We’re talking maybe 200 yards is what I get out of my 3x9 but I still really would hate to see them get rid of magnification.


----------



## KineKilla (Jan 28, 2011)

Show me where the herds benefit from disallowing magnified optics and you will be much closer to gaining my support. I would want factual harvest comparisons over the span of several years.

I still think a lot of the changes to our rules and systems stem from hunter vs hunter arguments. 

Reduce their opportunity so that MY opportunity increases. Reduce their success rates so that MY success rates may improve. Reduce their ability to use technology to be a more efficient hunter because it doesn't align with MY personal opinion.

Divide and conquer my friends.

Sent from my SM-N976U using Tapatalk


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

High Desert Elk said:


> It's not the scope that makes an 800 yard shot capable. It's the rifle (barrel), powder, and bullet that does. The margin of error does increase with less magnification, but a $2,000 4 - 16 x 50 scope on a muzzleloading rifle at 135 yards won't help if the rifle is subpar on quality and the load is just slapped together.


I’m very aware of the needs in equipment besides the scope, but let’s see you take the rifle (barrel), powder and bullet and kill an animal at 800 yards with open sights. Yes, hypothetically it can be done. Hypothetically. You get the point. 




High Desert Elk said:


> So, what premise are hunters using then to restrict optics on muzzleloaders? Fair chase? The nostalgia of hunting with a more primitive setup? Or, because the common hunter believes it will help with saving herds by not making it so easy to pick off the best gene contributors?


It’s not about saving the herds. You quoted my post with me saying this very thing very clearly and then asked about saving the herds again. It has NOTHING to do with biology. Nothing we’re talking about is going to impact the health of the herds. For the record, I’m NOT one of the people pushing for this change. I’m also honest enough to admit there is logic behind the push, even if I don’t necessarily agree with it, because there is logic behind it.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

DallanC said:


> Seems we have this discussion every 10 years or so... about the time enough new members that dont know how many times we've rehashed this, reach critical mass and it suddenly becomes "an issue" to discuss.
> 
> -DallanC


The difference this redistricting cycle is muzzleloaders have 20x scopes on them this time, and if this discussion is on the census/redistricting cycle then last time we had it, they didn’t. Another difference is the discussion has moved from online forums to wildlife board meetings. 

For better or for worse, I think this change happens. This new “technology committee” will see this as the lowest hanging fruit. 

I wish the system (WB, DWR, etc) put as much time and effort into the biological efforts and decisions as they did the social. We’d probably have less social debates as a result.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

I have always believed that the muzzle loader hunt was set up for us to get back to hunting the way that our grand fathers did it, in a more primitive way than using more modern firearms. 

It is now to the point that the muzzle loader hunt is just a single shot rifle hunt with the new designs of the muzzle loaders that are coming out. Now they even have muzzle loaders that are shooting smokeless powders. Even the CVA Accura muzzle loader that I won in a raffle doesn't even have a front sight. It is designed for scope use only and it came with a 3-9 scope. Now that scope really helped on the deer that I shot with it a couple of years ago. That buck was standing at a grand old distance of 75 yards. 

As for ranges I have shot deer and elk anywhere from 30 yards out to 120 yards with muzzle loaders. I didn't have a scope on one until I got that Accura a couple of years ago. All the other deer and elk fell to a rifle with open sights and when I couldn't focus the sights that I had on the muzzle loader I switched them out to peep sights.


----------



## Irish Lad (Jun 3, 2008)

Critter said:


> I have always believed that the muzzle loader hunt was set up for us to get back to hunting the way that our grand fathers did it, in a more primitive way than using more modern firearms.
> 
> It is now to the point that the muzzle loader hunt is just a single shot rifle hunt with the new designs of the muzzle loaders that are coming out. Now they even have muzzle loaders that are shooting smokeless powders. Even the CVA Accura muzzle loader that I won in a raffle doesn't even have a front sight. It is designed for scope use only and it came with a 3-9 scope. Now that scope really helped on the deer that I shot with it a couple of years ago. That buck was standing at a grand old distance of 75 yards.
> 
> As for ranges I have shot deer and elk anywhere from 30 yards out to 120 yards with muzzle loaders. I didn't have a scope on one until I got that Accura a couple of years ago. All the other deer and elk fell to a rifle with open sights and when I couldn't focus the sights that I had on the muzzle loader I switched them out to peep sights.


I bought a T/C Pro Hunter FX a few years back . It came with a Nikon 3X9 scope. I like it, but I only would shoot it out to 150 yards. I hope they don't change the regs, but if they do I hope they would still allow 1x fixed scopes. With my knees and eyes I don't have too many big game hunts left😄. I'll be left with ducks and doves!


----------



## MooseMeat (Dec 27, 2017)

I hear the argument that guys are killing with muzzys out at 800 yards all the time. Honestly, how many guys out there 1) posses the rifle and equipment to make it possible 2) posses the knowledge on how to do it and 3) posses the ability to make such a shot? 1 in 250+? Like I’ve always said, 90% of the utards out there struggle hard to kill a deer with the first shot out of a centerfire rifle at 300 yards. I’d bet 98% of them can’t do it with a muzzleloader at the same distance. And the odds go down from there as range increases. Yea, it’s possible. But not everyone out there is doing it. Utah hunters love to fantasize about worst case scenario’s and this isn’t any different. The reality is that what is being worried about and discussed, isn’t really taking place as often as guys hope. There are guns out there very capable of shots that far, but the affordability of said gun for guys complaining that a $50 elk tag is too much, is next to 0. Very few guys have these guns. And even then, there’s a percentage of them that don’t even know how to use these guns.


----------



## Irish Lad (Jun 3, 2008)

MooseMeat said:


> I hear the argument that guys are killing with muzzys out at 800 yards all the time. Honestly, how many guys out there 1) posses the rifle and equipment to make it possible 2) posses the knowledge on how to do it and 3) posses the ability to make such a shot? 1 in 250+? Like I’ve always said, 90% of the utards out there struggle hard to kill a deer with the first shot out of a centerfire rifle at 300 yards. I’d bet 98% of them can’t do it with a muzzleloader at the same distance. And the odds go down from there as range increases. Yea, it’s possible. But not everyone out there is doing it. Utah hunters love to fantasize about worst case scenario’s and this isn’t any different. The reality is that what is being worried about and discussed, isn’t really taking place as often as guys hope. There are guns out there very capable of shots that far, but the affordability of said gun for guys complaining that a $50 elk tag is too much, is next to 0. Very few guys have these guns. And even then, there’s a percentage of them that don’t even know how to use these guns.


Well said!


----------



## Airborne (May 29, 2009)

Weapon restrictions on big game are ok by me if they decrease harvest so we issue more tags and increase opportunity. 

I doubt taking scopes away is going to do this as we have the before and after scope harvest data and it’s about the same.

if we’re gonna move the needle let’s copy Idaho’s primitive muzzy rules. I can see this decreasing harvest to allow for more opportunity.

Niller is correct that this is totally social hunter issue and nothing to do with herd health. Hunter control and rules are easy. Growing more deer is tough and no one has that workable magic solution, otherwise every state in the west would be doing it.


----------



## Fowlmouth (Oct 4, 2008)

Take scopes away? Might as well make us wear moccasins, full leathers and a racoon hat on our heads too. If they make it primitive, they better go the whole way with it.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

Fowlmouth said:


> Take scopes away? Might as well make us wear moccasins, full leathers and a racoon hat on our heads too. If they make it primitive, they better go the whole way with it.


I'm in for it.

Sent from my SM-J737V using Tapatalk


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Fowlmouth said:


> Take scopes away? Might as well make us wear moccasins, full leathers and a racoon hat on our heads too. If they make it primitive, they better go the whole way with it.


Lets go the full Montey. I've argued for 2 decades now the single greatest innovation to Muzzle loading rifles is the high tensil strength Coil Spring. Before that, actions used flat springs... they always had issues of alignment, breakage, weakening strength etc etc making the guns unreliable. I'm sure modern metallurgy would solve that compared to old cast iron and steel types. But draw the line there, require Flat springs in actions.

My vote though would be a limit of 2x power or less scopes, full bore projectiles and exposed primer ignitions.

-DallanC


----------



## MooseMeat (Dec 27, 2017)

Utah muzzy regs were never defined as “primitive”. Adopting such regs would require everyone to go buy new rifles. That’s not going to happen. The old rules will be what we would go back to.


----------



## Irish Lad (Jun 3, 2008)

MooseMeat said:


> Utah muzzy regs were never defined as “primitive”. Adopting such regs would require everyone to go buy new rifles. That’s not going to happen. The old rules will be what we would go back to.


I think you are right. Do you think they would add a separate "primitive " season just to satisfy folks?


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

MooseMeat said:


> Utah muzzy regs were never defined as “primitive”. Adopting such regs would require everyone to go buy new rifles. That’s not going to happen. The old rules will be what we would go back to.


Yep, from day 1 it was an alternate rifle type. In fact it never even had its own tag in the beginning... it was a $10 extension to your existing rifle tag... you would use your rifle tag, and it would give you 1 extra week to the rifle season hunt, using a muzzleloader. I still have my old "tags" from back then.

-DallanC


----------



## MooseMeat (Dec 27, 2017)

Irish Lad said:


> I think you are right. Do you think they would add a separate "primitive " season just to satisfy folks?


If they did, they will replace the current late muzzy hunts on the general units with a “primitive” hunt. They really should bump the season back and make it a “traditional” hunt. Recurves/long bows and old muzzleloaders only. You’d increase opportunity, kill less animals and push more people through the point system


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

You mean something like a HAMS hunt?


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

Vanilla said:


> I’m very aware of the needs in equipment besides the scope, but let’s see you take the rifle (barrel), powder and bullet and kill an animal at 800 yards with open sights. Yes, hypothetically it can be done. Hypothetically. You get the point.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


_*Yes, hypothetically it can be done.*_

I would refer you to Matthew Quigley 

*It’s not about saving the herds...Nothing we’re talking about is going to impact the health of the herds.*

Not all things are directly related to biology for herd health. We all know the ability to effectively kill a monster buck at 658 yds with a blackpowder setup repeated 34 times over the last 5 years will most certainly and absolutely have an impact on the herd over time, especially if those 170 bucks posses the genes for brute strength, stamina, and the ability to survive a harsh winter. Hypothetically. Will increased harvest data cause a decrease in the number of permits issued? Maybe. Mostly because too many bucks are being taken out to help replenish the herd from natural death to predation, cars, and winter kill. Hypothetically.

Now that we've established that limiting magnification has no impact on herd health, what's the logic for the push? Must be someone else's definition of "fair chase" or the nostalgia of the persona to Davy Crocket or Daniel Boone while deer hunting. 

Certainly the effectiveness of killing top gene pool animals shouldn't play a role in it, after all, trail cams don't really aid in the shooting of specific animals, do they?


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

High Desert Elk said:


> _*Yes, hypothetically it can be done.*_
> 
> I would refer you to Matthew Quigley


THAT, was a good movie. But lets mention an actual, historically well known and recorded long shot with black powder propellant, its more interesting.

Billy Dixon in the 2nd battle of Adobe Walls, was a known good marksmen. Indians retreated to a nearby hill top to replan their attack. Billy was talked into taking a long shot at them, which he did... cleanly killing one of the warriors. The army corp of engineers later surveyed the distance at a wopping 1,538 yards. That ended the battle, the Indians were so demoralized they gave up and left.

Mathew Quigley's movie shot was estimated at 780'ish yards... roughly half of what Billy Dixon actually pulled off in front of a fort full of witnesses.

-DallanC


----------



## MrShane (Jul 21, 2019)

If this scope issue was about ‘herd health’,
it would be focused on removing scopes from the any weapon season, not the muzzleloader season.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

But that is why they call it the any weapon hunt.

If it was about the hurd health they'd cut tags drastically and let the herds recover, that is if they can. On that note I believe that both the Henry Mountain and Book Cliffs units were shut down for 5 years and I think that one was longer to let the deer recover. 

But as I mentioned before, the furthest that I have shot at a animal with a muzzle loader is 120 yards with all the others being under 100 yards. So if you can't find a open sight system to shoot at those ranges why hunt with a muzzle loader?

Sent from my SM-J737V using Tapatalk


----------



## MooseMeat (Dec 27, 2017)

Critter said:


> So if you can't find a open sight system to shoot at those ranges why hunt with a muzzle loader?
> 
> Sent from my SM-J737V using Tapatalk


Because it’s the best hunt dates in the state as far as general season hunts go. You don’t even need to ask that question


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Critter said:


> If it was about the hurd health they'd cut tags drastically and let the herds recover, that is if they can.


The only way this is true is if the inferred poor herd health was due to hunting. This statement would mean hunting is the main limiting factor for the deer herds in Utah. I would disagree with that. 



Critter said:


> On that note I believe that both the Henry Mountain and Book Cliffs units were shut down for 5 years and I think that one was longer to let the deer recover.


Weren’t these shut downs when they were going from general season to LE? And an attempt to let there be older age class for those specific LE units?


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

There are many questioning the health of both the Henry herd and Book Cliff herd. And you would think by that metric Antelope Island should be over run with deer. It is not.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

middlefork said:


> There are many questioning the health of both the Henry herd and Book Cliff herd. And you would think by that metric Antelope Island should be over run with deer. It is not.


Nor any of our national or state parks where hunting isn't allowed.

-DallanC


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

Vanilla said:


> Weren’t these shut downs when they were going from general season to LE? And an attempt to let there be older age class for those specific LE units?


In my opinion both the Henry Mountains and Book Cliff herds were in hurting positions when they were shut down. I had been hunting both units for 10 + years during the antler restriction days and then the Books once they took the restrictions off. While there were a number of hunters in both units there were no where near the numbers when the antler restrictions came off. In both units you could routinely see dozens of 3 pts and smaller bucks all over the place but that first year when they opened it up out in the Books, it was a zoo with all the new hunters. It seamed like everyone abandoned their usual hunting areas to show up down there. There were trains of 4 wheelers on all of the roads and when they went back at night to their camp most of them were carrying a small buck on the racks. The deer after that first year were harder and harder to find even down in the deep canyons. We hunted it in 1995 the year before they shut it down and we were seeing very few mature bucks and most of the young ones were shot on opening weekend and we hunted the whole season. 

And from what I heard the same thing happened down on the Henry Mountains. 

While the Book Cliffs is a huge area it just didn't stand up to the pressure that was put on it in those few years after they removed the restrictions. Some said that there was a large die off in the wintering area, but all I observed was what happened during the general seasons down there. Even now I don't believe that the herd in the Books is back to what it was in the late 80's and early 90's. The last time I was out there was during the spike elk hunt in 2019 and we saw very few bucks.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Critter said:


> While the Book Cliffs is a huge area it just didn't stand up to the pressure that was put on it in those few years after they removed the restrictions.


Pre-shut down in the hay-day, the bookcliffs used to regularly support 20,000 hunters on it. They shut it down thinking it would recover to support those original hunt #'s but it never did.

IMO, if you look at our earliest records (Lewis and Clark) of mule deer. Even then, they made mention that the Mule Eared Deer were pretty scarce. I believe that the settling of the west, including the absolute war on predators caused conditions where deer absolutely flourished in the vacuum of no predation. Then in the early 1970s when 1080 was banned, the mule deer were firmly established with high populations, but predator populations began to rise in relation to the abundance of deer they could eat. Then you throw in the massive winter kill of 1983, and suddenly you have a large predator population and a much smaller deer population. Things remained status quo for a while with fluctuation herd #s, but then in 1993-94 we got another absolutely massive winter kill... and the herds have never fully recovered from that. Thats when we went to 5 regions... and now the even smaller micro regions.

So much winter range is now developed in alot of areas, you simply cannot carry an over abundance of bucks from one year to the next, because for every buck left around, that's one less doe you can have on a hard winter. And does make the next crop of deer.

Our national and state parks where hunting isnt allowed, should have booming populations of deer. They dont... but they do have alot of predators.

-DallanC


----------



## MrShane (Jul 21, 2019)

Dallan is right on the money.
Predator and Prey.
They will co-exist, but only one will thrive.
Kill every predator you can if you want a healthy Mule deer herd again.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

I know that when I started hunting deer in the mid 60's that you hardly ever saw a predator. Cats and bears were shot on sight, but if you wanted a tag they were only a dollar and it was good all year. You would occasionally hear a coyote but would very seldom see one.

Sent from my SM-J737V using Tapatalk


----------



## MrShane (Jul 21, 2019)

“I’ll buy that for a dollar!”.


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

DallanC said:


> THAT, was a good movie. But lets mention an actual, historically well known and recorded long shot with black powder propellant, its more interesting.
> 
> Billy Dixon in the 2nd battle of Adobe Walls, was a known good marksmen. Indians retreated to a nearby hill top to replan their attack. Billy was talked into taking a long shot at them, which he did... cleanly killing one of the warriors. The army corp of engineers later surveyed the distance at a wopping 1,538 yards. That ended the battle, the Indians were so demoralized they gave up and left.
> 
> ...


Recall, though, Quigley made the shot standing up.


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

MrShane said:


> If this scope issue was about ‘herd health’,
> it would be focused on removing scopes from the any weapon season, not the muzzleloader season.


I agree, what's the point to removing a scope on a muzzleloader if not to give deer a more "sporting chance" at survival?

I see threads all the time about limiting technology that have caused hunters to become very good killers. Being a good killer means fewer tags long term because why?

For rifles, it's range finders because as we all know a rifle cannot function without a scope. Just because the rifle is capable of 300 yd shots doesn't mean the weapon should be rewarded with the ability to do it.

With archery it's releases and slider sights. If anyone has ever used a single pin slider, they know they are absolutely useless if a quick shot opportunity arises.

So, what's the real reason to removing the muzzy scope? There is none if it doesn't have a positive net effect on harvest numbers decreasing...


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

All of this conjecture can be solved pretty easy. Someone compare the harvest rates of MLs before and after the scope change went into effect. Spot check the harvest rates of archery and rifle over that same period to catch increased harvests due to herd increases.

I dont think it really changed much other than alot more people suddenly decided to start ML hunting.

-DallanC


----------



## KineKilla (Jan 28, 2011)

DallanC said:


> All of this conjecture can be solved pretty easy. Someone compare the harvest rates of MLs before and after the scope change went into effect. Spot check the harvest rates of archery and rifle over that same period to catch increased harvests due to herd increases.
> 
> I dont think it really changed much other than alot more people suddenly decided to start ML hunting.
> 
> -DallanC


Here are my MZ results during the deer hunt...

Totally missed a shot at 130yds at a good 4 point. He wandered off with his buddy and then stood there laughing at me for a while until he got bored and walked over the ridge.

Variable power scopes do not make you a better shot. Nor do they make up for lack of practice.

End survey.

Sent from my SM-N976U using Tapatalk


----------



## Pokesmole (Oct 29, 2016)

Where do we make our voices heard? I say we pile in and let ‘em know how we feel. When the time comes


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

If someone is dedicated enough to fine tune a load to hit a 12" circle at 500 yds with a scoped muzzy, they will be dedicated enough to learn how to shoot open sighted out to 300. Animals are still going to get shot. The only difference is, out of 25 people that have "snipe-poles", only 15 will continue to shoot game at far open sight ranges.

The push to limit magnification isn't about fairness. It's something else. I'm more curious of what is really driving the discussion...


----------



## taxidermist (Sep 11, 2007)

*Kill every predator you can if you want a healthy Mule deer herd again.*
Don't forget that we, Humans, are the dominate predator in the Kingdom. We alone are decimating the herds with urban sprawl. 

Remember the days when wild roosters were all over the fields and ditch banks? Now those fields have been replaced with concrete, homes and buildings. Don't fool yourself thinking it wont/cant happen with big game.


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

A little fun reading for those interested.






Mule Deer Working Group Habitat Guidelines – WAFWA







wafwa.org


----------



## Firehawk (Sep 30, 2007)

So I have a question. I apologize if that was already addressed and I missed it, but when the Wildlife Board passed this rule unanimously, does that move automatically to the new rules/guidelines (which isn't published until June 2022)? Or does it have to go through a period of commenting etc? I guess I don't truly understand how all of that works.

I like the idea of moving away from magnified scopes, but more out of selfishness in hopes that fewer hunters will be in the field. That said, I have really enjoyed how much easier it is for me to see things with my 3-9 on there. My Knight Wolverine rifle was always very accurate with my peep sight and front bead in the past, but I did switch to a scope when the state allowed it. My eyes sighed in relief as it was much easier to see my sight picture.

Now my eyes are several years older. I have long since quit being able to use a standard sight as I can't line up the rear sight, front sight and the target without it all getting blurry, but a peep sight seemed to alleviate that problem for me. But still, the magnified image and exact placement of a crosshair comes in really handy. I tried a Burris 1x scope when I first got my Knight in 2003. It was fine for hunting, but the crosshair covered the entire 6" bullseye at 100 yards. I got all sorts of creative trying to find the best way for me to check loads. I finally quit trying, sold my Burris and moved to a peep sight like I had had on my TC. Worked great and with a 6 o clock hold, was extremely accurate. 

Just this Christmas, I got a new CVA Accura MR-X 50 cal so that I could get my daughter or boys to come ML deer hunting with me. I even paid extra for the model with the scope rail. Bought some high quality scope rings and mounted my Burris Signature Select scope I had sitting around. Haven't even shot it yet, due to my Achilles' Tendon rupture recovery, but I look forward to getting to the range in the next few weeks with it. But now, I am sitting here thinking I wish I would have bought the Northwest version of said rifle so that it had a peep already installed, and a front sight. With todays supply chain issues, it could get really hairy to get quality parts to convert a ML to a compliant one if this rule takes effect this year. And there are a lot of rifles out there that have never been drilled and tapped for sights and some may not be able to be.

In my case with the CVA, I already ordered the EABCO rail/peep combo and a front site. Figure if the DWR makes the change, I want to be ready and not scrambling to become compliant in the current inventory situation. It was hard enough to find products that I hope will work.

Anyway, thank you for guiding me as to when this "unanimous" decision actually gets moved to law.

FH


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

In my opinion it is a long ways off until they take variable power scopes out of the equation.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Firehawk said:


> So I have a question. I apologize if that was already addressed and I missed it, but when the Wildlife Board passed this rule unanimously, does that move automatically to the new rules/guidelines (which isn't published until June 2022)? Or does it have to go through a period of commenting etc? I guess I don't truly understand how all of that works.


The wildlife board didnt pass this, it was a RAC.

-DallanC


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

Firehawk said:


> Anyway, thank you for guiding me as to when this "unanimous" decision actually gets moved to law.
> 
> FH


So far this has not passed the Wildlife board. As far as I understand it is not even on the action log to study. It was proposed during a RAC meeting but was not on the agenda for the WB.
I believe they proposed forming a "technology committee" and put that on the action log but I may be wrong.

It is my understanding that it would be within the scope of the committee to recommend any further rules regarding scopes and weapons. If I'm mistaken I apologize. The best information you can obtain is by going to the DWR web site and looking at the information under the RAC /WB menu.

All the information about past RAC and WB meetings is on there along with future meeting and any information packet that are given to the RAC's. It is the place to be familiar with if you have an interest in what is going on.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

100 years from now when hunters are shooting laser rifles, the old 30-06 cartridge guns will be "primative weapons" 

-DallanC


----------



## MooseMeat (Dec 27, 2017)

middlefork said:


> So far this has not passed the Wildlife board. As far as I understand it is not even on the action log to study. It was proposed during a RAC meeting but was not on the agenda for the WB.
> I believe they proposed forming a "technology committee" and put that on the action log but I may be wrong.
> 
> It is my understanding that it would be within the scope of the committee to recommend any further rules regarding scopes and weapons. If I'm mistaken I apologize. The best information you can obtain is by going to the DWR web site and looking at the information under the RAC /WB menu.
> ...


There have been many people confused over this in the last week. They don’t understand the separation between the RAC and WB. Scopes on muzzys are legal in 2022. 2023 might be a different story. Earliest I could see this being addressed is November 2022.


----------



## Firehawk (Sep 30, 2007)

Thank you! I thought I was reading the notes/agenda and dialogue from the Wildlife Board Meeting. But I guess after the first few pages, it was actually just the RAC meetings. It was 364 pages long and I read a lot and looked hard trying to find the pages that discussed the Muzzleloader. I was excited when I finally found it buried in all those pages. But I certainly didn't get the information about the technology discussion. That is what I get for "skimming the pages".

I apologize if I helped stir things up in this regard. But I truly appreciate all of your help,

I will keep planning ahead with my scope mounted ML for 2022.


----------



## taxidermist (Sep 11, 2007)

So who, (what organization/group) opened their BIG mouth and wants magnifying scopes banned?


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

taxidermist said:


> So who, (what organization/group) opened their BIG mouth and wants magnifying scopes banned?


We’ve got to remember the history on this one. There has always been opposition to this premise, even when the rule passed to allow the scopes just a few years ago. Those people didn’t just go away.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Vanilla said:


> We’ve got to remember the history on this one. There has always been opposition to this premise, even when the rule passed to allow the scopes just a few years ago. Those people didn’t just go away.


IMO, if the board reverses this... its going to make them look rather foolish in the eyes of the public.

-DallanC


----------



## MooseMeat (Dec 27, 2017)

taxidermist said:


> So who, (what organization/group) opened their BIG mouth and wants magnifying scopes banned?


No one this time. The southern RAC members decided to take it upon themselves to propose this one all on their own.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

DallanC said:


> IMO, if the board reverses this... its going to make them look rather foolish in the eyes of the public.
> 
> -DallanC


Is that a change from the status quo?


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

Vanilla makes a good point- When it passed, there was more public opposition to ML scopes than support. Scopes were only allowed when the Chair broke the 3v3 tie. It was even stated that they could reverse the decision if it became a problem.
I don't think they are looking into it because it will save the deer herd or grow the overall herd. I think they are looking into it because LR/scoped MLs put more pressure on the mature segment of the bucks in the herd. I didn't read the whole thread, but its ironic how the same arguments in reverse are stated in favor of the scopes vs 2015/16 when the discussion was had to allow them. When they were talking scopes in 2016 guys were saying it would reduce wounding loss and no way an ML can shoot 500 yards- it doesn't have the energy, and on and on. Yet here we sit, with long range MLs shooting bucks at close to 1000 yards. Instead of wounding bucks at 150, they are being wounded at 300+. 

It won't hurt my feelings to remove the 6-18 or the 4-12 variables off my MLs. If they keep scopes on MLs it won't bother me much either. Shooting deer with lazers may happen in the future, if we don't curb the technology. How many people were upset they banned the firestick ML? Just the ones who owned them.....


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

Packout said:


> I don't think they are looking into it because it will save the deer herd or grow the overall herd. I think they are looking into it because LR/scoped MLs put more pressure on the mature segment of the bucks in the herd.


How does reducing pressure on the mature segment of the bucks in the herd not help the herd [grow] overall?

If you want to help the herd, you have to reduce the ultimate stressor and that's hunting in general second only to increased predator control. I know guys hate hearing that their chances of hunting will go down for a short spell, but you can't have your cake and eat it too...

In years of (extreme) drought, those tags require that they be reduced in those areas, not increased like the idiotic debacle a year or so ago when they increased tags (for elk?) because of the shortage of food due to winter conditions.


----------



## Irish Lad (Jun 3, 2008)

I was looking on the DNR website for success rates for muzzleloaders to see how much if any it has changed since they changed the rule. I could only find it by units, not statewide for deer and elk. Does anyone know what it is or could provide me a link? Thanks


----------



## Fowlmouth (Oct 4, 2008)

You know what? Shorten the deer hunt from 9 days to 5 days, like they did to the Stansbury unit years ago. I’ll take a shorter season over not being able to use modern technology. You want to help herds, shorter seasons might just help accomplish that.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

Fowlmouth said:


> You know what? Shorten the deer hunt from 9 days to 5 days, like they did to the Stansbury unit years ago. I’ll take a shorter season over not being able to use modern technology. You want to help herds, shorter seasons might just help accomplish that.


They did a study a few years ago and the percentage of animals that were killed the opening weekend was higher than most expect. I can't remember just what it was but it was above 75-80% of them that killed a animal. 

You can see this if you hunt the whole week after the opening. The hills will have some hunters but most have gone home after the Monday after the opening and don't plan on coming back out.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Fowlmouth said:


> You know what? Shorten the deer hunt from 9 days to 5 days, like they did to the Stansbury unit years ago. I’ll take a shorter season over not being able to use modern technology. You want to help herds, shorter seasons might just help accomplish that.


Yea what Critter said. When you limit the days the mindset of hunters changes and for the majority they go from passing on small bucks for a bigger buck because they have lots of time to hunt, to "if its brown its down". Harvest rates actually went up on units where they shortened the seasons. People shot anything that had an antler.

Counter intuative I know.

-DallanC


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

Muzzle loader data FWIW

2010 hunters afield 13189 bucks killed 2990 success 22.6%
2011 10846 2129 19.6%
2012 12916 4079 31.5%
2013 13578 4159 30.6%
2014 13502 4093 30.3%
2015 13873 4734 34.1%
2016 14561 5629 38.6%
2017 14218 4648 32.6%
2018 14134 5199 36.7%
2019 13840 3617 26.1%


----------



## OriginalOscar (Sep 5, 2016)

Vanilla said:


> Those people didn’t just go away.


 I'm "those people". If someone wants to shoot 600 yards with muzzleloader super loads and sniper chart go for it! During the Any Weapons season. 

I'm glad to see the board(s) are reviewing technology. Archery and Muzzleloader should be considered primitive weapons and have guidelines to maintain that threshold. For years hunted the extended muzzleloader season in November with 50 cal Hawken open sights. Great experience, not crowded and people who chose to hunt accepted the limits of open sights and single shot. In my 40's the eyes aged so I upgraded to CVA with 1X scope. 

Trial Cams, Baits, Muzzie Scopes. Liking discussion and direction the boards are moving.


----------



## MooseMeat (Dec 27, 2017)

OriginalOscar said:


> I'm "those people". If someone wants to shoot 600 yards with muzzleloader super loads and sniper chart go for it! During the Any Weapons season.
> 
> I'm glad to see the board(s) are reviewing technology. Archery and Muzzleloader should be considered primitive weapons and have guidelines to maintain that threshold. For years hunted the extended muzzleloader season in November with 50 cal Hawken open sights. Great experience, not crowded and people who chose to hunt accepted the limits of open sights and single shot. In my 40's the eyes aged so I upgraded to CVA with 1X scope.
> 
> Trial Cams, Baits, Muzzie Scopes. Liking discussion and direction the boards are moving.


That 209 in-line is cheating and gives you an unfair advantage. More so than any trail cam ever did. If you really cared about the animals well-being, you’ll go back to that open sights hawken.


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

OriginalOscar said:


> I'm "those people". If someone wants to shoot 600 yards with muzzleloader super loads and sniper chart go for it! During the Any Weapons season.
> 
> I'm glad to see the board(s) are reviewing technology. Archery and Muzzleloader should be considered primitive weapons and have guidelines to maintain that threshold. For years hunted the extended muzzleloader season in November with 50 cal Hawken open sights. Great experience, not crowded and people who chose to hunt accepted the limits of open sights and single shot. In my 40's the eyes aged so I upgraded to CVA with 1X scope.
> 
> Trial Cams, Baits, Muzzie Scopes. Liking discussion and direction the boards are moving.


Don't forget release aides, % let off, and slider sights for archery


----------



## OriginalOscar (Sep 5, 2016)

High Desert Elk said:


> Don't forget release aides, % let off, and slider sights for archery


----------



## 270win (Sep 16, 2010)

Put the hunt back in November, I'll gladly take open sights.


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

270win said:


> Put the hunt back in November, I'll gladly take open sights.


Me too. Nothing dumber than a mule deer buck in a rutting mindset.


----------



## Old Cowboy (Oct 19, 2021)

middlefork said:


> There are many questioning the health of both the Henry herd and Book Cliff herd. And you would think by that metric Antelope Island should be over run with deer. It is not.


----------



## Old Cowboy (Oct 19, 2021)

That's because the coyotes eat all the fawns on the island.


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

Old Cowboy said:


> That's because the coyotes eat all the fawns on the island.


Could very well be true. There are plenty of them out there. But I also see does with fawns. I tend to blame it on habitat. But again that just might be me.

I haven't looked at the collar data for the island to see what it indicates.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

middlefork said:


> Muzzle loader data FWIW
> 
> 2010 hunters afield 13189 bucks killed 2990 success 22.6%
> 2011 10846 2129 19.6%
> ...


For those wondering, scope rules changed as of the 2016 season.


----------



## CPAjeff (Dec 20, 2014)

Interesting data, here are the annual averages:

Pre-Variable power scopes, there was an average of 12,984 hunters, who took an average 3,697 deer - for a success rate of 28.15%

Post Ruling, there was an average of 14,188 hunters, who took an average 4,773 deer - for a success rate of 33.56%

There are more facets than just this data, but it shows that allowing variable power scopes increased the popularity of the muzzleloader hunt with about 1,200 more muzzleloader hunters annually, 1,076 more deer harvested annually, and an increased success rate of 5.41%.

One could, and will argue that deer numbers, weather conditions, etc. played a role in the increased deer harvest - one that I agree with. But, at a very fundamental level, there is data that supports increased success with variable powered scopes on muzzleloaders . . . who would have thought that?!?!


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

Actually I don't think it is that black and white. Too many variables. And I didn't do the numbers on the any weapon hunts. As the tags come from the same pool it would seem to indicate there should be a reduction in any weapon tags. But I'm definitely not a numbers guy.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

CPAjeff said:


> Interesting data, here are the annual averages:
> 
> Pre-Variable power scopes, there was an average of 12,984 hunters, who took an average 3,697 deer - for a success rate of 28.15%
> 
> ...


Cool. 

In order to assume the above is true, (as you stated) you would have to compute similar data for the rifle and archery seasons to determine if it is indeed the scope, or another factors like for instance: a couple of mild winters caused a bump in populations that resulted in a higher harvest independent of the scope type. Another potential issue to swing harvest rates are weather patterns, an ML hunt can be +85F or 28F .. or even both in the same day (2013, incredibly hot in the am, huge storm blew in that afternoon and it was a whiteout blizzard by early evening). Best hunt ever for me, most memorable... my son got his first buck in it.


-DallanC


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

CPAjeff said:


> Interesting data, here are the annual averages:
> 
> Pre-Variable power scopes, there was an average of 12,984 hunters, who took an average 3,697 deer - for a success rate of 28.15%
> 
> ...


I wonder how many of the 5.4% increase were from bumper crops of fawns and a year later a bunch of little two points running around?

Maybe there is no correlation there...


----------



## Lone_Hunter (Oct 25, 2017)

You all can blame me. I'm the black cat that crossed everyones path. The first year (last year), i decide, "Ok, i'm gonna do this critter lick thing, and I know just where to put it"..... and they ban it. Last year was the first year I decided to seriously run trail cams.. now they ban their use past the end of july. Last year was the first year I decided to finally put a scope on my smokepole , and now this thread appears.

My give a schitt, just took a schitt.


----------



## gunplay (Apr 28, 2008)

For the life of me I don’t understand stand how one method of hunting is being attacked by guys who do another. The antis love this stuff when we work within the hunting world to ban something. Compound bows shoot way further and more accurate than recurves and long bows. Rifles now with rangefinders and turrets on scopes are capable of shooting far more accurate at long range than just 10 years ago. It’s all going to get attacked as this can of worms gets opened. If we want to increase opportunity and make it fair on the deer we should only hunt with hand made bows and arrows like the native Americans did.


----------



## camodad (Oct 29, 2021)

Using a original old muzzle with round ball open site. I am a sportsman, what happened to the hunt, they combined it with high power modern stuff, next I will have to put orange on over my buckskins, I would go to a primitive hunt and the rest go with high power stuff, you ruining it for us old timers.


----------



## OriginalOscar (Sep 5, 2016)

middlefork said:


> But I'm definitely not a numbers guy.


Those CPA's are pretty dialed in on data! CPA clearly shows increased interest and harvest when magnified scopes were allowed. Hopefully the boards will reverse and restore to 1x limit.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

gunplay said:


> It’s all going to get attacked as this can of worms gets opened.


That is the very point that the wildlife board is making in creating the “technology committee” they directed at the last meeting. Look at all technology and see what has crossed whatever arbitrary threshold will be set as “fair chase.” That said, it shouldn’t be a huge surprise that the first target is variable higher powered scopes on muzzleloaders. They only started to be allowed 5 years ago. And it was VERY controversial even when it finally passed to allow them. It’s not like there is decades of tradition being attacked here. 



gunplay said:


> If we want to increase opportunity and make it fair on the deer we should only hunt with hand made bows and arrows like the native Americans did.


If you want it like when the native Americans were the ones chasing the deer, you won’t have increased opportunity. There were not many deer on the landscape back then. Let’s not make the argument that we should go back to those times.


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

gunplay said:


> If we want to increase opportunity and make it fair on the deer we should only hunt with hand made bows and arrows like the native Americans did.


They weren't the only ones that did it that way...


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

OriginalOscar said:


> Those CPA's are pretty dialed in on data! CPA clearly shows increased interest and harvest when magnified scopes were allowed. Hopefully the boards will reverse and restore to 1x limit.


Yes it does. But what it doesn't show is any data compared to any weapon and archery hunts. With any weapon and muzzle loader tags coming from the same pool it really doesn't matter unless it shows that muzzle loaders are more effective at killing bucks than rifles.


----------



## fobit (Mar 1, 2017)

I would be glad to see scopes and in-lines banned. The muzzy hunt would go back to a primitive hunt. What I would really like to see is a law like Wisconsin's, that you have to be 100 yards from your truck or ATV to shoot.


----------



## MooseMeat (Dec 27, 2017)

fobit said:


> I would be glad to see scopes and in-lines banned. The muzzy hunt would go back to a primitive hunt. What I would really like to see is a law like Wisconsin's, that you have to be 100 yards from your truck or ATV to shoot.


Once again, utahs muzzleloader hunt was never designed to be a “primitive” hunt. It’s a muzzleloader hunt. Go live in Wisconsin if that style of hunting fits your desires better.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Ferguson Rifles, a breech loading black powder rifle, was invented in 1770.

The Puckle Gun, a repeating Flintlock, was invented in 1718. 

Both are illegal to hunt with in Utah under todays regulations.

-DallanC


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

MooseMeat said:


> Once again, utahs muzzleloader hunt was never designed to be a “primitive” hunt. It’s a muzzleloader hunt. Go live in Wisconsin if that style of hunting fits your desires better.


I told you in the other thread though - it doesn't matter why it started, what it was like 20 years ago, or what it was like 10 years ago.

It matters how they perceive it right now. That's why I want them to come out and say what they believe the current intent of that hunt is. If they make the rules, I want to hear what they think. Then, people can challenge that thinking.

Otherwise, it's going to be random rule after rule that are being challenged. Why not address the core source first before all the rules come? Tell us WTF you are proposing these rules, what data if any you have behind them, and then people can challenge both the purpose of the committee/rules as well as the individual rules. 

If they come out and say this has nothing to do with anything but social elements - then there is a record of that and we are in for a **** future because nothing changes like social trends. If they say "Fair Chase" - camera's and external things are one thing but challenging the accuracy of firearms is another. There isn't anything more fair to an animal you are shooting at than giving it an accurate and lethal shot which modern equipment provides. Again - different angles to attack the rules but it matters what their core "why" is.


----------



## OriginalOscar (Sep 5, 2016)

MooseMeat said:


> Once again, utahs muzzleloader hunt was never designed to be a “primitive” hunt. It’s a muzzleloader hunt. /QUOTE]


And when it started all muzzleloaders where primitive so what's your point? 

Those of us who prefer a muzzleloader season with restrictions, which limit participation and increases our enjoyment never went away.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

So where do we draw the line as far as what is "primitive" with our muzzle loaders? Flintlocks or matchlocks?


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

Critter said:


> So where do we draw the line as far as what is "primitive" with our muzzle loaders? Flintlocks or matchlocks?


We may not need to draw the line. Again - depends on if the DWR is making restrictions based on the concept that it's primitive, why they would do that (do they believe success truly goes down, do they have data, and will they subsequently increase tags), and then cross that bridge. 

If it's purely a social aspect or "fair chase" then it's somewhere in the middle I imagine. 


I don't know what the result of either of those looks like. Someone mentioned earlier if it's "primitive" it would mean almost everyone getting a new ML. If it's social or fair chase based, it likely just impacts optics and maybe a few people shooting ultra's and gunwerks style stuff.


----------



## TPrawitt91 (Sep 1, 2015)

Lone_Hunter said:


> You all can blame me. I'm the black cat that crossed everyones path. The first year (last year), i decide, "Ok, i'm gonna do this critter lick thing, and I know just where to put it"..... and they ban it. Last year was the first year I decided to seriously run trail cams.. now they ban their use past the end of july. Last year was the first year I decided to finally put a scope on my smokepole , and now this thread appears.
> 
> My give a schitt, just took a schitt.


Ya looks like it might be you 😂 Would you put the hunt back in hunting for crying out loud?


----------



## MooseMeat (Dec 27, 2017)

OriginalOscar said:


> And when it started all muzzleloaders where primitive so what's your point?
> 
> Those of us who prefer a muzzleloader season with restrictions, which limit participation and increases our enjoyment never went away.











by definition, my RUML is primitive. Sorry to knot up your panties.


----------



## Irish Lad (Jun 3, 2008)

fobit said:


> I would be glad to see scopes and in-lines banned. The muzzy hunt would go back to a primitive hunt. What I would really like to see is a law like Wisconsin's, that you have to be 100 yards from your truck or ATV to shoot.


Feel free to hunt without scopes and shoot 100 yards away from your vehicle. Nobody is stopping you.



OriginalOscar said:


> And when it started all muzzleloaders where primitive so what's your point?
> 
> Those of us who prefer a muzzleloader season with restrictions, which limit participation and increases our enjoyment never went away.


I find it challenging that you increase your enjoyment by taking someone else's enjoyment away.


----------



## CPAjeff (Dec 20, 2014)

For me, this has been an informative thread. I drew a ML antelope tag in 2021 and had HUGE plans to put together a flintlock or percussion muzzleloader kit and try to kill an antelope with a PRB. When it came right down to it, I got lazy and just stuck with the inline because it was easier. 

I still want to get a percussion and hunt with a PRB - either Colorado cow moose, Idaho antelope, or Wyoming antelope... Does anyone have a .54 Hawken or Lyman they want to get rid of?!?!


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Scopes on Muzzleloaders existed as early as 1835. Just say'n










PS: That butt plate looks horrifically painful if you didn't get it shouldered properly.

-DallanC


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

CPAjeff said:


> For me, this has been an informative thread. I drew a ML antelope tag in 2021 and had HUGE plans to put together a flintlock or percussion muzzleloader kit and try to kill an antelope with a PRB. When it came right down to it, I got lazy and just stuck with the inline because it was easier.
> 
> I still want to get a percussion and hunt with a PRB - either Colorado cow moose, Idaho antelope, or Wyoming antelope... Does anyone have a .54 Hawken or Lyman they want to get rid of?!?!


Do they still make anything in .54 caliber anymore? I know when I have looked for supplies about all you can find is old stock stuff that people have bought up from stores going out of business.

I have a TC Renegade in .54 that I shoot using 430 grain maxi balls that I cast myself. They are deadly on elk withing 100 yards.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Yea 54's are hard to find. And you need minimum a 54 cal to even hunt elk (to meet the minimum projectile weight requirement), if those who want to push for a roundball restriction had their way.

You need a slow twist for roundballs too... 1/66 minimum, 1/72 is better (1/48 sucks). Most existing 54's are much faster than that. IIRC, 1/32's were the popular twist in that caliber. IDK if you can even find guns like that without a HUGE expense.

ML Elk hunting would mostly be done at that point for the average guy.

-DallanC


----------



## CPAjeff (Dec 20, 2014)

Critter said:


> Do they still make anything in .54 caliber anymore?


A few places still have some stuff (i.e. track the wolf). I guess I could settle for a .50 . . .


----------



## Dahlmer (Sep 12, 2007)

OriginalOscar said:


> Those CPA's are pretty dialed in on data! CPA clearly shows increased interest and harvest when magnified scopes were allowed. Hopefully the boards will reverse and restore to 1x limit.


Except that data doesn't show anything but an increase in harvest percentage. There is no context for the information shared.

Here is a little more context which tells a much different story...


PopulationArchery SuccessMZ SuccessRifle Success2019311,125​16.5%​27.0%​29.3%​2018​376,450​22.0%​37.5%​39.4%​2017​363,650​19.9%​33.5%​37.9%​2016​374,450​21.5%​39.3%​43.7%​2015​384,650​23.9%​34.5%​42.5%​2014​355,600​20.8%​31.1%​38.7%​2013​332,900​18.4%​30.7%​37.5%​2012​318,550​19.1%​32.0%​36.5%​2011​286,100​16.4%​19.6%​28.9%​2010​293,700​17.4%​22.7%​25.1%​2009​307,700​20.6%​29.4%​30.3%​2008​273,500​19.7%​27.6%​28.0%​2007​302,430​23.0%​33.3%​35.8%​

This indicates the more likely explanation for increased rates is higher populations numbers. Regardless of weapon choice, success rates generally increase or decrease in relationship to the size of the deer herd. Post hunt deer populations were at there highest from 2015 through 2018, which also happens to be the years with the highest success ratios regardless of weapon choice.

As far as variable scopes driving interest in muzzleloader hunting, the numbers shared only indicate there was an increase in muzzleloader hunters because available tags increased over that time frame. Opportunity in Utah is capped by the number of tags the UDWR makes available. This is shown below.


Permits IssuedHunters Afield% of tags hunted2019​16,342​13,840​85%​2018​16,734​14,134​84%​2017​16,279​14,218​87%​2016​16,941​14,561​86%​2015​16,149​13,873​86%​2014​15,825​13,502​85%​2013​15,649​13,578​87%​2012​15,238​12,916​85%​Increase​1,104​924​

The only way to know if interest in hunting with a muzzleloader increased with the introduction of scopes would be to be able to see application numbers in relation to applications for archery and rifle tags during the same time frame. That data is not available as far as I can tell.

There is little data here to support getting rid of variable scopes for muzzleloaders. 

As has been stated by other posters, the muzzleloader hunt was never called or designated as a primitive weapon hunt which is difficult at best to define anyway.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Hmmm I have an old pitted 50cal hawkin barrel still... I always planned to bore out the rifling and turn it into a 50 or 54 smoothbore shotgun (using sabot body's as the wad). That could actually be interesting if you loaded it up with a bunch of #4, 0 or 00 Buckshot. 

-DallanC


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Critter said:


> I have a TC Renegade in .54 that I shoot using 430 grain maxi balls that I cast myself. They are deadly on elk withing 100 yards.


Yea the shockwave alone with a chuck of lead that big would indeed kill every elk within 100 yards from the point of impact 😁

-DallanC


----------



## Irish Lad (Jun 3, 2008)

Neb75 said:


> Except that data doesn't show anything but an increase in harvest percentage. There is no context for the information shared.
> 
> Here is a little more context which tells a much different story...
> 
> ...


Thanks for the informative post.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

DallanC said:


> Yea the shockwave alone with a chuck of lead that big would indeed kill every elk within 100 yards from the point of impact 😁
> 
> -DallanC


I hit a calf one year in the ribs at about 40 yards. It completely destroyed the ribs on the off side where it came out and that dang calf still ran 50 yards.


----------



## MooseMeat (Dec 27, 2017)

Irish Lad said:


> I find it challenging that you increase your enjoyment by taking someone else's enjoyment away.


That’s because he’s too self centered and only cares about himself. That and he probably can’t find a big deer if his life depended upon on, so he’s hoping banning scopes and inlines will make them magically appear behind every bush that hasn’t burned up on the Nebo.


----------



## Airborne (May 29, 2009)

Here ya go in dumb graph form--I hate excel graphs and refuse to spend anymore time cleaning this up--it's based on data posted by others so maybe it's fake news but it's easier to look at


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

Airborne said:


> View attachment 150883
> 
> 
> Here ya go in dumb graph form--I hate excel graphs and refuse to spend anymore time cleaning this up--it's based on data posted by others so maybe it's fake news but it's easier to look at


It's got to be fake, that archery line needs to be much higher and on the upswing.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

Well- if the numbers in that graph are correct, we just need to look how close the ML success rates line is now in relation to the Any Weapon success line. They made variable scopes legal in 2016 and in 16-19 the lines are much closer than pre 2016. And there must be something to scopes if so many people are upset they are considering going back to pre2016 regs. 

In full disclosure, I was against allowing scopes when it passed. Most public input was against it too. They passed it and I took my ML with a 6-18x40 out to the Vernon and tipped over a buck at longer-than-open-sights range. Hunters seem to follow the regulations. 

I would be against removing scopes if they still allow a free-for-all on the Any weapon hunt. No reason to save ML bucks from being shot at 500 yards if we are just going to shoot them at 1000 yards with a rifle....


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

Packout said:


> Well- if the numbers in that graph are correct, we just need to look how close the ML success rates line is now in relation to the Any Weapon success line. They made variable scopes legal in 2016 and in 16-19 the lines are much closer than pre 2016. And there must be something to scopes if so many people are upset they are considering going back to pre2016 regs.
> 
> In full disclosure, I was against allowing scopes when it passed. Most public input was against it too. They passed it and I took my ML with a 6-18x40 out to the Vernon and tipped over a buck at longer-than-open-sights range. Hunters seem to follow the regulations.
> 
> I would be against removing scopes if they still allow a free-for-all on the Any weapon hunt. No reason to save ML bucks from being shot at 500 yards if we are just going to shoot them at 1000 yards with a rifle....


I really think this is the root of the discussion. But I could be wrong.



OriginalOscar said:


> Those of us who prefer a muzzleloader season with restrictions, which limit participation and increases our enjoyment never went away.


----------



## DNB (12 mo ago)

I'll admit when the regulations on optics changed a few years I was surprised. It seemed like a radical move. Almost like cheating a little bit... I have since CHANGED my tune. I think it boils down to what is an "ethical shot". If you are hunting ML and you see a nice buck at 100 yards, you're going to TAKE the shot regardless of whether you are hunting with optics or steel sights. The question is what method will give you the best opportunity for a "clean kill"? 
For those of us who's eyesight is diminishing and also for the rising generation of young hunters(many of whom have seldom if ever shot with open sights) optics on ML is a huge blessing.
I had the chance to hunt ML deer with 12 and 15 year old daughters this past season. They both were successful in filling their tags. We did our homework. We spent time at the range getting comfortable with the gun, we scouted a good area for deer that wouldn't require shots over 150 yards and we had a little/lot of luck come our way. My 12 year old made a 120 yard shot on opening day and my 15 year old made a 95 yard shot the following Saturday. One shot, one kill. In both cases, the deer didn't go more than 50 yards. I can almost guarantee if we were forced to use open sights, the result would have been much different. More than likely a shoot and miss... Or worse, a wounded animal that would have suffered and eventually died without being found. BTW, that's a great way to discourage first time hunters from ever taking the field again. 
So my question is, do optics aid in "taking a more ethical shot"? As long as it is a reasonable distance, I think most logical people would say YES. Hope the DNR thinks so too!!


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

If the scopes really made a huge difference, you would see a significant spike in ML harvest and a decrease in Rifle harvest (due to more bucks being removed before the rifle season starts). The chart shows ML and Rifle harvests following the same up and down trajectories, most likely due to herd populations and overall buck availability.

But, If you notice, harvest success even with scopes still isnt above the 2008 through 2011 harvest period.

I'm curious why 2015 had such a drop off in success. It makes the 2016 scope success look artificially high in relation. But again, rifle success has the same dip so its probably due to herd quantity taking a drop.

IMO, the data set is still to short to draw a definitive conclusion... but it is interesting. Kudos to those that too the time to gather and build the data.

-DallanC


----------



## OriginalOscar (Sep 5, 2016)

Amazing suggesting muzzleloader optics roll back to 1X triggers such hysteria.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

OriginalOscar said:


> Amazing suggesting muzzleloader optics roll back to 1X triggers such hysteria.


Nah. Its just the Topic of the New Year. Look back every year this site has existed. Around this time of year we always find a subject to argue to death while we wait for the ice to get thick enough to get out fishing.

-DallanC


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

DallanC said:


> Nah. Its just the Topic of the New Year. Look back every year this site has existed. Around this time of year we always find a subject to argue to death while we wait for the ice to get thick enough to get out fishing.
> 
> -DallanC



We haven't really had our usual annual blowout thread on the Expo (yet) this year, so we need to argue about something. At least the ice is finally cooperating.


----------



## Airborne (May 29, 2009)

Packout made some great points, especially that any deer 'saved' by getting rid of muzzy scopes would very well be harvested by unchecked rifle hunters. I didn't think about that aspect of it.

I do think it's interesting that archery success is relatively flat even with the improvements in archery tech. This sorta makes sense, I don't see a tremendous advantage in the new bows over my 2010 Hoyt.


----------



## Dahlmer (Sep 12, 2007)

Airborne said:


> View attachment 150883
> 
> 
> Here ya go in dumb graph form--I hate excel graphs and refuse to spend anymore time cleaning this up--it's based on data posted by others so maybe it's fake news but it's easier to look at


I think your dates are backwards on the graph, at least for rifle and muzzleloader. The highest success ratios were from 2015 to 2018. This seems to indicate they were 2008 - 2011. This would also indicate rifle success increased at a higher rate than muzzleloader success.


----------



## Airborne (May 29, 2009)

Neb75 said:


> I think your dates are backwards on the graph, at least for rifle and muzzleloader. The highest success ratios were from 2015 to 2018. This seems to indicate they were 2008 - 2011. This would also indicate rifle success increased at a higher rate than muzzleloader success.


Yikes! My bad--I fixed it. I have all sorts of excuses as to why I suck but I don't want to bore ya--thanks!


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

DNB said:


> I'll admit when the regulations on optics changed a few years I was surprised. It seemed like a radical move. Almost like cheating a little bit... I have since CHANGED my tune. I think it boils down to what is an "ethical shot". If you are hunting ML and you see a nice buck at 100 yards, you're going to TAKE the shot regardless of whether you are hunting with optics or steel sights. The question is what method will give you the best opportunity for a "clean kill"?
> For those of us who's eyesight is diminishing and also for the rising generation of young hunters(many of whom have seldom if ever shot with open sights) optics on ML is a huge blessing.
> I had the chance to hunt ML deer with 12 and 15 year old daughters this past season. They both were successful in filling their tags. We did our homework. We spent time at the range getting comfortable with the gun, we scouted a good area for deer that wouldn't require shots over 150 yards and we had a little/lot of luck come our way. My 12 year old made a 120 yard shot on opening day and my 15 year old made a 95 yard shot the following Saturday. One shot, one kill. In both cases, the deer didn't go more than 50 yards. I can almost guarantee if we were forced to use open sights, the result would have been much different. More than likely a shoot and miss... Or worse, a wounded animal that would have suffered and eventually died without being found. BTW, that's a great way to discourage first time hunters from ever taking the field again.
> So my question is, do optics aid in "taking a more ethical shot"? As long as it is a reasonable distance, I think most logical people would say YES. Hope the DNR thinks so too!!


I've been torn on this subject but what DNB just explained has changed my mind and gives some pretty good reasons why the DWR should leave the muzzleloader regulations the same as they are right now.


----------



## TPrawitt91 (Sep 1, 2015)

Airborne said:


> Packout made some great points, especially that any deer 'saved' by getting rid of muzzy scopes would very well be harvested by unchecked rifle hunters. I didn't think about that aspect of it.
> 
> I do think it's interesting that archery success is relatively flat even with the improvements in archery tech. This sorta makes sense, I don't see a tremendous advantage in the new bows over my 2010 Hoyt.


Getting to archery range is hard lol forget bow technology. 

I'm an average hunter and closing the 80-90 yard range down to 40-50 yards can be quite the challenge depending on circumstance, even with a Hoyt 😂


----------



## Lone_Hunter (Oct 25, 2017)

Still waiting on the 2022 field regs guide book. Any news on muzzy scope changes? If i was to make a guess, i'd guess they're doing away with them. I just want to know one way or another so I can order and install a replacement sight... or not.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

It’s not happening for this year.


----------



## Pokesmole (Oct 29, 2016)

Vanilla said:


> It’s not happening for this year.


I’m more worried about the years to come.
I’d still hunt with a muzzy if they got rid of scopes. But I’d rather have magnified scopes.


----------



## KineKilla (Jan 28, 2011)

I would hunt with open sights but prefer some type of magnifying optic. Or, at a minimum, allow a 1x or fixed power scope.

Sent from my SM-N976U using Tapatalk


----------



## Fowlmouth (Oct 4, 2008)

I just got a Accura LR ,45 last year. IMO it will be worthless without a magnified scope. I'll sell it and shoot my CVA Magbolt .50. without a scope.


----------



## Lone_Hunter (Oct 25, 2017)

Pokesmole said:


> I’m more worried about the years to come.
> I’d still hunt with a muzzy if they got rid of scopes. But I’d rather have magnified scopes.


A proper aperture sight might be the ticket. Somewhere in my slew of spare parts, i've a williams WGRS sight. I know you can change the aperture to a smaller or larger diameter, with a brass ring for easier visibility. The trouble I've always had is finding a front sight that works well with it. Most front sight posts will have a fiber optic, which is fine for visibility, but for me at least, it throws off my point of aim. 

Your supposed to use the top of the fiber optic as your point of aim, but my eyes natural tedency is to center the fiber optic like a red dot on an AR. (easy to do because it is literally a round dot) Which would be fine, except I end up maxing out the rear sight elevation at a 100 yard zero. Of course, there's the question of where to put that rear apature sight. I like to mount it as far back as i can for a longer sight radius, but for elevation adjustment it might work better where the factory rear sight used to be halfway down the barrel (retarded sight radius I think).

Also that front sight post fiber optic makes for a big honking bead. At 100 yards, shooting at a paper plate, it takes up the entire plate in the sight picture.

I've long been looking for a better solution. Last year, it was a vortex scope.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

I still have my 1x on my ML from before the switch. 

If you guys want them banned, let me know and I will go buy a variable ML scope. That should do the trick.


----------



## MooseMeat (Dec 27, 2017)

Lone_Hunter said:


> Still waiting on the 2022 field regs guide book. Any news on muzzy scope changes? If i was to make a guess, i'd guess they're doing away with them. I just want to know one way or another so I can order and install a replacement sight... or not.


If you got your hunting news from somewhere other than a forum and paid a little closer attention to what’s happening in the meetings regarding utah wildlife, you’d know that muzzy scopes are still legal for 2022


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

As for scope or no scope there are plenty of options out there for us visually challenged citizens. That is if in the future they do ban them.

I myself have a tough time focusing on three objects at a time like you have to do with open sights, but I found sights that I can use on my muzzle loader where a scope isn't a option. 




Sent from my SM-J737V using Tapatalk


----------



## 2full (Apr 8, 2010)

I'll just go back to a peep sight. 
Loved my Lyman peep sight.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

I used a peep sight for years then a friend told me about the SeeAllSights Delta sight. This sight is legal in Colorado 









SeeAll - Tritium Gun Sights


SeeAll Sights



www.seeallopensight.com





Sent from my SM-J737V using Tapatalk


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

Any change to a rule has a schedule to go through with the RAC's and WB. 2022 is already on the books.

I'm going to take a WAG and say that the current push back to the trail cam issue will take precedent to the muzzle loader scope issue in the short term.

If the WB actually forms a "technology committee" to look at rule changes then that committee will have a huge job to both define and limit any technology. There are some easy answers come to mind but others are going to be much more contentious. I would hope to think that they need some hard data to back their decisions. We will see.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Critter said:


> I used a peep sight for years then a friend told me about the SeeAllSights Delta sight. This sight is legal in Colorado
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So its legal because its "open" sights? And this means its not a scope, even though it has a magnifying lens on it?

-DallanC


----------



## OriginalOscar (Sep 5, 2016)

MooseMeat said:


> If you got your hunting news from somewhere other than a forum and paid a little closer attention to what’s happening in the meetings regarding utah wildlife, you’d know that muzzy scopes are still legal for 2022


Sorry but MM has spoken. You are not worthy of pledging his Sorority!


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

DallanC said:


> So its legal because its "open" sights? And this means its not a scope, even though it has a magnifying lens on it?
> 
> -DallanC


All that is being magnified is the delta sight and not the target. My friend took it to CP&W and they it was good. But get this, they offer the same type of sight but it has a post with a straight line across the top and they said that that one wasn't legal 

Sent from my SM-J737V using Tapatalk


----------



## crazyforestchicken (3 mo ago)

Vanilla said:


> This is a narrative that needs to stop. Nobody, and I mean, NOBODY that has any clue thinks any of this is about “saving herds.” The wildlife board was very open about the trail cam discussion- it was not biological. It was all about hunters and what they want. It has nothing to do with herd health, and the decision makers have been clear about this. Trying to use a straw man on biology for this has got to stop. It’s nothing but a red herring, at very best.


 What the hunters want? The survey showed that they wanted transmitting game cameras banned, not all game cameras. The wildlife board just made that decision on their own - against the will of the racs and the hunters. I know you will cite the question about Nevada style ban in the survey, but when asked directly if they wanted to ban non-transmitting trail cameras for hunting the answer was unequivocally no.


----------



## crazyforestchicken (3 mo ago)

Vanilla said:


> There is a ton of logic in restricting scope types on muzzleloaders. The muzzleloader hunt was never intended to let people kill animals at 600, even 800 yards. You want to do that, jump into the rifle pool and go let it fly.
> 
> But again, this is social not biological.


Then ban the thing we are trying to solve. Just say it isn't legal to take an animal at more than 200yds, or 150yds, or 100yds (or whatever) with a muzzleloader. Then people don't have to take off their already purchased and sighted in scopes, it will allow them the best chance at an ethical kill when they do shoot at shorter ranges, and it would likely avoid the civil war that might result if variable scopes are banned. Both of my daughter's deer with a muzzleloader have been under 50yds with a variable scope - why take that away - it definitely isn't falling in the long range concern expressed.


----------



## ns450f (Aug 28, 2018)

crazyforestchicken said:


> Then ban the thing we are trying to solve. Just say it isn't legal to take an animal at more than 200yds, or 150yds, or 100yds (or whatever) with a muzzleloader. Then people don't have to take off their already purchased and sighted in scopes, it will allow them the best chance at an ethical kill when they do shoot at shorter ranges, and it would likely avoid the civil war that might result if variable scopes are banned. Both of my daughter's deer with a muzzleloader have been under 50yds with a variable scope - why take that away - it definitely isn't falling in the long range concern expressed.



Not realistic, it would be much more plausible for the DNR to enforce a ban on optics vs a restriction on shot distance.

What are they going to do, follow along with every hunter and range their shots?


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Joins the forum to revive an 8 month old thread and then doesn’t even look at the context of what was being discussed. God bless America!

Crazychicken, keep quoting further posts of mine so you can see how I feel about the proposals, not just taking posts out of context suggesting we should stop saying these ideas are about herd health and arguing points I don’t make.


----------



## MrShane (Jul 21, 2019)

The most effective way to limit effectiveness of a firearm is to set restrictions on the ignition/propellant/bullet combination.
Why do you think Idaho and other similar States do what they do?
That is what the Technology Committee should be looking at.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

MrShane said:


> The most effective way to limit effectiveness of a firearm is to set restrictions on the ignition/propellant/bullet combination.
> Why do you think Idaho and other similar States do what they do?
> That is what the Technology Committee should be looking at.


I have not kept up on the tech committee like I’d hoped to. Life happens. But I know those were all part of the discussion. If they end up in a recommendation…we shall see.


----------



## MooseMeat (Dec 27, 2017)

So on Wednesday, the opener, on a mountain full of hunters (and deer) I heard 1 other shot all day that wasn’t mine…. The scopes aren’t the problem. 

I’m all for limiting technology (logically), but not until they address the most successful weapon type. If you cut ALW tag numbers in half, then you have my full support in technology restrictions. Without doing so, you’ll lose any ground gained in animal survival opening day of the rifle hunt.


----------



## Pokesmole (Oct 29, 2016)

I think the best way to limit range, would be to limit the ignition sources. Keep scopes. Don’t allow the guns that are using large rifle primers. Then the playing field is basically capped with what most of us are used to. 209 primers and around 150 gr max charge (depending on what propellant ya use)


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Pokesmole said:


> I think the best way to limit range, would be to limit the ignition sources. Keep scopes. Don’t allow the guns that are using large rifle primers. Then the playing field is basically capped with what most of us are used to. 209 primers and around 150 gr max charge (depending on what propellant ya use)


Ignition source is irrelevant. It contributes little to the overall velocity or accuracy.

I've said it countless times, I'll say it again. You want to limit range, require full bore lead only projectiles. You can only put so much pressure behind them without gas blowing by deforming the side and throwing off accuracy. Thats really all you need to do.

People will stop using Blackhorn as its too stout for pure lead conicals, Black Powder and Pyrodex max charge will still stay around 120gr. Velocities will hover around 1850fps on the high end. Most people will be around 1650fps to retain accuracy. Problem solved.

Next step is to require exposed ignition. You have to be able to see the cap / conical when loaded. That returns weather to the equation.

-DallanC


----------



## Pokesmole (Oct 29, 2016)

DallanC said:


> Ignition source is irrelevant. It contributes little to the overall velocity or accuracy.
> 
> I've said it countless times, I'll say it again. You want to limit range, require full bore lead only projectiles. You can only put so much pressure behind them without gas blowing by deforming the side and throwing off accuracy. Thats really all you need to do.
> 
> ...


I’m by no means an expert. I was just under the impression that changing the ignition source to a large rifle primer allowed for a higher amount of powder to be effectively burned.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Pokesmole said:


> I’m by no means an expert. I was just under the impression that changing the ignition source to a large rifle primer allowed for a higher amount of powder to be effectively burned.


No not really, the hotter primers are required to ignite the new powder compositions like BH209. BH209 burns hotter and quicker with a more complete burn. A longer barrel will get you a more complete burn with normal powders... but few guys want to haul around a 28" barreled frontstuffer.

Hotter primers actually cause problems with normal muzzleloading powders like Pyrodex, hence the less powerful "ML" 209 primers that hit the market a decade ago.

-DallanC


----------



## ns450f (Aug 28, 2018)

Just my opiniom but the way I see it, the muzzleloader season was introduced before any modern advances in muzzleloader technology when people were hunting with completely traditional equipment.

The muzzle loader season was originally introduced for people who wanted to hunt with a traditional firearm because they liked the idea of hunting the way that the original frontiersmen and trappers hunted because they enjoyed shooting black powder and wanted to preserve our history and heritage.

It wasn't until the idea of the muzzle loader season was first introduced that the free market and technology along with consumers/hunters who wanted to get ahead by hunting before regular rifle hunters and hunting multiple seasons pushed muzzle loading technology to the point where the tech is as effective as rifle hunting was in the 1960's.

To me it seems that the whole idea of the muzzle loader season has been destroyed.

How would you feel if you were into history, keeping our heritage alive, and wanted to hunt with an entirely traditional black powder rifle. But now in 2022 you have to compete with hunters that are using modern inline muzzle loader rifles with high powered scopes.

It is not fair when you realize that the entire season was started to give the purist traditionalist an advantage over the regular rifle hunters.

Same thing applies with traditional archery and compound bows.

To me the best solution is to introduce a special season for traditional only weapons. Only stick bows with no sights, triggers, or laser range finder tools. And only traditional flintlock muzzle loaders.


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

ns450f said:


> Just my opiniom but the way I see it, the muzzleloader season was introduced before any modern advances in muzzleloader technology when people were hunting with completely traditional equipment.
> 
> The muzzle loader season was originally introduced for people who wanted to hunt with a traditional firearm because they liked the idea of hunting the way that the original frontiersmen and trappers hunted because they enjoyed shooting black powder and wanted to preserve our history and heritage.
> 
> ...


Hams hunts already exist. Easy enough to start applying. Not so easy when you want to carve out the space in every unit.
Scopes are the #1 easiest thing to check for LEO and they have a pretty big say on what can be done.

The last wildlife board meeting there was pushback by certain board members who think the board is being controlled by preordained committees putting out recommendation as if they are the rules. Not allowing the WB to make up their own minds. So much so they want to have guidelines as to how and who are chosen for any committee.

Any recommendations by the Technology committee will bang up a against some pretty stiff resistance. Hopefully any changes that end up being made will help eliminate strife not add to it.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

ns450f said:


> Just my opiniom but the way I see it, the muzzleloader season was introduced before any modern advances in muzzleloader technology when people were hunting with completely traditional equipment.
> 
> The muzzle loader season was originally introduced for people who wanted to hunt with a traditional firearm because they liked the idea of hunting the way that the original frontiersmen and trappers hunted because they enjoyed shooting black powder and wanted to preserve our history and heritage.
> 
> ...


I'm not going to do it for you but do some research on so called muzzle loaders.

You
You will find that scopes have been around for quite a while along with breach loaders.

If you want to go to a true primitive weapon take a look at a matchlock 

Sent from my SM-A426U using Tapatalk


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

middlefork said:


> So much so they want to have guidelines as to how and who are chosen for any committee.


This would be FANTASTIC if they’d do that! I knew the WB gave directions to establish a technology committee. I have zero clue how any of them were actually selected. I saw no announcements or advertisements to nominate someone or apply for it. And when the list of names were GRAMA requested by a member of this forum they were told that was private information and not turned over. I have since found out who was on it, but still no idea how they got selected. I attended a meeting and it was dominated and completely driven by a well known individual, and he is NOT a member of the committee. The public was told they can attend but not speak or participate, only committee members. That doesn’t apply if you are the head of SFW, I guess



middlefork said:


> Any recommendations by the Technology committee will bang up a against some pretty stiff resistance. Hopefully any changes that end up being made will help eliminate strife not add to it.


Of course, the devil will always be in the details. If they come out with recommendations for drastic changes to all weapon types and hunts, they will push back. If the only immediate recommendation is removing high-powered variable scopes off muzzleloaders, I’m guessing that would pass rather easily. Again, you’ll have to wait and see what the specifics are.

Keep in mind, these committees come up with recommendations and that’s it. There are multiple steps before it gets to the WB for a vote after the recommendation. DWR will likely send out surveys based upon the recommendations. They’ll gather public comment. Then the DWR will come up with a recommendation. It will go to the RACs, and then to the Board.


----------



## Lone_Hunter (Oct 25, 2017)

I zero my 308 at 300 yards. Just sayin.





EDIT: At this point I think one needs to go to DWR, and ask them what their origiinal intention behind/for muzzleloader season is/ was. Cause for all intents and purposes, Muzzy is now a second rifle season where you don't have to wear blaze orange. It isn't just scopes, lots of other advancements have obviously been made. On a side note, I've a cousin in law who got a guy on trail camera last september totin' a paramount around. I'm not the biggest gun nut in the world, but I could ID it right away. Your going to see more and more of these in use.


----------



## crazyforestchicken (3 mo ago)

ns450f said:


> Not realistic, it would be much more plausible for the DNR to enforce a ban on optics vs a restriction on shot distance.
> 
> What are they going to do, follow along with every hunter and range their shots?


Ns450f I am new here, don't understand how this site even works, am apparently 8 months late on the draw, haven't read the entire thread, and told Vanilla that I would bow out so I should. So I am going to pre-apologize for all that and anything I do wrong here. 

All that said, I see what you are saying. Totally valid - very difficult to enforce. To be honest I see that as not our problem. It seems that we make laws that are more restrictive than we actually want - in order to make them enforceable - to help potentially stop the select few that will break them. I get the concept but don't love the principal. I would personally prefer not to punish everyone in order to make sure a few don't cheat or to make the enforcement officers' jobs easier (nothing against the enforcement officers by the way) . Just my opinion - probably not a popular one - but my opinion nonetheless. Ok, I'm out. I have worn out my welcome on the first visit


----------



## crazyforestchicken (3 mo ago)

Vanilla said:


> Joins the forum to revive an 8 month old thread and then doesn’t even look at the context of what was being discussed. God bless America!
> 
> Crazychicken, keep quoting further posts of mine so you can see how I feel about the proposals, not just taking posts out of context suggesting we should stop saying these ideas are about herd health and arguing points I don’t make.


Fair enough. I'll bow out. Sorry if I missed the point at hand.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

No reason to bow out. Stick around, contribute to our dysfunctional community!

The main point of my posts were that people need to quit thinking any of these changes are about helping the herds. They are not biological and will not help the herds at all.

These are completely social proposals. Social demands are a part of the equation here in management decisions, so this isn’t the first and won’t be the last time this happens. But let’s honestly discuss it in that mindset, and quit throwing out the “it won’t help the herds” straw man argument so many have thrown out.

What do we want our hunts to look like? That’s a tough answer to get any consensus.


----------



## ns450f (Aug 28, 2018)

Vanilla said:


> The main point of my posts were that people need to quit thinking any of these changes are about helping the herds. They are not biological and will not help the herds at all.


Yes you are right. The most obvious ways I can think of to help the herds is to get rid of competition for the elk and deer. 

The first thing that needs to go is the wild horses.

Than I think utah should take a long look at its grazing practices on public land. Personally I think the state should cut the beef and sheep numbers in half.


----------



## Airborne (May 29, 2009)

I heard 10+ shots per day on my daughters muzzy hunt so that negates moosemeats claim --scopes are the problem 😄 
personal anecdotes are fun! I really did hear a ton of shots though

Scopes were not on muzzys in Utah from the time the hunt started in like the 70's up until 2016-ish and we all functioned fine. If they pull scopes there isn't going to be civil war. You pull the scope and sell it or put it on another rifle, buy some open sights and put em on your muzzy--pretty easy. Nobody b!tched about having to buy a scope when they allowed them.

I sat on my glassing spot during my daughters hunt and spotted three nice General Season 4 point bucks over two days, all around 700-900 yards away with zero wind. With a scoped Paramount that shot is way doable and those bucks are dead, just like on the ALW hunt. Modern muzzys w/ scopes are next level and are only getting better. The muzzy hunt now is a single shot rifle hunt. If we maintain the status quo I'm gonna have to buy a high end muzzy and make some ridiculously long shots and kill some good bucks just out of spite!

#ban muzzy scopes#

Also my 13 year old daughter used a scope on her muzzy--she killed her first buck--I might even post a pic--you guys can call me a hypocrite on that thread if I get around to posting it. I'll use what's legal!


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

Airborne said:


> #ban muzzy scopes#
> 
> Also my 13 year old daughter used a scope on her muzzy--she killed her first buck--I might even post a pic--you guys can call me a hypocrite on that thread if I get around to posting it. I'll use what's legal!


You aren't being a hypocrite, you are just using what the laws allow. I'm the same way, if I hunt the Utah muzzle loader I'll bring my muzzle loader that has a scope on it. If I hunt another state that doesn't allow inline muzzle loaders I'll bring my side lock, so on and so forth. 

I have 3 different muzzle loaders so that I can stay within the laws of the states that I am hunting. But I would like to see scopes done away with.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Airborne said:


> Scopes were not on muzzys in Utah from the time the hunt started in like the 70's up until 2016-ish and we all functioned fine. If they pull scopes there isn't going to be civil war.


I almost forgot about that part. Ha...civil war if they ban scopes on muzzleloaders. Just make sure you bring your scoped muzzleloader to the battle!

I recently heard from an "industry source" that manufacturing and production strategies on the muzzy game are already changing in anticipation of more and more technology limitations being put in place around the country.

As I stated above, it is not going to be easy to build a consensus around what we want our hunting opportunities to look like going forward, but what is really clear in Utah and other western states is that a free for all on hunting technology is neither sustainable nor desired by the vast majority of people. Limits will be coming, it's just a matter of what and how quickly. What are the "reasonable" regulations that most people would agree upon?

Trail cameras were controversial, especially since the Board didn't follow the initial recommendation. That said, I think most people would agree that restricting data transmitting cameras is probably reasonable, whereas the controversy comes in regular cameras that require work to go pull cards, etc. are probably mostly looked on favorably. I think they should have gone with the original recommendation to gain more of a consensus.

I don't have a problem with scopes on muzzies. I never had one when I used to hunt the muzzleloader season exclusively, but I don't have an issue with others using them. But again, I think most of us would agree that limiting muzzleloaders so they are not able to make 500-600+ yard shots easily is probably a good idea. How do you go about doing that? Scopes, bullets, type of weapon have all been discussed. What is the easiest and least intrusive/obstructive measure that can be taken? Requiring full barrel lead bullets may not be the wisest thing. What do we do on units where they have actively tried remove lead for other purposes, like on the Pauns and Zion, as an example?

I'm spit-balling here and just talking about loud, but restrictions are coming. What are the ones that make the most sense and have the least negative impact on people? I am not in favor of any restrictions that would require an entire set of hunters to have to go all new equipment just to remain hunting. Taking a scope off a muzzleloader does not require everyone to go buy a new type of rifle to legally hunt, as an example. Banning in-line muzzleloaders would for many people.

Night vision and thermal imaging are no-brainers. If you need those or are using those, you are not a sportsman. It's called hunting, not killing. Drone usage and fly overs during the hunt are also easy ones for me. Getting into current weapons is not so clear, however. 

If we are going to do this, let's do it reasonably and build consensus as much as possible. Nothing we do will get full support from everyone, and you shouldn't need that to proceed, but we can build consensus around reasonable and rational restrictions that make sense...for the most part.


----------



## MooseMeat (Dec 27, 2017)

I think one thing that needs to take place is you need to use a rifle that stores the ram road on the barrel like most of them. A free floating barrel without a ram rod attached to it is a lot more accurate than your regular muzzleloader that has another piece of steel attached to it impacting the way the barrel flexes and moves when it’s discharged and the bullet is traveling down the barrel.


----------



## Fowlmouth (Oct 4, 2008)

If this really is Technology based, then the DWR needs to look at bows and rifles the same way. Why pick on muzzleloaders? Modern rifles and scopes that can be dialed up easily past 1000 yards should be more of a concern IMO. Compound bows need to be traded in for longbows and rifles all need to be lever action and no scopes. Sounds silly right? Well, that’s how silly taking scopes off muzzleloaders sounds to me. Killing is killing, and dead is dead no matter how you do it.


----------



## Airborne (May 29, 2009)

Fowlmouth said:


> If this really is Technology based, then the DWR needs to look at bows and rifles the same way. Why pick on muzzleloaders? Modern rifles and scopes that can be dialed up easily past 1000 yards should be more of a concern IMO. Compound bows need to be traded in for longbows and rifles all need to be lever action and no scopes. Sounds silly right? Well, that’s how silly taking scopes off muzzleloaders sounds to me. Killing is killing, and dead is dead no matter how you do it.


So night vision and thermal scopes, armed drones, punt guns for waterfowl, poison, flame throwers, frag grenades...all cool then, I mean dead is dead not matter how ya do it, sounds silly right?

DWR reverses the scopes on muzzleloaders decision they made 6 years ago and all of a sudden it's the end of the world! They can reverse one decision and that doesn't mean they have to look at bows and rifles the same way. False equivalence hallowed be thy name


----------



## Fowlmouth (Oct 4, 2008)

Airborne said:


> So night vision and thermal scopes, armed drones, punt guns for waterfowl, poison, flame throwers, frag grenades...all cool then, I mean dead is dead not matter how ya do it, sounds silly right?
> 
> DWR reverses the scopes on muzzleloaders decision they made 6 years ago and all of a sudden it's the end of the world! They can reverse one decision and that doesn't mean they have to look at bows and rifles the same way. False equivalence hallowed be thy name


Why wouldn't they look at bows and rifles the same way? Technology is Technology! Every weapon we use to hunt with has become more technologically advanced.


----------



## Pokesmole (Oct 29, 2016)

Help the industry as well as the common hunter. Limit it to fixed 4x or less and you’ll see every manufacturer begin to make them again.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Fowlmouth said:


> Why wouldn't they look at bows and rifles the same way? Technology is Technology! Every weapon we use to hunt with has become more technologically advanced.


It is all about how you view the muzzleloader hunt. Do you want it to be an extension of the ALW hunt? If so, no regulations need to happen. If you want it to be different than the ALW hunt, than we need to start talking about how to make it so. Just giving it a different season doesn't make it different, but with technological advancements, it sure feels like it's just a different season. 

I don't think this is about restricting how far an animal could be killed as much as it is about restricting a type of weaponry that was probably supposed to be different, hence why it was given it's own season separate from the ALW (rifle) hunt. I think there are ways you could probably restrict rifles and bows, but this false equivalency of saying if they take scopes off muzzleloaders that means bows have to go to long bows with stick arrows and rifles need to go lever action and no scopes is beyond silly. And it's just a giant fallacy that isn't even logical. Just my opinion, I guess.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

Pokesmole said:


> Help the industry as well as the common hunter. Limit it to fixed 4x or less and you’ll see every manufacturer begin to make them again.


You would have to get a lot more states to restrict scopes to 4x to get the manufactures to make a 4x scope for a muzzle loader

Sent from my SM-A426U using Tapatalk


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Critter said:


> You would have to get a lot more states to restrict scopes to 4x to get the manufactures to make a 4x scope for a muzzle loader


Just use a 4x shotgun scope. They are made for heavy recoil. Lots of those available.

-DallanC


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

I am too lazy to look this up, but if anyone wants to give a run down on a comparison of muzzleloader restrictions between western states (Utah, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada).

I'm guessing removing scopes in Utah won't put us out of line with many of these states. Not that we have to do it if others do it, just pointing out that it would not be the end of the world or anything unique. As has been mentioned many times, this law has only been allowed for 6 years. It's not like you have generations or even decades of history you are wiping out.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Sabots were allowed... then restricted from hunting for a few years... then re-allowed.

/shrug

-DallanC


----------



## rtockstein (Mar 17, 2019)

I think there should be range limits on all weapon forms. Bow, muzzy, and CF rifle. Just how that's accomplished, I don't know. 

I'd be in favor of banning scopes if there was a widely and readily available open sights option for those that have impaired vision, or maybe they would be allowed to use a scope. But, I don't think a scope is the primary issue. It's the ignition system, propellant, and projectile. With a proper aperture sight, you can shoot game to 500yards.

I'd say for muzzy season, only exposed hammer/nipple/perc caps allowed or older forms of ignition. No sabots, pure lead or lead alloy only, no gas checks. Extra preference points if you verify harvest with patched ball. Get a buff on the OTC range creek tag with a patched ball and you get the sportsman's tag. If you're caught with smokeless powder in your gun, you get sent to Chinese prisons to help peel garlic for the rest of your life well after your fingernails fall off. 

We should get a bow restrictions thread going so I can pontificate on those in the appropriate place.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

500 yard sight.










-DallanC


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

rtockstein said:


> I think there should be range limits on all weapon forms. Bow, muzzy, and CF rifle. Just how that's accomplished, I don't know.
> 
> I'd be in favor of banning scopes if there was a widely and readily available open sights option for those that have impaired vision, or maybe they would be allowed to use a scope.


I adapted in Colorado since they don't allow scopes and I have a problem using most of the open sights out there. First I went to peep sights which worked quite well. I then went to a SeeAll sight that has a Colorado legal system.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

I love the open sites on my Rem700ML. The rear ramp is far forward enough my eyes still focus on it pretty good. /shrug

Go back to open sights or 1x... or if feeling generous: 2x for us older farts.

-DallanC


----------



## Fowlmouth (Oct 4, 2008)

I'm just saying, if we have a Technology Committee, then by all means they need to look at all the advancements with every weapon. I keep reading comments about when the muzzleloader hunt first started it was intended for mountain man style rifles. Well, no different than when the bow hunt got its start with recurves and longbows. Bows are more technologically advanced now than they were when that hunt first started. You want to talk about a primitive style hunt, that's what the bow hunt should be. Not the muzzleloader hunt. Another thing, if we keep caving in, where will it all stop? The Technology Committee could look at range finders, spotting scopes among many other things to ban. Oh well, I hope it all works out in the end. My daughter shot a 2 point Sunday morning with my Accura V2 and variable scope. It was great!


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

We need to define just what the muzzleloader season is, before we should be discussing what type of sights are allowed, components etc etc. 

The DWR ironically always treated it as "single shot" rifle season. Proof of this was that the original tags came out of the rifle pool, and prior to either hunt starting you could swap your tag to the other season type for a $6 fee. It wasn't until option 2 and the micro units were implemented that ML season got its own tag allocations.

-DallanC


----------



## Pokesmole (Oct 29, 2016)

Okay I’ll gladly switch to a primitive muzzy, just bring the dates back to November like it was. And I’m all in.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

I don't see any need for a November buck hunt when they are starting to turn dumb. Late September works just fine. 

The first muzzle loader hunts were in September until hunters started to cry and wanted the later hunt


Sent from my SM-A426U using Tapatalk


----------



## callofthewild2 (May 10, 2021)

Pokesmole said:


> Okay I’ll gladly switch to a primitive muzzy, just bring the dates back to November like it was. And I’m all in.


i don't have a dog in this fight. i have never put a scope on my rem700ml and i like it that way. so if there is a scope ban i'm ok. if there isn't a scope ban i'm fine as well. but i do miss the november ml hunt.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

callofthewild2 said:


> i have never put a scope on my rem700ml and i like it that way.


So it would still be possible to hunt if they restricted muzzleloader scopes? Well I'll be... 



callofthewild2 said:


> but i do miss the november ml hunt.


This is why my family all bought muzzleloaders...and then they switched the season to September. It's not November, but it's still a great season and absolutely awesome time to be out in the woods. One day I may get back into the muzzy game, it's a great time.


----------



## Fowlmouth (Oct 4, 2008)

Vanilla said:


> So it would still be possible to hunt if they restricted muzzleloader scopes? Well I'll be...


The same could be said for Archery and Rifle too. Why just restrict muzzleloaders?


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Fowlmouth said:


> The same could be said for Archery and Rifle too. Why just restrict muzzleloaders?


Which change in rules in the last 6 years did archery and rifle add that significantly changed the game for their respective weapons and season? If you can point to one, I'll gladly suggest it is looked at to tame things back a little bit. The context of this entire discussion is important. Allowing scopes at the time in 2016 was NOT overwhelmingly supported. In fact, it was quite controversial, with even die hard muzzy hunters opposing it. Let's not lose context to this discussion and act like muzzy hunters are being picked on here. 

I have actually not been in favor of the scope restrictions, but if the best argument against it is "What about archery and rifle?," then I'm thinking it's probably a good thing for us to do.


----------



## TPrawitt91 (Sep 1, 2015)

Vanilla said:


> Which change in rules in the last 6 years did archery and rifle add that significantly changed the game for their respective weapons and season? If you can point to one, I'll gladly suggest it is looked at to tame things back a little bit. The context of this entire discussion is important. Allowing scopes at the time in 2016 was NOT overwhelmingly supported. In fact, it was quite controversial, with even die hard muzzy hunters opposing it. Let's not lose context to this discussion and act like muzzy hunters are being picked on here.
> 
> I have actually not been in favor of the scope restrictions, but if the best argument against it is "What about archery and rifle?," then I'm thinking it's probably a good thing for us to do.


I like this way of thinking.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Vanilla said:


> Which change in rules in the last 6 years did archery and rifle add that significantly changed the game for their respective weapons and season? If you can point to one, I'll gladly suggest it is looked at to tame things back a little bit. The context of this entire discussion is important. Allowing scopes at the time in 2016 was NOT overwhelmingly supported. In fact, it was quite controversial, with even die hard muzzy hunters opposing it. Let's not lose context to this discussion and act like muzzy hunters are being picked on here.
> 
> I have actually not been in favor of the scope restrictions, but if the best argument against it is "What about archery and rifle?," then I'm thinking it's probably a good thing for us to do.


So what. We've seen the harvest data #'s and its had negligible effect. So why the need for a change if its not causing measurable increase in harvest rates? 

Do we really want to implement policy based on politics and "feel good" measures that don't have roots in biology? 

Everyone is running around with a hammer, looking for a nail... /smh

-DallanC


----------



## Fowlmouth (Oct 4, 2008)

Vanilla, Let’s look at the fancy scopes that allow rifle hunters to dial up out past 1000 yards. It’s okay because they have been using them for over 6 years? Why didn’t they restrict rifles and scopes that allow hunters to kill game at long distances years ago? Also, I have never seen data that suggests harvest rates increased with the use of scopes on muzzleloaders.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

I know it didn't increase harvest rates. I was the one that did the research on that one and posted it on this forum, remember? 😉

It has never been about harvest rates or herd health, even if people keep talking about that. This is entirely social. What do we people want our hunts to look like? Do we want the muzzleloader to really be different from the rifle? If not, don't make any restrictions and let things go along as they are. In fact, you could just make the September season an early ALW season if that is the case, and let people hunt how they want to hunt.

If we want the muzzleloader to be a different experience, then you have to look at how to make it so. Removing scopes is a logical, low hanging fruit way to do that. As mentioned, there are other ways to do that as well. But that is the easy one, the others may require a heavier lift that impacts people much more negatively. 

Again, if the best argument that you can come up with is a "what about rifles?," then that isn't a very good reason. The ALW season was always intended to be a higher success, more technologically advanced hunt. People feel like they are being attacked and have to get revenge, and I'll just say context matters here. Don't forget the context. I know I won't, and I won't pretend like what I'm saying about the context surrounding the ML scope change isn't true. Because it is. It's okay to have differing opinions on a matter, but just say you think it should be one way or the other without using bad examples and false equivalencies in the process. As I said, I have not been in favor of the scope restrictions, but I'm not seeing very many good arguments for them on this forum these days.

As Jerry Maguire would say...."Help me, help you."


----------



## Fowlmouth (Oct 4, 2008)

Fine, I'll give you the ALW hunt being intended to have higher success rate and more technologically advanced, but let's look at the archery hunt. When it started, was it about technologically advanced equipment? Don't some of the archery guys want a different experience? Some people view that as a primitive hunt and want the experience of a longbow or recurve. Now we have bows that shoot well over 100 yards, scopes and other gadgets. Better make all those guys go back longbows because archery is primitive. 

Believe me I am not advocating to limit rifles, archery, scopes or any other equipment whatsoever. I just find it funny that having a scope on a muzzleloader is the devil when every other weapon has been technologically advanced.


----------



## Airborne (May 29, 2009)

Ole Niller' is spot on. Could not have said it better.

I love the argument that the harvest rates didn't go up with scopes so why take them off--it's a great argument to take them off as well because apparently folks didn't need scopes to be successful so we can remove them and it's still a win win for hunters! It is a double edged argument that folks can't seem to understand. For those using that argument, it doesn't support your position like you think it does.


----------



## Fowlmouth (Oct 4, 2008)

Airborne said:


> Ole Niller' is spot on. Could not have said it better.
> 
> I love the argument that the harvest rates didn't go up with scopes so why take them off--it's a great argument to take them off as well because apparently folks didn't need scopes to be successful so we can remove them and it's still a win win for hunters! It is a double edged argument that folks can't seem to understand. For those using that argument, it doesn't support your position like you think it does.


guess what? If you don’t want to use a scope on a muzzleloader you don’t have to. Why do guys care if someone else wants to use a scope? Some of you think you are required to use a scope. Do you feel at a disadvantage? Oh wait there is no advantage of using a scope because harvest rates didn’t increase.


----------



## Airborne (May 29, 2009)

Fowlmouth said:


> Fine, I'll give you the ALW hunt being intended to have higher success rate and more technologically advanced, but let's look at the archery hunt. When it started, was it about technologically advanced equipment? Don't some of the archery guys want a different experience? Some people view that as a primitive hunt and want the experience of a longbow or recurve. Now we have bows that shoot well over 100 yards, scopes and other gadgets. Better make all those guys go back longbows because archery is primitive.
> 
> Believe me I am not advocating to limit rifles, archery, scopes or any other equipment whatsoever. I just find it funny that having a scope on a muzzleloader is the devil when every other weapon has been technologically advanced.


Have you been to an archery range and shot around compound guys? They are not as good as you think they are--100 yard shot with the best compound requires a ton of skill and practice and the vast majority of folks cannot hit a pie plate 90% of the time at that range--most struggle to group at 70 yards. I shoot a lot of field archery with my recurve. I have brought along regular joe compound archers with great bows to the range and they struggle to make killing group shots past 60 yards. 



Fowlmouth said:


> guess what? If you don’t want to use a scope on a muzzleloader you don’t have to. Why do guys care if someone else wants to use a scope? Some of you think you are required to use a scope. Do you feel at a disadvantage? Oh wait there is no advantage of using a scope because harvest rates didn’t increase.


I do care what folks use to hunt and so do you--would you be cool with extended magazines on the waterfowl hunt or live decoys or electronic calls? Would you feel at a disadvantage? What if the harvest rates were the same. I mean who cares if folks are killing the same number of ducks--maybe you are cool with those things? I don't know ya

Niller said it best--What should the muzzleloader hunt look like, if we keep it how it is then it's essentially an early season ALW hunt. I don't believe that is it's purpose but if you do then we disagree but that's ok. Like I said, if they keep the hunt as is I'm gonna buy a Paramount and kill some good bucks at ridiculous yardages!


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Fowlmouth said:


> Fine, I'll give you the ALW hunt being intended to have higher success rate and more technologically advanced, but let's look at the archery hunt. When it started, was it about technologically advanced equipment? Don't some of the archery guys want a different experience? Some people view that as a primitive hunt and want the experience of a longbow or recurve. Now we have bows that shoot well over 100 yards, scopes and other gadgets. Better make all those guys go back longbows because archery is primitive.


I think archery is already a very different experience. Look at harvest rates, and you'll see that is very true. Yes, there have been advancements in archery tech, but the experience is VERY different from an ALW hunt, no matter what technology people are using. Now the crossbow discussion is different. You want to talk about crossbows and what they are doing to the archery game? I'm all ears.

I think VERY few people can kill an animal at 100+ yards with a bow. Very few. Probably less than the amount of people that can kill an animal with open sights on a muzzleloader at 400+ yards. But I'm just spitting wild guesses now with absolutely no foundational knowledge or data to back it up. 🤣


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

I'd have to disagree with some of the assessments of ML success rates with scopes. Prior to 2016, the ML hunt had success rate 8-9% lower than the Any weapon hunt. 2016-2017 the success rate difference shrunk to 5%. 2018-2019 it shrunk again to 2%. 2020 the Ml success rate was 2% higher than the any weapon. Of course we miss context with numbers, such as weather, hunting conditions, or last year's early rut. But the overall trend can't be brushed aside. As time goes by, more people increase their ML capabilities and the tech increase is aided by scopes- and then we see that reflected in increased ML rates.

I'd agree with Moose that if we lower the harvest during the ML hunt we will see some of those saved bucks killed on the Any Weapon hunt. It can be up for debate how many of those saved bucks would be killed, but obviously the number is not 0% nor is it 100%. So it would save some.

And it might be good to read page 50 of the field guide, then take care in posting about using something which enhances light during a hunt.



Vanilla said:


> I think VERY few people can kill an animal at 100+ yards with a bow. Very few. Probably less than the amount of people that can kill an animal with open sights on a muzzleloader at 400+ yards.


Judging by how many people brag to me about 100+ yard archery shots (they even brag about hits/wounding at that distance) I'd say you are low on your guess.


----------



## MooseMeat (Dec 27, 2017)

Side note/question a little off topic…

did they recently change the requirements needed to be met in order to legally hunt with a crossbow? Up until this year, I had never encountered another hunter packing a crossbow. This year, it seemed like every other hunter I ran in to was packing one. The ironic part is these “disabled” people carrying them, were in some of the more remote and nasty places in the area. To me, if you’re gonna legitimately qualify for a crossbow permit, you’re physical limitations should keep you pretty close to a road and your vehicle… not miles deep in the back country, hunting big bulls by yourself.

if they did change the requirements and it’s easier to get a permit for the use of one now, I suppose it’s time to capitalize on my bad knees situation 😎


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

MooseMeat said:


> Side note/question a little off topic…
> 
> did they recently change the requirements needed to be met in order to legally hunt with a crossbow? Up until this year, I had never encountered another hunter packing a crossbow. This year, it seemed like every other hunter I ran in to was packing one. The ironic part is these “disabled” people carrying them, were in some of the more remote and nasty places in the area. To me, if you’re gonna legitimately qualify for a crossbow permit, you’re physical limitations should keep you pretty close to a road and your vehicle… not miles deep in the back country, hunting big bulls by yourself.
> 
> if they did change the requirements and it’s easier to get a permit for the use of one now, I suppose it’s time to capitalize on my bad knees situation 😎


I've questioned the same thing this year. I wonder if a guy 30lbs over weight can qualify for the disabled permit....


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Packout said:


> I'd have to disagree with some of the assessments of ML success rates with scopes. Prior to 2016, the ML hunt had success rate 8-9% lower than the Any weapon hunt. 2016-2017 the success rate difference shrunk to 5%. 2018-2019 it shrunk again to 2%. 2020 the Ml success rate was 2% higher than the any weapon.


What hunts are you talking about with these numbers? I did the analysis on the general season deer ML hunts only. I did not compare them to harvest rates on ALW or archery and how they ebbed and flowed, although that would be a good metric to add to the equation.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

Just the General Season Deer. I looked at 2011 thru 2020. ML scopes were allowed in 2016. Comparing the ML to other weapon types is important to see the a bigger picture and consider trends. It brings in deer herd numbers into consideration (more deer equals higher success rates, less deer lower success- across the board) and shows rates vs other weapon types/other weapon tech. 
A reasonable assumption is that each year since 2016 hunters have increased their ML tech- much of which is only impactful with the use of a magnified scope. Now, I have to take my inline LR ML with a 6-18x40 Leupold out in a couple hours to try to shoot a deer. Or maybe I'll grab my old sidelock and roundballs....


----------



## ns450f (Aug 28, 2018)

I


Fowlmouth said:


> If this really is Technology based, then the DWR needs to look at bows and rifles the same way. Why pick on muzzleloaders? Modern rifles and scopes that can be dialed up easily past 1000 yards should be more of a concern IMO. Compound bows need to be traded in for longbows and rifles all need to be lever action and no scopes. Sounds silly right? Well, that’s how silly taking scopes off muzzleloaders sounds to me. Killing is killing, and dead is dead no matter how you do it.



I think your right. The solution is to merge the muzzle loader and rifle hunts together because technology has made muzzle loaders so much more efficient.

Why should a muzzle loader shooting 600 yards get the advantage of an early season before the rifle hunt. Save it for the archery hunters who are still limited below 100 yards.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

ns450f said:


> I think your right. The solution is to merge the muzzle loader and rifle hunts together because technology has made muzzle loaders so much more efficient.


If we are not going to have ML season be different, that is a logical proposal. In fact, you could split it up even more. Have an archery season, then just have two or three ALW seasons so hunters are dispersed more evenly throughout the hunts. 

I favor making MLs a different experience than rifles, however, and just leaving the seasons alone.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Packout said:


> Comparing the ML to other weapon types is important to see the a bigger picture and consider trends.


I agree! I'm going to do that in the exact way I did ML success rates. It probably won't be for a bit, but I'll get around to it. I have a table for every general season unit regarding ML stats. It's helpful to look at it all in one place.


----------



## MrShane (Jul 21, 2019)

Vanilla said:


> I know it didn't increase harvest rates. I was the one that did the research on that one and posted it on this forum, remember? 😉
> 
> It has never been about harvest rates or herd health, even if people keep talking about that. This is entirely social. What do we people want our hunts to look like? Do we want the muzzleloader to really be different from the rifle? If not, don't make any restrictions and let things go along as they are. In fact, you could just make the September season an early ALW season if that is the case, and let people hunt how they want to hunt.
> 
> ...


Maybe I missed something?
Who said it is not about herd health?


----------



## MWScott72 (May 23, 2011)

ns450f said:


> I
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I don’t currently hunt with a muzzy, but I still like the idea of separate muzzy and rifle seasons. If people are worried about muzzy “having an advantage” with an earlier season, then just flip flop the seasons every year. One year muzzy is first, then the next it’s rifle. Problem solved!


----------



## fobit (Mar 1, 2017)

My son and I just shot two bucks last week. I use a peep sight and he uses a Partridge site. I have never stooped to using a scope on the muzzleloader hunt. In lines with scopes should be restricted to the any weapon hunt.


----------



## Fowlmouth (Oct 4, 2008)

ns450f said:


> I





fobit said:


> My son and I just shot two bucks last week. I use a peep sight and he uses a Partridge site. I have never stooped to using a scope on the muzzleloader hunt. In lines with scopes should be restricted to the any weapon hunt.


And archery should be restricted to longbows and recurves. Sounds silly doesn’t it? You can use whatever sight you like. Sounds like you are successful with your method. Why do you care what other muzzleloader hunters use? Do you feel at a disadvantage?


----------



## Airborne (May 29, 2009)

I'll just leave this here for Fowlmouth





__





Loading…






en.wikipedia.org


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Fowlmouth said:


> And archery should be restricted to longbows and recurves. Sounds silly doesn’t it?


Yes it does, and it isn't even REMOTELY close to the same thing as what fobit is saying. Night and day difference. But I've tried to explain that. You keep saying this, and it keeps missing. 

Fowlmouth, give me your three best reasons NOT to restrict muzzleloader scopes in any way. I'm genuinely wanting to be on your side on this, but you're not giving me much ammo to do so.


----------



## Airborne (May 29, 2009)

Here are 3 REAL reason for ya Niller:

1. It's easier to kill game animals farther away

2. It's easier to kill game animals in lower light conditions

3. I already bought a danged scope and it's all sighted in, how can you take that away from a man!


----------



## Irish Lad (Jun 3, 2008)

Fowlmouth said:


> And archery should be restricted to longbows and recurves. Sounds silly doesn’t it? You can use whatever sight you like. Sounds like you are successful with your method. Why do you care what other muzzleloader hunters use? Do you feel at a disadvantage?


Well stated.


----------



## Fowlmouth (Oct 4, 2008)

I’ll give you a couple of reasonwhy I am an advocate for variable scopes. There are many of us that have failing eye sight. Some of us don’t quite meet the criteria the DWR has set forth to be considered “Impaired”. To be considered visually impaired by DWR standards, the person must have worse than 20/40 vision in the better eye. Let me tell you 20/40 isn’t that great. I have personal experience with this, having had detached retinas in both eyes, being temporarily blind and regaining vision through 20+ surgeries. I am right handed, but forced to shoot left handed because now my left eye is dominant. I see better out of my left eye. I feel at a disadvantage already having to shoot left handed, it’s a bi+ch. 

Another reason is nobody is making anyone use a scope on their muzzleloader. If you want to hunt with a traditional muzzleloader and open sights you can do that. Why do people care if others use a scope? 

Side note: No, I don’t feel special and think the rules should be changed to fit my needs. I am simply trying to say that many of us are visually challenged and a variable scope does make all the difference in the world. If the rule changes then I will have to give up muzzleloader hunting and go to rifle. I already had to give up my passion for archery. I can’t shoot a bow left handed. I really don’t want to give up muzzleloader too.


----------



## Airborne (May 29, 2009)

They allowed 1X scopes on muzzy's before 2016 in Utah, folks with eye issues could use those and still effectively use a muzzy so you're still in the game Fowlmouth!


----------



## Ecpk91 (Jun 13, 2018)

I remember posting on the topic of trail cameras and stating something like where is it going to end? I pose that question once again, Hunters give in and they take, we argue and complain over another guys method, trail camera use, tree stands, muzzy guns, scopes, optics, rifles. Where does it end? Yet we allow cattle to open graze and low and behold the rancher who open grazes in my area closed trails that were open, took a loader on the mountain and damned up natural springs for all his cattle, he actually took it upon himself to mess with my camera which was still up during legal times to remove the batteries and dump them on the ground. Where does it end? when o we stop regulating or trying to change the way another guy hunts when it really doesn't affect what you personally do or how you hunt?


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Fowlmouth said:


> I am simply trying to say that many of us are visually challenged and a variable scope does make all the difference in the world.


This is a legitimate gripe. I wonder if there is middle ground that allows for visually impaired folks (I'm getting there quickly) to have some benefit without having a 20X scope that allows the muzzleloader to simply be a rifle in different season dates? I threw out 4x arbitrarily, but what if they capped the scope power at something above 1x how it used to be and below 6x, so technology use doesn't allow the ML to just be another rifle hunt? Is there middle ground there? Or is that a non-starter for you? 

I could go into a huge slippery slope argument about no restrictions at all, but the slippery slope fallacy has become one of my least favorites, so I'll pass on that one. 

Fowl, I think we have some valid aspects of this to discuss. I do wonder if there is middle ground. I will say that the last couple days have convinced me of one thing: If we don't put any restrictions on ML hunting, I'm going to advocate that season becomes an ALW season. Nothing would be preventing someone from still using a ML during those dates, just like you suggest people can still use open sights if they please. The ML capabilities these days with all this tech make them just another rifle. If we are having just another rifle in practice, let people use rifles in those season dates.


----------



## Airborne (May 29, 2009)

Vanilla said:


> I do wonder if there is middle ground.











Your logical fallacy is middle ground


You claimed that a compromise, or middle point, between two extremes must be the truth.



yourlogicalfallacyis.com





hahaha--sorry Niller--can't resist


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

OK, I wore glasses for a long time and found a legal sight system for my muzzle loaders that worked for me. None of the sights came on a stock muzzle loader. 

Then I had cataract surgery on both of my eyes, I no longer need to wear glasses except for reading, guess what? Those stock sights on muzzle loaders still don't work. So I am still using those aftermarket sights in states that require open or iron sights.

So there are sights out there for the visually imparred hunter that work quite well. None of them are as good as a scope with magnification where all you need to do is to place a crosshair onto a target but they work quite well.

Sent from my SM-A426U using Tapatalk


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Airborne said:


> Your logical fallacy is middle ground
> 
> 
> You claimed that a compromise, or middle point, between two extremes must be the truth.
> ...


AU CONTRAIRE MON FRÈRE!!! I did not claim the middle ground was the truth. I'm not claiming either side is the truth. In fact, my belief is there is no "truth" in any of this! It's all about what "we the people" want our hunting to look like. Truth is not relative. Truth is truth. All of these discussions are relative and people view them from their own lenses. Neither the person saying we should allow variable scopes nor the person saying we should restrict them has "truth" on their side. It's all just opinions, and the one able to make their case the best will likely win out, truth be damned. This isn't about truth.

Anyway, YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH! I'm simply wondering if there is a compromise that all sides can live with on this one? I don't know the answer to that, and that is why I asked Fowl for his opinion on it.


----------



## ns450f (Aug 28, 2018)

Fowlmouth said:


> Why do you care what other muzzleloader hunters use? Do you feel at a disadvantage?


Absolutely. I own 3 recurves. I love shooting my recurves. But I will never archery hunt big game with them because it is such a disadvantage compared to all the other hunters with their compounds.

Same thing with muzzle loader and rifle. A huge majority of the nice bucks get taken every year by muzzle loader hunters, that now are able to shoot 500 yards. So when the rifle hunt rolls around the deer have all been pushed out of the better areas into hiding or killed. As a rifle hunter I am left with sloppy 2nds. 

This wouldn't have bothered me when muzzle loaders took more skill and were limited to 200 yards max because a lot more deer were left for the rifle hunt.

Either way I am just going to buy myself a modern muzzleloader and start hunting the season when I get my dedicated hunter tag because if you can't beat them join them.

Pretty soon you will have more people hunting muzzle loader than rifle....


----------



## Fowlmouth (Oct 4, 2008)

You know, I'm okay with a fixed power scope. I could work with that. Like Critter mentioned after having cataract surgery you need reading glasses. Yes. I have had cataract surgery on both eyes and yes I need reading glasses. I can't use my readers with open sights because I see the sights but not the target. It sucks. I use readers when I use a scope and it works fantastic.


----------



## justismi28 (Aug 19, 2014)

Hunters need to stop competing against each other and realize the competition is against the game we pursue. So many people get upset that others use legal methods that give them a perceived advantage in the pursuit of the same quarry. If it's legal, I have no issues with it. There are too many people looking for reasons to be upset in life. I know people with variable scopes that can't hit anything past 100, but if you saw them in the field with their Ultimate RangeSlaying Panty Dropping Muzzleloader with a variable scope it would upset some of you. Because it seems some of you perceive they have an advantage.

With a 1x scope I had a 200 yard zero and supreme confidence in making hits on a 8" circle at 350 yards. I could confidently go 10 for 10 on that target in calm conditions. I shot hundreds of rounds a year through that setup to get that proficient and know my dope. Because I could make that shot, did that give me an unfair advantage? Why would all the sudden putting a variable scope on my gun give me more advantage? 

Putting a 3-9 on my muzzleloader didn't make me better at killing things with my muzz. And looking at harvest rates, it appears thats the case across the board.


----------



## 3arabians (Dec 9, 2014)

justismi28 said:


> Hunters need to stop competing against each other and realize the competition is against the game we pursue. So many people get upset that others use legal methods that give them a perceived advantage in the pursuit of the same quarry. If it's legal, I have no issues with it. There are too many people looking for reasons to be upset in life. I know people with variable scopes that can't hit anything past 100, but if you saw them in the field with their Ultimate RangeSlaying Panty Dropping Muzzleloader with a variable scope it would upset some of you. Because it seems some of you perceive they have an advantage.
> 
> With a 1x scope I had a 200 yard zero and supreme confidence in making hits on a 8" circle at 350 yards. I could confidently go 10 for 10 on that target in calm conditions. I shot hundreds of rounds a year through that setup to get that proficient and know my dope. Because I could make that shot, did that give me an unfair advantage? Why would all the sudden putting a variable scope on my gun give me more advantage?
> 
> Putting a 3-9 on my muzzleloader didn't make me better at killing things with my muzz. And looking at harvest rates, it appears thats the case across the board.


I like it! Mostly because you said Ultimate Range Slaying Panty Dropping Muzzleloader 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Pokesmole (Oct 29, 2016)

Ya know, I took more bucks before variable scopes. And bigger ones at that. But I’d still prefer to stay with a 3x9. Never hit a target or even tried to shoot it past 150 yards. Just enjoy having a scope. Still don’t want an ultimate range slaying panty dropper


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

I don’t compete with other hunters in any way shape or form, and I don’t worry about advantages, fair or unfair, that others might have over me. If you and I have the same tag this year and you kill a monster, I’ll be the first to congratulate you and I’ll be sincere about it.

I absolutely LOVE seeing hunters be successful. I love seeing all of your stories. There is no competition in hunting for me. So any questions I ask about technology, seasons, or any other hunter management discussions has nothing to do with worrying about advantages people will have over me.

I could get any muzzy tag I want next year (lifetime license) and go get a muzzy with some fancy scope that I could shoot out to 5-600 yards and be ready to go in 2023 with that. Wouldn’t be a problem at all. My ultimate opinions on this will have absolutely nothing to do with worrying about perceived advantages other hunters will have over me. If I was worried about that, I’d be doing exactly what they are doing.

We really shouldn’t assume that if someone disagrees with us that it is coming from a position of jealousy. It might be a very logical, well thought out opinion they hold that is simply different than our own.

I don’t know what the technology committee is going to recommend, but if I was a betting man, I would wager that it will have something to do with scopes on MLs. People should be prepared for that. From what I’m told, the “industry” is preparing for that.


----------



## Airborne (May 29, 2009)

justismi28 said:


> With a 1x scope I had a 200 yard zero and supreme confidence in making hits on a 8" circle at 350 yards. I could confidently go 10 for 10 on that target in calm conditions. I shot hundreds of rounds a year through that setup to get that proficient and know my dope.


Ooooo, a cred claim! I have a fresh crisp $50 bill with your name on it if you can walk the walk there Annie Oakley. I live in southern Utah County—let’s meet up after the general elk hunt and you bring your muzzy with 1X scope and 10 rounds. I will place a brown colored 8” gong on a hill at 350 yards and if you can hit it 10/10 times from a hunting type position like prone resting on your backpack (no shooting bench) then you sir take home $50 and most importantly CREDIBILITY

If you don’t want to walk the walk that’s ok, you would be in fine company with others such as Moose and Ridge. One of these days I’m gonna get an Internet personality to show up and backup there claims!


----------



## MooseMeat (Dec 27, 2017)

Airborne said:


> If you don’t want to walk the walk that’s ok, you would be in fine company with others such as Moose and Ridge. One of these days I’m gonna get an Internet personality to show up and backup there claims!


🙄

there’s literally hundreds of animals between just me and ridge, harvested with all weapon types, that can vouch for a credibility claim… I’m sorry I didn’t find the time this year between working full time, watching kids full time, keeping the wife happy and dealing with other life events. I shot and sighted in my bow 3 days before the hunt started, that’s when I finally had time. Sorry I didn’t have time to go play your little game and prove to you my credibility. I really can’t care if you believe me or not when I say I can do something with a bow or any other weapon type. The times I had to prove anything to anyone that mattered, I did.


----------



## Airborne (May 29, 2009)

MooseMeat said:


> 🙄
> 
> there’s literally hundreds of animals between just me and ridge, harvested with all weapon types, that can vouch for a credibility claim… I’m sorry I didn’t find the time this year between working full time, watching kids full time, keeping the wife happy and dealing with other life events. I shot and sighted in my bow 3 days before the hunt started, that’s when I finally had time. Sorry I didn’t have time to go play your little game and prove to you my credibility. I really can’t care if you believe me or not when I say I can do something with a bow or any other weapon type. The times I had to prove anything to anyone that mattered, I did.


Chill Moose--this is a fun little thing buddy--the money is yours when you have a half hour to claim it.

For being someone who likes to call out folks for BS I would expect you to be all on board with having folks walk the walk. I know you and ridge are stone cold killers--never said otherwise. I'm just trying to give you free money and you get all mean--sheesh!


----------



## justismi28 (Aug 19, 2014)

The best part of being a keyboard warrior is I can hide behind my screen without backing up my cred claim. That's what the internet is for right? lol Calling people out on BS has it's place, and I can understand your skepticism, it's completely valid. But with prices of BH209 $50 almost isn't worth it. Thanks to inflation, you gotta bump that to $80-100 to make it worthwhile.

In all seriousness, I couldn't perform that feat today, so your money is safe. I've shot my muzzleloader 3 times in the last two years. This was back when 1x scopes were the regulation, BH209 was easy to find and affordable, and I could mess with various primers, bullets, and sabots. I shot a lot at ranges from 50-400 yards. I'll be the first to say I suck now with my muzzy compared to then.


----------



## MooseMeat (Dec 27, 2017)

Airborne said:


> Chill Moose--this is a fun little thing buddy--the money is yours when you have a half hour to claim it.
> 
> For being someone who likes to call out folks for BS I would expect you to be all on board with having folks walk the walk. I know you and ridge are stone cold killers--never said otherwise. I'm just trying to give you free money and you get all mean--sheesh!


I’ve taken money from a lot of guys. I don’t want yours. I am on board, I’d be happy to go shoot with you one afternoon, it’s just hard to find the time.

i do side with you in the muzzy long range sniper 1x scope claim. That seem a little out there. But maybe I’m wrong. I’ve got one of those panty dropper ultimate muzzleloaders. And even with a magnum charge, at 350 yards I’m dropping 55”. That’s a lot of guess work combined with luck to pull off that shot using a scope where the crosshair will cover the entire animal.


----------



## taxidermist (Sep 11, 2007)

Fowlmouth said:


> Why wouldn't they look at bows and rifles the same way? Technology is Technology! Every weapon we use to hunt with has become more technologically advanced.


Amen Brother, Amen!!


----------

