# 4xplus scopes may soon be legal on ML's



## goofy elk

Just a heads-up,
I see a lot of discussion about 1x scopes, this law may be changing.

The wildlife board has this issue on it's 'action item agenda'.
Up for May's work session,

Spring 2013
- Target Date - Scopes on Muzzleloader Rifles
MOTION: I move that we ask the division to report to the Board on the issues and concerns with using a magnifying
scope on a muzzleloader, this is to be placed on the action log and the report shall be discussed at the May 2013 work
session.
Assigned to: Mike Fowlks
Action: Under Study
Status: Scheduled for discussion at the May 1, 2013 Work Session
Placed on Action Log: December 6, 2012


----------



## meltedsnowman

Thats too bad. Just another way to wound and lose wildlife for those who think themselves above stalking.


----------



## DallanC

meltedsnowman said:


> Thats too bad. Just another way to wound and lose wildlife for those who think themselves above stalking.


No more than the people taking 100 yard archery shots or people shooting +600 yards with rifles. Ethical people stay within their bounds, unethical people will make unethical shots with a 1x or 4x scope /shrug

-DallanC


----------



## sagebrush

There are quite few states that allow scopes with more than a 1x power magnification. This will be a good move by the dwr


----------



## meltedsnowman

Dallan I agree 100%. But the utah muzzy scene doesnt have to go the wayward route of the rifle and archery long range wounders. (Mainly a archery guy myself, but took up the muzzy a few years ago) I understand that a few people are really that skilled, but most have not the skill or mindset for long range shooting of any weapon. SAVE WHATS LEFT OF MUZZLELOADING INTEGRITY!


----------



## utahgolf

I hope this doesn't pass. That's usually the reason why people don't ML hunt because of the scope issue. I liked the muzzy hunt because it wasn't as crowded and thats why I chose to give up high powered scopes. Doesn't the division realize thats why a lot of people do the ML? Less people and a little harder with the sights. etc... now they're just turning it into a genreal rifle season.


----------



## richardjb

Yeah, let's make this about keeping MY muzzy hunt to MYSELF! Don't want to promote hunting to others. Let's just keep it about ME! Unbelievable!


----------



## utahgolf

richardjb said:


> Yeah, let's make this about keeping MY muzzy hunt to MYSELF! Don't want to promote hunting to others. Let's just keep it about ME! Unbelievable!


your right, and for the guys out of shape, lets open up as many roads as possible and let atv's go wherever they want. In fact lets also develop ML that shoot multiple shots, because lots of guys just don't want one shot, they want several, so lets promote it more. I hunt ML because I'm willing to sacrifice not having multiple shots or high powered scopes for less people out in the field during that time. A lot aren't willing to do that. But of course lets cater to those who aren't willing to do that. What's unbelieveable is the entitlement attitude of having to change every reg to involve others who aren't willing to give up or sacrifice anything.


----------



## sagebrush

Utahgolf sound's like you need to chill out. No one said that you have to use a scope. Just keep doing what ever it is that you do and be happy.


----------



## utahgolf

sagebrush said:


> Utahgolf sound's like you need to chill out. No one said that you have to use a scope. Just keep doing what ever it is that you do and be happy.


I don't need to chill out, when my remark is called selfish and unbeliveble I will respond. What's selfish and unbelieveable is people want things catered to them and not willing to give up or make sacrifices. I like hunting in september with fewer people, I don't have the greatest eyes and a 4x would help but there would also be a lot more people with that move. I am willing to make the sacrifice and not use higher powered scopes and have to get much closer to an animal, if it means I don't have to deal with the crowds and such. We have a general rifle season for a reason, let the people who want to use high powered scopes do that, instead of trying to change regs cause they don't want to give that up.


----------



## Cooky

I think they should let us put the powder into some kind of container to make it easy to load too. Made of brass maybe.
Then we could hook the primer to it somehow so I could quit losing them.
Perhaps attach the bullet.  

I crack me up. :twisted: 

I imagine the rules can be whatever the taxpayers want. If it causes a significant change in harvest rates the amount of opportunities will need to be adjusted to maintain them. 

We can't shoot 'em all and have 'em too.


----------



## ultramagfan2000

Hmmm old black powder cartridges would be a riot Cooky. I have mixed feelings on the 4x scope. Call me selfish I'm leaning more with utahgolf on this one.


----------



## xxxxxxBirdDogger

4X scopes increase the accuracy of the shooter. In the end, that decreases wounded game and increases the chances of making a responsible harvest. In addition, the scope allows hunters with poor or declining vision to take part in the sport. 

At the very least, it should be legal to use a magnified scope on a muzzleloader during the general rifle hunt.


----------



## Huge29

utahgolf said:


> I like hunting in september with fewer people, I don't have the greatest eyes and a 4x would help but there would also be a lot more people with that move. I am willing to make the sacrifice and not use higher powered scopes and have to get much closer to an animal, if it means I don't have to deal with the crowds and such. We have a general rifle season for a reason, let the people who want to use high powered scopes do that, instead of trying to change regs cause they don't want to give that up.


i don't see the connection; did I miss a mention that the muzzy tags were increasing or how else could you conclude that the muzzy hunt would be more crowded with a simple scope change?


----------



## campfire

The one and only buck I have ever shot with a muzzleloader was with open sights. I have enjoyed ML hunting without a scope very much. So far I am still able to focus on both the sights and the target but barely. So, I, too, have mixed feelings. I looked briefly at ML ballistics and found that MV range from around 1300 fps to around 2100 fps. Most typical hunting loads fall in the 1600 to 1700 fps range. By comparison a 150 gr 30-30 center fire round has a MVP of around 2400 fps and a 7mm mag well in excess of 3000 fps. And a ML still has but one shot. My point is that ML hunting will still be limited and challenging by the characteristics of the guns themselves. A 4 power scope would be more accurate than most ML guns are capable of anyway. So I would not expect a mass migration of hunters from the general season to the ML season just because they could now hunt with a scoped ML. And I agree that personal ethics are personal and relative. I see little difference in attempting a 300 yard shot with a ML and attempting a 700 yard shot with a 300 Win Mag. Hunters will or will not hunt within their own humane limits regardless of regulations. Just my thoughts.


----------



## Dukes_Daddy

Keep it 1X.


----------



## utahgolf

Huge29 said:


> utahgolf said:
> 
> 
> 
> I like hunting in september with fewer people, I don't have the greatest eyes and a 4x would help but there would also be a lot more people with that move. I am willing to make the sacrifice and not use higher powered scopes and have to get much closer to an animal, if it means I don't have to deal with the crowds and such. We have a general rifle season for a reason, let the people who want to use high powered scopes do that, instead of trying to change regs cause they don't want to give that up.
> 
> 
> 
> i don't see the connection; did I miss a mention that the muzzy tags were increasing or how else could you conclude that the muzzy hunt would be more crowded with a simple scope change?
Click to expand...

More people will put in for ML switching from rifle, so more people in the field whether them or one of their buddies draw or buddies buddy draws. But past that, more competition will eventually lead to more tags will be allotted to the ML pool, which means more people in the field. But more tags won't increase any better odds of drawing because there will be more demand. Same for all the antlerless ML hunts and LE. I Just don't understand why we have to turn it into another General rifle season. Too many guys complaining about the crowds of the general rifle and circus but they don't want to hunt muzzy cause of the 1x scope limitation, I've heard that from several people about why they don't hunt muzzy. The only other thing holding people back is the shot limitation. Lets change that also, Maybe you have to use a ML the first 4 days but the last 3 days you can use a high powered rifle? sounds good to me.


----------



## utahgolf

BirdDogger said:


> At the very least, it should be legal to use a magnified scope on a muzzleloader during the general rifle hunt.


I do agree with this tho


----------



## DallanC

If you want to shoot out to 500 yards, simply get one of these. They've only been used for over 150 years now.










-DallanC


----------



## Huge29

utahgolf said:


> More people will put in for ML switching from rifle, so more people in the field whether them or one of their buddies draw or buddies buddy draws. But past that, more competition will eventually lead to more tags will be allotted to the ML pool, which means more people in the field. But more tags won't increase any better odds of drawing because there will be more demand. Same for all the antlerless ML hunts and LE.


Better hunting equipment does not in any way lead to more tags; if anything, the state is determined to cut more and more tags. As has been pointed out, there is still a very drastic difference between centerfire and the muzzy even with a high powered scope. I don't see any reasonable way to argue that the better scopes with the exact same number of tags results in everybody bringing their buddy's along resulting in more crowding. IF crowding is ever an issue, get off of the ATV and take a hike; it never fails for me.


----------



## richardjb

YEP!


----------



## campfire

BirdDogger said:


> 4X scopes increase the accuracy of the shooter. In the end, that decreases wounded game and increases the chances of making a responsible harvest. In addition, the scope allows hunters with poor or declining vision to take part in the sport.
> 
> At the very least, it should be legal to use a magnified scope on a muzzleloader during the general rifle hunt.


Three very good points. My son, his friend and I went shooting yesterday. We were shooting 22 rifles at 25 yards. My son and I had scoped (4x) rifles and his friend had open sights. The difference in accuracy of the respective guns at 25 yards was very impressive. As I mention in a previous post the effective range of ML will still be limited by the ballistics and characteristics of the guns themselves but increasing their accuracy within that range may very well decrease wounded loss and increase humane kills. Many hunters including myself see very well but with corrective lenses that make focusing on objects near(sights) and objects far (targets) at the same time difficult. Mildly magnified scopes would help that significantly. I also agree that if you choose to hunt the general season with a ML it need not be restricted more than the center fire rifles. Good Post BD.


----------



## utahgolf

Huge29 said:


> utahgolf said:
> 
> 
> 
> More people will put in for ML switching from rifle, so more people in the field whether them or one of their buddies draw or buddies buddy draws. But past that, more competition will eventually lead to more tags will be allotted to the ML pool, which means more people in the field. But more tags won't increase any better odds of drawing because there will be more demand. Same for all the antlerless ML hunts and LE.
> 
> 
> 
> Better hunting equipment does not in any way lead to more tags; if anything, the state is determined to cut more and more tags. As has been pointed out, there is still a very drastic difference between centerfire and the muzzy even with a high powered scope. I don't see any reasonable way to argue that the better scopes with the exact same number of tags results in everybody bringing their buddy's along resulting in more crowding. IF crowding is ever an issue, get off of the ATV and take a hike; it never fails for me.
Click to expand...

I'm saying better equipment will encourage more people to make that switch. More demand equals more tags, and I'm not saying the dwr will just issue more tags out of thin air, they will come from the rifle pool if demand starts to really pick up for ML. I was under the assumption ML tags came from the rifle pool? The more we turn these guns into centerfires the more it will turn into a mini rifle circus. I keep hearing that other states allow it but that doesn't mean anything, other states have much more restrictive regs as well, conicals only and open sights. I wouldn't be surprised if its being lobbied as a revenue thing, guides are probably really wanting that option for their wealthy clients who don't want to use a 1x, who knows! :O•-:


----------



## DallanC

To be frank, until the option 2 BS came along, there really was only a single "pool" of tags. You originally had unlimited archery (which turned into the 18k limit later on) but the rest came out of a "non-archery pool". Rifle or Muzzleloader didnt matter, they came out of that same pool and up until the ML hunt started, you could at will swap your tag back for either one after paying a $6 fee.

So basically you had a tag, that you could use either a ML for or a Rifle for, depending on your season choice. To the dwr, it was irrelevant. If everyone put in for a rifle tag, everyone would have gotten a rifle tag up until the cap was reached and there wouldnt have been any muzzleloader hunters. Ditto in reverse, if everyone put in for a muzzloader tag, there wouldnt have been any rifle hunters. Hunters themselves distributed themselves as they wanted (yay for freedom).

So basically, to the DWR they did not care if you used a bolt action rifle, semi-auto rifle, or a single shot muzzleloader. ML tags were not put in place as any means of allowing escapement, so restrictions didnt matter at all.

Now with option 2, we unfortunately have the fixed size pools for all weapon types. So tags are harder to draw, and inflexible in swapping from one type to another if a crisis comes up not allowing you to hunt your season of choice.


-DallanC


----------



## swbuckmaster

I dont like the proposal either. Keep it the way it is.


----------



## waspocrew

I'd say keep it how it is- I like the idea of a magnified scope if a ML is used on a any weapon hunt though.


----------



## martymcfly73

Who cares. Make the switch. Its not like its remotely primitive anymore. I would switch and hunt Muzzy and bring all my family and friends with me.


----------



## Fishrmn

martymcfly73 said:


> Who cares. Make the switch. Its not like its remotely primitive anymore. I would switch and hunt Muzzy and bring all my family and friends with me.


It's never been a primitive hunt. Muzzleloader.


----------



## martymcfly73

Fishrmn said:


> martymcfly73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who cares. Make the switch. Its not like its remotely primitive anymore. I would switch and hunt Muzzy and bring all my family and friends with me.
> 
> 
> 
> It's never been a primitive hunt. Muzzleloader.
Click to expand...

Back in the day that's how they classified it. Then along came inlines.


----------



## DallanC

martymcfly73 said:


> Back in the day that's how they classified it. Then along came inlines.


Nononono.... its always been just "muzzleloader". I still have my first muzzleloader tag from decades ago. It was never "primative". My earlyest big game proc I still have is I think 1982 and it just calls it a muzzleloader season, the $10 extention to the rifle hunt buck tag.

Its hard to 'dis inlines when even White admitted they turned out both inline and sidelock barrels on the same **** machines. Same twist same length... whats the advantage again?

And as an FYI, inlines predate our hawkin sidelocks by 100 years... Germany had them in 1734.

-DallanC


----------



## martymcfly73

I'm not dising inlines I have a couple whites. Maybe it's Wyoming that calls it primitive.


----------



## swbuckmaster

If they go to higher power on muzzy scope i want to go higher power on my bow. Then my dot wont cover the entire animal at a hundred plus. 

Aim small miss small!


----------



## sagebrush

I cant believe how some people just have whin about. Every little change that comes along. If you want to use iron sights on your weapon of choice then do so just dont expect anyone else to follow in your foot steps. 
The same with your bow using compoud veres traditional.
Times are changing these days we all do not hunt the same way


----------



## DallanC

swbuckmaster said:


> If they go to higher power on muzzy scope i want to go higher power on my bow. Then my dot wont cover the entire animal at a hundred plus.
> 
> Aim small miss small!


You cover your target with the front sight? I align the top edge of the front sight where I want the bullet to hit, so nothing obscures the target.

Aim small, miss small... +100!

-DallanC


----------



## Packout

What is next? Scopes on bows? Smokeless powder for MLs? Lazer sights? Lines are drawn in the sand all the time in society. I'd rather not see magnified scopes on MLs. If they allow 4x, then why not allow any magnification?

At some point in time, we might understand that the continued pressure placed upon the resource through technological advances is harming the resource and is harming the opportunity to hunt.


----------



## swbuckmaster

I go to eight power in my bow and put a small fiber in and aim exactly where i want it to hit. My 100 yard groups will shrink big time. I could probably get 120+ out of it and keep it in a pie plate with my old hunting bow right now. I actually already know this because this is what my target bow will do right now and its a slow turd compared to whats out there now. I can go 80 lbs on a blowtec have less holding weight then i have with my target bow and shoot a heaver arrow faster and quieter then what im shooting with my target bow right now. The arrows ballistic coefficient will be so much better my arrows will maintain their speed down range longer, have less wind drift and group better. To be honest it would probably allow me to increase my range out to 150+ yards.

Going to a higher power gives the hunter an extreme advantage over your game. Too say otherwise would be lying.


----------



## Packout

That is my point. Any magnification gives the hunter more advantage. Now the line is drawn that no magnification is allowed. Some want to see 4x. Then some will want any variable scope. If we are just making changes to appease hunters then lets get on with it and go all the way. If we want to protect the resource, then technology must be limited.

Disabled hunters can already hunt with a 4x scope if they meet the disability requirements.


----------



## muzzlehutn

I think the real reason why all you guys are all upset. Is cause you will all have to go buy new 4x scopes :O•-:


----------



## Treehugnhuntr

Montana doesn't have a muzzleloader season. If you want to hunt with one, it's just your any weapon of choice. Not saying we should do this, but the more we enhance accuracy, which ultimately leads to longer shooting/harvests, the more we potentially close the gap of how they differ, which may lead to things that muzzy guys don't want. I would think it's in the best interest of muzzy folk to keep it distinctly different and more limited.

Must be a big variable ML scope manufacturer sniffing around these parts. 

Crossbows anyone?


----------



## Treehugnhuntr

Packout said:


> At some point in time, we might understand that the continued pressure placed upon the resource through technological advances is harming the resource and is harming the opportunity to hunt.


I think this is a very valid concern in all facets of hunting. In my opinion, there's a lot of result oriented trends taking place. Hard to be a content human with that kind of mind frame.

It's very simple math. The more efficiency we create with all of our innovations, the higher the kill rate will be. We have a more or less fixed amount of resources resulting in less opportunity for each of us to be in the field considering management strategies and tag allocations are based on a total desired harvest number. Compound that with the advent of the internet and so much information and commercialization of hunting, making us all more sophisticated and ultimately more successful hunters, opportunity to be in the field with a tag, in my opinion, will continue to decline. I'm not speaking necessarily to having a magnified scope on a ML, more to the bigger puzzle that it might fit in.

Our own untethered nature will slowly erode that which we all love if we're not careful.


----------



## Airborne

Treehugnhuntr said:


> Packout said:
> 
> 
> 
> At some point in time, we might understand that the continued pressure placed upon the resource through technological advances is harming the resource and is harming the opportunity to hunt.
> 
> 
> 
> I think this is a very valid concern in all facets of hunting. In my opinion, there's a lot of result oriented trends taking place. Hard to be a content human with that kind of mind frame.
> 
> It's very simple math. The more efficiency we create with all of our innovations, the higher the kill rate will be. We have a more or less fixed amount of resources resulting in less opportunity for each of us to be in the field considering management strategies and tag allocations are based on a total desired harvest number. Compound that with the advent of the internet and so much information and commercialization of hunting, making us all more sophisticated and ultimately more successful hunters, opportunity to be in the field with a tag, in my opinion, will continue to decline. I'm not speaking necessarily to having a magnified scope on a ML, more to the bigger puzzle that it might fit in.
> 
> Our own untethered nature will slowly erode that which we all love if we're not careful.
Click to expand...

Prove it--I want scientifically based studies that can back up your assertion. Not saying that you are right or wrong, I just like proof. That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without further discussion.


----------



## richardjb

muzzlehutn said:


> I think the real reason why all you guys are all upset. Is cause you will all have to go buy new 4x scopes :O•-:


That made me smile. What the heck am I going to do with my 1X scope. Realistically, my 1X from my treestand will be fine for the time being. I just want to promote something that will help our sport bring in new blood., and pizz off all the fudds I can. I Kid!!!!!


----------



## utahgolf

I seriously wouldn't be surprised if outfitters are pushing for this one.


----------



## goofy elk

Well, here's some facts and thoughts.....

1) This change is NOT being pushed by outfitters.

2) The change is for "magnified scopes" Veritable, not just 4x.

3) This change would NOT increase hunting pressure on ANY ML hunt.

4) Could create more demand for the permits that do exist. pulling pressure
off some rifle tags.........

5) Wyoming DOSE NOT classify ML's as primitive. And magnified scopes are legal there.


----------



## Critter

The regs for the muzzle loader season varies from state to state more than anything else. Here in Colorado you can't have a scope, pellets for powder, or sabots. Now go up to Washington or Oregon and your muzzle loader needs to have a exposed hammer and shoot lead projectiles only. 

For my 2 cents allowing a variable scope on a ML is getting away from what the intended purpose of the hunt was set up for years ago. I went on my first ML hunt in Utah in 1976 but it was a muzzle loader or pistol hunt if I remember correctly.


----------



## GaryFish

I just read through all five pages of this and I guess my opinion is this. 
Most rifle hunters are not capable of consistently making shots over 200 yards, regardless of the power of scope. 
Modern muzzies shooting pellets and sabots are clearly capable of 200 yard shots. 
Putting multi power scopes turns a ML from a primitive weapon into a single shot rifle, with no real difference between a ML and a centerfire rifle.
If that is the case, there should be no differentiated season anymore. Call it what it is - a single shot rifle. 

I'd like to see a separate ML season - limiting MLs to loose powder, and lead balls or conicals - no sabots. 

If a guy wants to use a ML during the rifle hunt, there should be no scope limitations for the ML - should be same as a guy using a centerfire rifle.


----------



## utahgolf

goofy elk said:


> Well, here's some facts and thoughts.....
> 
> 1) This change is NOT being pushed by outfitters.
> 
> 2) The change is for "magnified scopes" Veritable, not just 4x.
> 
> 3) This change would NOT increase hunting pressure on ANY ML hunt.
> 
> 4) Could create more demand for the permits that do exist. pulling pressure
> off some rifle tags.........
> 
> 5) Wyoming DOSE NOT classify ML's as primitive. And magnified scopes are legal there.


so with this move it will be harder to draw a ML tag? also, if there is more demand for ML, than why wouldn't they add more tags to ML from the rifle pool the following year? seems like they'd have to and that puts more people in the field doesn't it?


----------



## GaryFish

With tag numbers capped, changes like this do not put more people in the field. They just shuffle WHEN and with WHAT people are in the field.


----------



## goofy elk

golf,
All I'm hearing at this point is tag reductions, on a some units, most will stay
about the same number as 2012....( general deer ).

Tag numbers that are issued have nothing to do with a change like this.

Even if it did increase the number of hunters that wanted ML tags, wouldn't matter.

Permit numbers are determined by herd counts, and buck to doe ratios, NOT scope regs.


----------



## utahgolf

goofy elk said:


> golf,
> 
> Permit numbers are determined by herd counts, and buck to doe ratios, NOT scope regs.


 I understand that, what I am saying is if ML gains more popularity with these guns being turned into single shot rifles. lets say rifle gets 50,000 tags and muzzleloader gets 17,000 tags. But we start to see an uptick in applicants for ML each year. Could we start to see a dip from rifle, set the next year or following years if the trend keeps up? Say the following year or years, rifle will instead get 47,000 and ML will get 20,000 tags alloted. Not increasing tags overall or dealing with buck to doe ratio, just instead equaling things out based on the popularity of the hunt. Sorry, for the exhaustion on this. I always thought rifle got the majority of the tags set to them because there are far more rifle hunters.


----------



## swbuckmaster

Correct goofy but when weapons proficiencies increase hunter harvest increases and tags need to be cut again. Tags already need to be cut in the rifle pool if you ask me.

I get so sick of all these rule changes we have in utah


----------



## Packout

swbuckmaster said:


> I get so sick of all these rule changes we have in utah


And THAT is correct. Every 6 months they are proposing some new change that is either kind-of impactful or totally altering. No wonder people have become less involved in the process. They are tired of keeping up with the paid lobbyists and wild-hairs. Tiring to say the least.


----------



## DallanC

swbuckmaster said:


> Correct goofy but when weapons proficiencies increase hunter harvest increases and tags need to be cut again. Tags already need to be cut in the rifle pool if you ask me.
> 
> I get so sick of all these rule changes we have in utah


Again, it should have no impact... muzzleloaders were never used as a means to control limited hunter harvest, expected success rates were the same as rifle hunters.

But yes, as all weapon types become more accurate and harvest rates increase, eventually tags will have to be offered assuming 1 tag = 1 kill. Look at the LE archery harvest numbers, alot of those are in the 90% success range.

-DallanC


----------



## Airborne

DallanC said:


> swbuckmaster said:
> 
> 
> 
> Correct goofy but when weapons proficiencies increase hunter harvest increases and tags need to be cut again. Tags already need to be cut in the rifle pool if you ask me.
> 
> I get so sick of all these rule changes we have in utah
> 
> 
> 
> Again, it should have no impact... muzzleloaders were never used as a means to control limited hunter harvest, expected success rates were the same as rifle hunters.
> 
> But yes, as all weapon types become more accurate and harvest rates increase, eventually tags will have to be offered assuming 1 tag = 1 kill. Look at the LE archery harvest numbers, alot of those are in the 90% success range.
> 
> -DallanC
Click to expand...

Liar Liar pants on fire!!!! See link below, almost all elk LE archery were under fifty percent. LIAR!!

http://wildlife.utah.gov/hunting/biggam ... elk_hr.pdf

With all you folks hell bent on stating that better technology=higher harvest rate I would really like to see some proof, scientifically based proof, otherwise you all are talking out of your fourth point of contact as we used to say in the Army. Just because you have a feeling and use "common sense" that something is a certain way, it is not always so. Folks thought the sun revolved around the earth for a few thousand years because it was common sense! Some of you probably still believe that :shock:


----------



## DallanC

Airborne said:


> Liar Liar pants on fire!!!! See link below, almost all elk LE archery were under fifty percent. LIAR!!


Isnt name calling against the rules here?

I never said elk... I just said archery, and hunts that are in the 90% range. I'll admit I hadnt looked at 2011 data, but there certainly are +90% success hunts. Want me to list a few?

5000 Beaver Archery 100.0%
5005 Box Elder, Puddle Valley Archery 100.0%
5006 Box Elder, Snowville Archery 100.0%
5008 Fillmore, Black Rock Desert Archery 100.0%
5016 South Slope, Bonanza-Diamond Mtn. Archery 100.0%
5019 West Desert, Riverbed Archery 100.0%
5020 West Desert, Rush Valley Archery 100.0%
5021 West Desert, Snake Valley Archery 100.0%
1011 LaSal , Dolores Triangle Archery 100.0%
1014 South Slope, Diamond Mountain Archery 93.8%
1013 San Juan, Elk Ridge Archery 90.9%
5009 Mt. Dutton/Paunsaugunt Archery 90.9%

Henry's #1000 Henry Mountains Archery was at 87.5%. The books just missed it, a meager 81.7% success in hunt #1009 and the pauns was just terrible at 75.9% success for #1001 archery.

Yea, no high success archery hunts... none at all.

-DallanC


----------



## Airborne

Well dallan, I guess the word "a lot" has a different meaning to you than it does to me, Bill Clinton has the same issue.,

Quick question, do you think those hunts that you listed had such a high percentage success rate all because of the fancy new bows we use today? Or maybe it's the incredibly high bull to cow ratios and limited bull hunters on LE units. Using your logic we should see compatible success rates on general hunts, ya know because those new fangled bows just shoot themselves, blah blah 100 yard shots, blah blah something something. Good try buddy--still waiting on some scientifically based studies to support your argument.


----------



## DallanC

Airborne said:


> Well dallan, I guess the word "a lot" has a different meaning to you than it does to me


Obviously. We go from you saying there are none and calling me a liar, to me posting a dozen examples.

I dont care about elk success rates, its not what I posted about. YOU seem to be wanting to redirect what I said into a discussion on archery elk hunting for some reason which is a different topic.

-DallanC


----------



## Airborne

So dallan, out of 57 archery LE hunts between the three species, there were 12 that were over 90%, that make a whopping 21% of the LE hunts were over 90% success. You said that a lot of LE hunts were in that range. I simply called you on it because I don't think 21% counts as a lot and supports your argument. You lied (poorly I might add) in order to prove your argument. That is why I called you a liar, apologize and I will take it back.

I stand by my assertion that if the weapon made all the difference then the general hunts would have a higher percentage success rate compared to ten or twenty years ago being all other factors remaining the same. A hard argument to substantiate, although that doesn't stop you fellas from doing it. You guys should watch more of the Myth Busters show, it teaches science in a fun way that you can enjoy, since you missed out on it in your learnin' years apparently.


----------



## Airborne

DallanC said:


> Airborne said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well dallan, I guess the word "a lot" has a different meaning to you than it does to me
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously. We go from you saying there are none and calling me a liar, to me posting a dozen examples.
> 
> -DallanC
Click to expand...

Where did I say there were no hunts over 90% success? Where? :roll:

Are you in high school? Have you had any secondary education? I have no interest in debating a high school kid, there is no sport in it, so I will politely exit this debate. I really wish we could see who we debate on these Internet forums, it would save me some time.


----------



## Kevin D

The whole idea behind the muzzleloader hunt was to give those that wanted the challenge of hunting using technology from a previous generation their own big game seasons. With all the tecnological advancements and gadgets commonly used with todays modern muzzleloaders, it may as well be a second rifle hunt. Incorporating the latest technological advancements into modern muzzleloader hunting certainly violates the spirit of why the special seasons were created in the first place, IMO.

BTW, it is currently legal to hunt with a 4x+ scope on your muzzleloader during the "any legal weapon" (rifle) hunt, just not during the standard muzzleloader hunt.


----------



## goofy elk

Kevin D said:


> .
> BTW, it is currently legal to hunt with a 4x+ scope on your muzzleloader during the "any legal weapon" (rifle) hunt, just not during the standard muzzleloader hunt.


Were did you fine that Kev :shock: :!:,,I had no idea 4x were legal for general season.

And airborne,
9 of the 12 Dallan posted up for 90% + archery success are antelope hunts.
You, and I know Airborne, how to pull these hunts off on a regular basis 

Another note success rates, and possibly another topic it's self, watch the 2012 stats.
For those of you that follow 3 year plus trends better start paying attention to this,
Especially elk, 3/4s of the states LE elk success rates are falling .....
State wide spike hunting will factor into this drop in coming years, and success
rates will take an even steeper dive....There will have to be tag reductions for LE elk.


----------



## sagebrush

this argument about how the muzzle loader should be only iron sights, sure is getting old. it comes up every year, for the people that are against using scopes on your muzzle loader then don't. it does not say that this is a requiremnet for you to do so.
this does help out the people that have to use reading glasses, it's not easy to see the sights when you get older. and we all know that 1x scopes suck big time. i can't think of any good reason that they are even around.
for those that think the masses will move over to the muzzle loader because of this move need to take your tin foil hat off. last year on the muzzle loader hunt I had a good 15 square miles to myself all beacuse of the new option 2 that was put into place. I'm sure this year will be the same.


----------



## Fishrmn

Kevin D said:


> BTW, it is currently legal to hunt with a 4x+ scope on your muzzleloader during the "any legal weapon" (rifle) hunt, just not during the standard muzzleloader hunt.


HUH?!?!?

From the current proclamation:


> Muzzleloaders
> Utah Code § 23-20-3 and Utah Admin. Rule R657-5-10
> *Muzzleloaders may be used during any big game hunt-except the archery hunt. To hunt big game with a muzzleloader, your muzzleloader must meet all of the following requirements:*
> • It can be loaded only from the muzzle.
> •* It must have open sights, peep sights or a
> fixed non-magnifying 1x scope.*
> • It can have only one barrel, and the barrel
> must be at least 18 inches long.
> • It cannot be capable of firing more than
> once without being reloaded.
> • The powder and bullet-or powder, sabot
> and bullet-cannot be bonded together as
> one unit for loading.
> • It must be loaded with black powder or a
> black powder substitute. The black powder or black power substitute cannot contain smokeless powder, but may contain some nitrocellulose.


----------



## swbuckmaster

BS if there wont be any more coming over. I would never hunt the rifle hunt again and neither would anyone in my family if this rule is implemented. Why would i or any of my kids or immediate family members want to do the utard rifle hunt if we can basically use a single shot rifle on the muzzy hunt?

As it is right now we have been avoiding it because the 1 power scope makes the deer 3 times as far away and covers the entire critter. Open sights are better then a one power scope. 

The secret to shooting and extending the range of a muzzy by hundreds of yards is to use a 9 power or better scope and work up a load. Then change the scope back to hunt. If they allow this change they will be a one shot rifle.

Sage i hate it when people start playing the handy cap card like you just did to make your point. Ooo its not fair for for people who need glasses ooo. This is the same argument these guys try and use to get crossbows legal. Since they cant they just claim some sort of handy cap and get a tag. Then buy a crossbow never shoot the sucker and be able to shoot out to a hundred yards with a heaver and faster arrow then i can shoot with my bow and i have to practice year round to do what i do. If anyone dont think the "handy cap" issue isnt over played now days they need to wake up. This whole country is going down the crapper pandering to all the wannabes. Every year i see more handicaped hunters ten miles into the back country hunting with a crossbow getting around just as good as i. Every day i see some handicap pull up in a handicap stall and get out if the car and walk just as fast and able as i. Every plane i get on i see some lard play a handicap card to load the plane first.


----------



## goofy elk

Hey Kev, you been hunting ML in Nevada, Or thinking of their muzzy laws?

Because that's exactly what Nevada dose...
You CAN NOT use scopes on ML's during ML only seasons.

BUT, you CAN use 4x OR, variable scopes during rifle (any weapon) hunts on muzzle loaders.


----------



## sagebrush

swbuckmaster you come across just like Diane Feinstein people Will be out in the field spraying bullets everywhere at distance's beyond belief. I'll tell you what I 'll go bow hunting this year if that will make you feel better. but I get to use my crossbow and high power scope.


----------



## Renegade

Why on Earth would anyone want an aiming aid device to be illegal? Anything that can help a shooter make a quicker, cleaner, more humane kill should be encouraged, not banned.


----------



## utahgolf

Renegade said:


> Why on Earth would anyone want an aiming aid device to be illegal? Anything that can help a shooter make a quicker, cleaner, more humane kill should be encouraged, not banned.


so with that reasoning, why not allow smokeless powder, so hunters can see more clearly if they hit the animal? why not allow all variable scopes? Humane kills are encouraged by common sense individuals/hunters, practice with your weapon, know the weapons limitations and your own limitations! Don't try and make up for those limitations with added technology and changing of regs! get close to the game you are hunting!


----------



## richardjb

Common sense is allowed now, we can now use Blackhorn 209 powder. It's cleaner, more stable/safe, more accurate and much easier to clean up. Oh, and I almost forgot, less smoke. So much for your statement. Most smokeless powder is banned for safety reasons,( to hot), not because it would give a hunter an edge.


----------



## Renegade

utahgolf said:


> Renegade said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why on Earth would anyone want an aiming aid device to be illegal? Anything that can help a shooter make a quicker, cleaner, more humane kill should be encouraged, not banned.
> 
> 
> 
> so with that reasoning, why not allow smokeless powder, so hunters can see more clearly if they hit the animal? why not allow all variable scopes? Humane kills are encouraged by common sense individuals/hunters, practice with your weapon, know the weapons limitations and your own limitations! Don't try and make up for those limitations with added technology and changing of regs! get close to the game you are hunting!
Click to expand...

We utilize technological advances in every method of hunting today, including muzzy hunting. I'll bet you don't use a driver made of wood.


----------



## utahgolf

Renegade said:


> utahgolf said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Renegade said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why on Earth would anyone want an aiming aid device to be illegal? Anything that can help a shooter make a quicker, cleaner, more humane kill should be encouraged, not banned.
> 
> 
> 
> so with that reasoning, why not allow smokeless powder, so hunters can see more clearly if they hit the animal? why not allow all variable scopes? Humane kills are encouraged by common sense individuals/hunters, practice with your weapon, know the weapons limitations and your own limitations! Don't try and make up for those limitations with added technology and changing of regs! get close to the game you are hunting!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We utilize technological advances in every method of hunting today, including muzzy hunting. I'll bet you don't use a driver made of wood.
Click to expand...

golf has set limitations for competitive play and they've drawn a line. At some point we have to draw a line with regualtions. Others want to keep on advancing, maybe one day we'll be able to fire our muzzleloader from a remote drone aircraft. :shock:


----------



## richardjb

Now your talking! Can I have my buddy on the ground with a lazer designator?


----------



## muzzlehutn

Now that will come in handy while hunting Utahs unicorns.


----------



## richardjb

muzzlehutn said:


> Now that will come in handy while hunting Utahs unicorns.


So you are willing to be my spotter? Right on! I think I may have enough points for that tag.


----------



## muzzlehutn

Man don'ts yous knows thems over the counter tags!?! Come with a Fitty dollar off coupon for 4x scope of your choosing! lol


----------



## Kevin D

Fishrmn said:


> From the current proclamation:
> 
> 
> 
> Muzzleloaders
> Utah Code § 23-20-3 and Utah Admin. Rule R657-5-10
> *Muzzleloaders may be used during any big game hunt-except the archery hunt. To hunt big game with a muzzleloader, your muzzleloader must meet all of the following requirements:*
> • It can be loaded only from the muzzle.
> •* It must have open sights, peep sights or a
> fixed non-magnifying 1x scope.*
> • It can have only one barrel, and the barrel
> must be at least 18 inches long.
> • It cannot be capable of firing more than
> once without being reloaded.
> • The powder and bullet-or powder, sabot
> and bullet-cannot be bonded together as
> one unit for loading.
> • It must be loaded with black powder or a
> black powder substitute. The black powder or black power substitute cannot contain smokeless powder, but may contain some nitrocellulose.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I just assumed a muzzleloader would be treated like any other rifle during the "any weapon" hunts. My bad.


----------



## Fishrmn

You can use a bow during any hunt EXCEPT the muzzleloader hunt. But it has to meet all of the same requirements for bows and arrows that pertain during the archery hunt too.


----------



## gwailow

It's not like there aren't guys trying to lob 300 yd shots with their current 1x scopes anyway. If anything this may help cut down on wounded animals during the MZ hunt, giving a better FOV for a better shot.

Quick side note-- I talked with a few local vendors and they have a hard time keeping quick detach rings in stock, normally sell quite a few around MZ season....I dunno what's happening, but it makes me think some folks aren't quite living by the rules right now anyway.....


----------



## Fishrmn

Or, instead of one out of a hundred guys lobbing 300 yard shots, and missing by several feet, we'll have dozens of guys lobbing 300 or 400 yard shots and just barely nicking dozens of deer.


----------



## Renegade

Fishrmn said:


> Or, instead of one out of a hundred guys lobbing 300 yard shots, and missing by several feet, we'll have dozens of guys lobbing 300 or 400 yard shots and just barely nicking dozens of deer.


So are you saying you'd rather it be illegal for the ethical, law abiding hunter to use a scope because an unethical moron might take an unrealistic shot with one sometime maybe?

To me that's as silly as making AR's illegal for normal people because some nut bag might shoot up a mall with one sometime.


----------



## Cooky

gwailow said:


> Quick side note-- I talked with a few local vendors and they have a hard time keeping quick detach rings in stock, normally sell quite a few around MZ season....I dunno what's happening, but it makes me think some folks aren't quite living by the rules right now anyway.....


I use a quick detach set up on my inline so I can scrub it in a bucket with soap and water without trashing the scope. I kind of assumed that's why everybody else had them.


----------



## Huge29

Cooky said:


> gwailow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Quick side note-- I talked with a few local vendors and they have a hard time keeping quick detach rings in stock, normally sell quite a few around MZ season....I dunno what's happening, but it makes me think some folks aren't quite living by the rules right now anyway.....
> 
> 
> 
> I use a quick detach set up on my inline so I can scrub it in a bucket with soap and water without trashing the scope. I kind of assumed that's why everybody else had them.
Click to expand...

A buddy of mine's dad had those and his intention was clear; apparently it was not as quick as he thought and was taking it off with every white truck he would see, just dumb. I don't see that being enjoyable at all being so worried about getting busted.


----------



## Packout

Renegade said:


> Fishrmn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or, instead of one out of a hundred guys lobbing 300 yard shots, and missing by several feet, we'll have dozens of guys lobbing 300 or 400 yard shots and just barely nicking dozens of deer.
> 
> 
> 
> So are you saying you'd rather it be illegal for the ethical, law abiding hunter to use a scope because an unethical moron might take an unrealistic shot with one sometime maybe?
> 
> To me that's as silly as making AR's illegal for normal people because some nut bag might shoot up a mall with one sometime.
Click to expand...

Problem is that we can't regulate ethics, so we limit the technology. There is also no way to pass the worry off as "might, sometime, maybe". Will, often and most likely are more appropriate terms-- as every year I witness guys taking farrrrr shots with their MLs, most missing.

Why do people want 4x or variable scopes on MLs? It is so they can more easily shoot the animal. Be it for sight or for ease of the shot or for making a longer shot. I have hunted other states with scopes on MLs and have seen the difference. One shot kills on bucks at pushing 300 yards away. The change allows the hunter to win and the animal to lose. If the animals lose too much then we lose the opportunity to hunt them. I know some guys scoff at that idea, but common sense dictates otherwise.


----------



## utahgolf

Packout said:


> Renegade said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishrmn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or, instead of one out of a hundred guys lobbing 300 yard shots, and missing by several feet, we'll have dozens of guys lobbing 300 or 400 yard shots and just barely nicking dozens of deer.
> 
> 
> 
> So are you saying you'd rather it be illegal for the ethical, law abiding hunter to use a scope because an unethical moron might take an unrealistic shot with one sometime maybe?
> 
> To me that's as silly as making AR's illegal for normal people because some nut bag might shoot up a mall with one sometime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Problem is that we can't regulate ethics, so we limit the technology. There is also no way to pass the worry off as "might, sometime, maybe". Will, often and most likely are more appropriate terms-- as every year I witness guys taking farrrrr shots with their MLs, most missing.
> 
> Why do people want 4x or variable scopes on MLs? It is so they can more easily shoot the animal. Be it for sight or for ease of the shot or for making a longer shot. I have hunted other states with scopes on MLs and have seen the difference. One shot kills on bucks at pushing 300 yards away. The change allows the hunter to win and the animal to lose. If the animals lose too much then we lose the opportunity to hunt them. I know some guys scoff at that idea, but common sense dictates otherwise.
Click to expand...

+1,
with a 4x scope, 150-200 yard shots would be almost a gimmie for most decent shots and with how well these guns shoot. If it was 4x, I woulda closed the deal on the first day the last two years. but as it stands now with my vision and a 1x, I won't take a shot over a 100 yards and I need a good rest on some sticks to do that. plus, it's more fun to get to that 60-70 yard zone for me and that's all part of it. All these guys saying that it will help reduce crippled game aren't being real about it either. It will just add another extra couple hundred yards guys are willing to shoot. instead of 300 yard lobs, it will be 400 yard lobs and so on.


----------



## Renegade

A novel idea for those of you who are against scopes on muzzys might be to not use one. Regulating ethics is impossible. Ethics are individual.

Most states are being very proactive in regulations. Scopes on muzzys, crossbows legal during the archery hunts, younger hunters allowed in the field. The list goes on.


----------



## utahgolf

proactive has a different meaning to some. I see it as being more REactive.


----------



## Renegade

utahgolf said:


> proactive has a different meaning to some. I see it as being more REactive.


No doubt.

Ethics have many, many definitions amongst individuals as well.


----------



## richardjb

Renegade said:


> utahgolf said:
> 
> 
> 
> proactive has a different meaning to some. I see it as being more REactive.
> 
> 
> 
> No doubt.
> 
> Ethics have many, many definitions amongst individuals as well.
Click to expand...

But you must submit to us Utahns, our Ethics are much better than someone from the corn fields? Sorry,Renegade, some folks seem to to sit higher on the horse here! Did I say that out loud?


----------



## utahgolf

richardjb said:


> Renegade said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> utahgolf said:
> 
> 
> 
> proactive has a different meaning to some. I see it as being more REactive.
> 
> 
> 
> No doubt.
> 
> Ethics have many, many definitions amongst individuals as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But you must submit to us Utahns, our Ethics are much better than someone from the corn fields? Sorry,Renegade, some folks seem to to sit higher on the horse here! Did I say that out loud?
Click to expand...

 I don't think it's ethically wrong for states to allow high power scopes on ML or ethically wrong for states to allow crossbows. But just because other states allow things, doesn't mean utah should! sorry but that's a lame reason.


----------



## Renegade

I agree that it's up to individual state to decide on their regulations. That said, states have the responsibility to use sound, proven, scientific methods of determining regulations and should use other states choices as a litmus test to determine the effectiveness.


----------



## utahgolf

well lets use colorado as an example and as a litmus test? no sabots or pellet powder or scope of any kind! people would be screaming here if we used that states regs! so you can pick and choose I guess. But in all honesty, I think there is a myth with some of these products and relaxing of regs helping the sport and that myth is perpetuated by the companies, their reps and shows, who make these products and are wanting to expand their markets.


----------



## Renegade

Colorado is nuts. You can't even use a Lumenok in Colorado? That's just plain silly. And you can't blame a business for wanting to sell more of their products. That's what there here for, not because making muskets is fun. Of course your opinion about the myth is again, just an opinion. Not necessarily fact.


----------



## utahgolf

Renegade said:


> And you can't blame a business for wanting to sell more of their products.


I agree and I do agree that colorado is a bit extreme and that's why I think utah has the right mix, but I hope sometimes people can see through some of things that are pushed and what some of those motivating factors can be. Reg changes aren't always for the good of hunting.


----------



## redleg

I would like to hunt with Colorado's M.L. regs.
Pennsylvania’s would be all right too.
Utah already has an any weapon hunt.
That is where the sabots, scopes and in-lines should be.


----------



## DallanC

redleg said:


> I would like to hunt with Colorado's M.L. regs.
> Pennsylvania's would be all right too.
> Utah already has an any weapon hunt.
> That is where the sabots, scopes and in-lines should be.


I agreed with you until you said inlines. I have a hawkin I rebarreled with the same fast twist barrel my Remington 700ML has, it will hold just as tight of groups with the same ammo. There isnt a difference in accuracy or killing range, the hawkin is faster to clean is all.

Limit range by components, and sights. The direction the hammer travels is irrelevant.

You want a primative ML season? Ok how about this: muzzleloaders cannot have coil springs (the single greatest improvement since the advent of the cap), they must use flat springs. The cap must be exposed to the elements, the barrel twist must be 1/48" or slower. using patched roundball only. Iron sights only.

There ya go, now thats primative! Todays "replica" hawkins are just as advanced and foolproof as any inline out there with proper loading. To restrict one over the other just doesnt make sense anymore. Limit by components.

-DallanC


----------



## Fishrmn

redleg said:


> I would like to hunt with Colorado's M.L. regs.
> Pennsylvania's would be all right too.


You can. There's nothing stopping you.


----------



## proutdoors

DallanC said:


> If you want to shoot out to 500 yards, simply get one of these. They've only been used for over 150 years now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -DallanC


I have a good friend that I watched take down a cow elk at 515 yards last fall with this sight! I was impressed and in awe. He practices for hours on end. He has taken many elk and this is the new challenge for him. 4 power scopes are LESS effective long range than this type of currently LEGAL sight.....


----------



## proutdoors

Renegade said:


> A novel idea for those of you who are against scopes on muzzys might be to not use one. Regulating ethics is impossible. Ethics are individual.
> 
> Most states are being very proactive in regulations. Scopes on muzzys, crossbows legal during the archery hunts, younger hunters allowed in the field. The list goes on.


A-FREAKING-MEN!

I am pretty sure success rates, even without 4 power scopes, are roughly the same for any weapon and muzzy, so I think this heartburn is muchado about NOTHING!


----------



## ridgetop

proutdoors said:


> Renegade said:
> 
> 
> 
> A novel idea for those of you who are against scopes on muzzys might be to not use one. Regulating ethics is impossible. Ethics are individual.
> 
> Most states are being very proactive in regulations. Scopes on muzzys, crossbows legal during the archery hunts, younger hunters allowed in the field. The list goes on.
> 
> 
> 
> A-FREAKING-MEN!
> 
> I am pretty sure success rates, even without 4 power scopes, are roughly the same for any weapon and muzzy, so I think this heartburn is muchado about NOTHING!
Click to expand...

I agree


----------



## campfire

ridgetop said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Renegade said:
> 
> 
> 
> A novel idea for those of you who are against scopes on muzzys might be to not use one. Regulating ethics is impossible. Ethics are individual.
> 
> Most states are being very proactive in regulations. Scopes on muzzys, crossbows legal during the archery hunts, younger hunters allowed in the field. The list goes on.
> 
> 
> 
> A-FREAKING-MEN!
> 
> I am pretty sure success rates, even without 4 power scopes, are roughly the same for any weapon and muzzy, so I think this heartburn is muchado about NOTHING!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree
Click to expand...

+2

But don't tell Pro I agreed with him. He has sensitive feelings you know.


----------



## Cooky

Renegade said:


> I agree that it's up to individual state to decide on their regulations. That said, states have the responsibility to use sound, proven, scientific methods of determining regulations and should use other states choices as a litmus test to determine the effectiveness.


I believe more game laws are based on local tradition, sentiment and politics than science. I also believe that's okay. I haven't seen that what people plan for nature to do has much impact on what nature does.


----------



## proutdoors

Cooky said:


> Renegade said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that it's up to individual state to decide on their regulations. That said, states have the responsibility to use sound, proven, scientific methods of determining regulations and should use other states choices as a litmus test to determine the effectiveness.
> 
> 
> 
> I believe more game laws are based on local tradition, sentiment and politics than science. I also believe that's okay. I haven't seen that what people plan for nature to do has much impact on what nature does.
Click to expand...

So, you are okay with inane laws that limit opportunities...................got it. :?


----------



## utahgolf

proutdoors said:


> Cooky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Renegade said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that it's up to individual state to decide on their regulations. That said, states have the responsibility to use sound, proven, scientific methods of determining regulations and should use other states choices as a litmus test to determine the effectiveness.
> 
> 
> 
> I believe more game laws are based on local tradition, sentiment and politics than science. I also believe that's okay. I haven't seen that what people plan for nature to do has much impact on what nature does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, you are okay with inane laws that limit opportunities...................got it. :?
Click to expand...

how do current laws limit opportunity? ML specifically? people can choose what they want to hunt based on their needs/ability. When I get a little older I'll be hunting back with a rifle cause of my eyes, which aren't great now. You could come up with tons of reg changes to fit certain peoples needs. Opening up and creating more atv roads into the back country for people who are older etc.... Where does it end?


----------



## proutdoors

utahgolf said:


> how do current laws limit opportunity? ML specifically? people can choose what they want to hunt based on their needs/ability. When I get a little older I'll be hunting back with a rifle cause of my eyes, which aren't great now. You could come up with tons of reg changes to fit certain peoples needs. Opening up and creating more atv roads into the back country for people who are older etc.... Where does it end?


How do current laws limit opportunity.....do I really have to answer that? We manage to harvest gare averages, which results is LOST opportunity. We manage for B/D ratios purely for social reasons, NOT science based reasons, which result in LOST opportunity. We divide hunters into various weapon categories, causing division amongst ourselves. This has resulted in taking AWAY opportunities from one or more weapon choices to appease the others. Example: statewide archery. It was done away with because of complaints from one weapon segment that another was getting "too good of a deal". It had NOTHING to do with science! 
Ever hunt on the Manti? There IS an atv trail on pert near every ridge.......I do NOT like a few select individuals deciding what is best for everyone else. And, when their decisions are based on greed, stupidity, biased views.....instead of being based on what is best for the wildlife, and based on proven science, it makes it even worse! There is NO science that is going to show that limiting muzzy's to open sights or 1X scopes with lower success rates. It does however, show that these restrictions LIMIT the number of potiental hunters that can enjoy pursuing big game animals with a muzzy. As I mentioned earlier, the success rates for muzzy deer hunters and rifle deer hunters are the SAME. So, either you have to believe that allowing 4X scopes will make muzzy's MORE effective than rifles that can reach out 700+ yards, or that you simply like inane rules. Which is it?


----------



## utahgolf

There's quite a few people who want ML scope changes not because they Need them but because they want them. As it stands now, its tougher with a 1x scope. Well people hate that tough word and want it to be EASIER. A 4x certainly makes those 100-200 yard shots much easier. It would be a shame to have to get closer. There's also the spirit of the law and regs. Yes, yes, peep sights and practice can take game a long ways with a ML but for most people in general, you have to get closer. Throwing high powered scopes on these things takes away from the spirit of the hunt and does increase range. Guess lets legalize everything and say it's just for opportunity sake which I think is BS.. guys can hunt the muzzy or hunt rifle, choose one? what keeps them from hunting muzzy with these regs? If their eyes are bad, just get closer to about bow range? it's doable and would still be fun? Hey, some guys are confined to a truck and don't have an atv, lets open up atv trails to all 4 wheel drive vehicles, that would benefit me, I have to park down low and hike in! it ain't fair! lets let people legally shoot from vehicles, sometimes it's too hard to get in and out of a vehicle when older!


----------



## proutdoors

I love it when people reduce themselves to childish comments! If YOU want to limit yourself, you can. But, when YOU want to limit others to YOUR standards/wishes, it isn't about what is "tough" or "fair", it about YOU being selfish and/or arrogant. Throwing out hyperboles doesn't make your view more valid, just saying......! I am NOT a muzzy hunter, and don't see a scenario where I woould ever be one. I hunt with a bow, and I am giving up the compound and returning to a recurve. I do this because I want to limit MYSELF. I have no desire to limit others!


----------



## utahgolf

So who decides what's limited and what's not? I thought the regs and weapon choices did that? and you are able to choose based on what you wanted to hunt with? If regs should be changed based on what technology is available, than why have Archery or ML hunts at all? Lets all shoot the latest and greatest technology, high powered scopes and rifles? I don't see how current ML regs with a 1x, keeps people from hunting ML? I'm not limiting others by wanting to adhere and keep the CURRENT regs and people know the regs before they choose. If I want to use a gun, I won't hunt archery. If I want to use a high powered scope, I won't hunt ML, I'd hunt rifle. Just like with so many other things, we cross a line. Sometimes a line needs to be drawn when we start to go past what was intended. I guess that's why we have debate and we can decide where that line is with weapons regs.


----------



## jahan

I don't have a problem with it either way, but people may want to look at the unintended consequences. This is purely speculative, but I would assume the success rate would increase some, not a ton, but some. If this is the case, that would mean tags would need to be cut because of the increase in success rate. Low success hunts are a way to create more opportunity in my opinion. Like I said, I am not against this, I just don't think people look at the overall effect it could have. I think maybe a better approach would be to allow these scopes, but let them hunt with the rifle hunters.


----------



## Brookie

I just wish I wouldn't have bought a 1x scope this past Christmas season if they are going to change it


----------



## DallanC

Up until last year, Muzzleloader tags were managed as the same success rate as the rifle group. They came out of the same pool... and until the ML season started a person could swap between them at will (with a $6 fee). It didnt matter to the DWR if you used a rifle to harvest or a muzzleloader to harvest, they managed assuming the same # of deer killed.


-DallanC


----------



## proutdoors

jahan said:


> I don't have a problem with it either way, but people may want to look at the unintended consequences. This is purely speculative, but I would assume the success rate would increase some, not a ton, but some. If this is the case, that would mean tags would need to be cut because of the increase in success rate. Low success hunts are a way to create more opportunity in my opinion. Like I said, I am not against this, I just don't think people look at the overall effect it could have. I think maybe a better approach would be to allow these scopes, but let them hunt with the rifle hunters.


 As I have repeatedly stated, success rates for muzzy are already virtually the SAME as rifle success rates. Are you suggesting that with 4X scopes muzzy hunters would enjoy higher success rates than rifle hunter enjoy? If so, based on what?


----------



## proutdoors

utahgolf said:


> I guess that's why we have debate and we can decide where that line is with weapons regs.


 Now, that I agree with. 8)


----------



## jahan

proutdoors said:


> jahan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have a problem with it either way, but people may want to look at the unintended consequences. This is purely speculative, but I would assume the success rate would increase some, not a ton, but some. If this is the case, that would mean tags would need to be cut because of the increase in success rate. Low success hunts are a way to create more opportunity in my opinion. Like I said, I am not against this, I just don't think people look at the overall effect it could have. I think maybe a better approach would be to allow these scopes, but let them hunt with the rifle hunters.
> 
> 
> 
> As I have repeatedly stated, success rates for muzzy are already virtually the SAME as rifle success rates. Are you suggesting that with 4X scopes muzzy hunters would enjoy higher success rates than rifle hunter enjoy? If so, based on what?
Click to expand...

I am not sure what part of "speculative" you aren't understanding. My comment was purely hypothetical and I had no numbers to base it off of. You said they are "virtually" the same which is not the same. I get your point and don't disagree with you, I just think you are looking to hard into my comments. :mrgreen:


----------



## utahgolf

[quote="proutdoors] As I have repeatedly stated, success rates for muzzy are already virtually the SAME as rifle success rates. Are you suggesting that with 4X scopes muzzy hunters would enjoy higher success rates than rifle hunter enjoy? If so, based on what?[/quote]

maybe, maybe not. but a 4x scope would definitely increase accuracy/range for the average joe. I just see it as a move for a few people wanting to be able to take longer and longer shots. It's not like these regs were changed mid season, it'd be like playing basketball for a long time and then complaining about the rim and wanting it lowered so it's easier. People know and have choices, we have a rifle hunt, people can hunt that and I agree, make variable scopes legal for people who want to use their ml on the rifle hunt. But it's getting to the point where it's like a bunch of foreigners who move here and want laws changed the way they are back home. The tag system and overall management plan is what's truly limiting opportunity.


----------



## DallanC

How does a scope change the ballistic arc of a projectile in flight? Not really seeing how a scope extends range all that much. I can use the subtend of my 1x scope the same as a 4x scope to alter hold-over, but the ballistic flight path is the same no mater what type of optics is on the gun.


-DallanC


----------



## martymcfly73

DallanC said:


> How does a scope change the ballistic arc of a projectile in flight? Not really seeing how a scope extends range all that much. I can use the subtend of my 1x scope the same as a 4x scope to alter hold-over, but the ballistic flight path is the same no mater what type of optics is on the gun.
> 
> -DallanC


If you can see it you can shoot it. 4x is 4x closer to some people.


----------



## utahgolf

martymcfly73 said:


> DallanC said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does a scope change the ballistic arc of a projectile in flight? Not really seeing how a scope extends range all that much. I can use the subtend of my 1x scope the same as a 4x scope to alter hold-over, but the ballistic flight path is the same no mater what type of optics is on the gun.
> 
> -DallanC
> 
> 
> 
> If you can see it you can shoot it. 4x is 4x closer to some people.
Click to expand...

yep, Ya can't shoot what ya can't see, although some like to. I know my effective range would be increased with a 4x scope. right now a 100 yards is max that I'm confident with, with my eyes, and even though the load combo I shoot would be just fine out to greater yardages I still won't take it. With a 4x scope, 150-200 yards would be a lot easier, I think that's the case for most people. So in a nutshell, it can increase range.


----------



## Cooky

proutdoors said:


> Cooky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Renegade said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that it's up to individual state to decide on their regulations. That said, states have the responsibility to use sound, proven, scientific methods of determining regulations and should use other states choices as a litmus test to determine the effectiveness.
> 
> 
> 
> I believe more game laws are based on local tradition, sentiment and politics than science. I also believe that's okay. I haven't seen that what people plan for nature to do has much impact on what nature does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, you are okay with inane laws that limit opportunities...................got it. :?
Click to expand...

Well...the laws you consider inane probably wouldn't have been enacted if hunters as a whole considered them that. Or perhaps better stated, if the most vocal of the hunters considered them inane.
If we all decide we don't want to limit optics on muzzleloaders then we shouldn't. If we believe we have to limit permits because we change the rules then we should. One bad winter or a couple pleasant springs nullify all the scheming and fussing.
We can pretend to manage wildlife to fit current "group think" but in the end we will have to work with whatever mother nature does.


----------



## klbzdad

BirdDogger said:


> At the very least, it should be legal to use a magnified scope on a muzzleloader during the general rifle hunt.


+1000 Yup!


----------



## Fishrmn

I think the 'any weapon' hunt should include ANY weapon. Crossgun, muzzleloader with variable power scopes, cannons, etc.


----------



## DallanC

Cannon hunting has been aruond... makes a mess of the meat though.

http://www.buckstix.com/howitzer.htm










-DallanC


----------



## utahgolf

sadly a lot of deer look like that on the rifle hunt!


----------



## Mojo1

:lol: As with the crossbow debate, sooner or later Utah will join the rest of the 21st century despite the whining of the purists.

I can use a variable scope on my black powder in OK and AR, does it make it shoot farther??? Of course not! I can still remember the outcry when we switched to variables being legal. Same old tried excuses I read here, too many more hunters, too many cripples, etc. :roll: you know what happened??? No measurable change in those areas. The sky didn't fall and every year folks still hunt with side locks alongside folks with in lines. 

I'm all for it.


----------



## Mojo1

DallanC said:


> Cannon hunting has been aruond... makes a mess of the meat though.
> 
> http://www.buckstix.com/howitzer.htm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -DallanC


Looks like it was shot with ooo buckshot and its a piss poor pattern to boot! :twisted:


----------



## Cooky

Mojo1 said:


> sooner or later Utah will join the rest of the 21st century despite the whining


We will have to be dragged...kicking and screaming.


----------



## Mojo1

Cooky said:


> Mojo1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> sooner or later Utah will join the rest of the 21st century despite the whining
> 
> 
> 
> We will have to be dragged...kicking and screaming.
Click to expand...

It's been the same in the other states


----------



## RobK

DallanC said:


> meltedsnowman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thats too bad. Just another way to wound and lose wildlife for those who think themselves above stalking.
> 
> 
> 
> No more than the people taking 100 yard archery shots or people shooting +600 yards with rifles. Ethical people stay within their bounds, unethical people will make unethical shots with a 1x or 4x scope /shrug
> 
> -DallanC
Click to expand...

ditto !!


----------



## RobK

Mojo1 said:


> DallanC said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cannon hunting has been aruond... makes a mess of the meat though.
> 
> http://www.buckstix.com/howitzer.htm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -DallanC
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like it was shot with ooo buckshot and its a **** poor pattern to boot! :twisted:
Click to expand...

photo shopped LOL look at the patern of the holes . the ones on the neck all match and the ones on the rest of the body all match


----------



## waspocrew

martymcfly73 said:


> DallanC said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does a scope change the ballistic arc of a projectile in flight? Not really seeing how a scope extends range all that much. I can use the subtend of my 1x scope the same as a 4x scope to alter hold-over, but the ballistic flight path is the same no mater what type of optics is on the gun.
> 
> -DallanC
> 
> 
> 
> If you can see it you can shoot it. 4x is 4x closer to some people.
Click to expand...

The average hunter probably doesn't understand the ballistics of his/her weapon. I know plenty of guys that shoot a couple of rounds at the range before the opener to check the scope and that's all of the practice they put in to it.


----------



## utahgolf

I know you guys are trying to play dumb about the increase in range factor because you can't be that thick or naive. YES, we know a scope does nothing to change the arc of the bullet, point made and was never disputed. With a higher powered scope, your range is INCREASED through your overall effectiveness to accurately place the crosshairs in order to compensate for the ballistics of whichever load you are shooting. If my load combo drops 25 inches at 250 yards I would be able to align/compensate for that with a 4x scope but there's NO way I could do that with a 1x, I wouldn't have any idea where the animal is or exactly what point my ccrosshairs are fixed on because the crosshairs take up the whole thing at that range. Thus, your range is increased, not hard to understand and I know you all know that, even if you won't concede to that obvious point. If a high powered scope doesn't help with longer range shooting than why aren't all these long range shooting shows and sniper shows using open sights or 1xs? hmmmmmmm lets see :roll:


----------



## Uni

Pretty big difference between a 250 yard shot and 1000+.

If you can't see a deer at 250 yards with a 1x, you probably shouldn't be using a scope.


----------



## utahgolf

Uni said:


> Pretty big difference between a 250 yard shot and 1000+.
> 
> If you can't see a deer at 250 yards with a 1x, you probably shouldn't be using a scope.


Have you used a 1x before? there's a difference between a 100 yard shot and a 250 yard shot knowing exactly where your "bullseye" is on your crosshairs and the site picture alone changes quite a bit with that extra 150 yards, especially with mediocre vision. That's why MY max is a hundred yards with my eyes.. Try it sometime and switch out the scope with a 4x at that range and you'd see quite a difference in accuracy/groupings. Which is where the effectiveness of ones shooting is changed at an INCREASE in range with an increase in magnification. Pretty simple to understand even if you try not to.


----------



## Bo0YaA

I haven't read all the posts but I say Hell Yes!!! as mentioned, the guns are still limited to a certain distance regardless of magnification but I know for a fact that 250 maybe even 300 is very doable providing you can see your target. 1x scopes suck and actually make things look further away IMHO. Look at how many unsold tags there were for the muzzy hunt. Bottom line, if they want to sell those tags, this is a good way to do it and we all know in the end, its all about the $$


----------



## waspocrew

Bo0YaA said:


> Look at how many unsold tags there were for the muzzy hunt. Bottom line, if they want to sell those tags, this is a good way to do it and we all know in the end, its all about the $$


I'm pretty sure they still got most of their money when the unsold muzzy tags transferred to any weapon tags for the few units that still had them remaining. I was surprised that it took so long for the tags to sell- not too many people knew about it. Box Elder had a TON of leftover tags.

I'm for whatever really. I had a great time with a muzzy and 1x scope- if that's how it stays, that's great. If it changes to 4X, I'm sure I'll pick one up and practice just as much as before.


----------



## klbzdad

Bo0YaA said:


> I haven't read all the posts but I say Hell Yes!!! as mentioned, the guns are still limited to a certain distance regardless of magnification but I know for a fact that 250 maybe even 300 is very doable providing you can see your target. 1x scopes suck and actually make things look further away IMHO. Look at how many unsold tags there were for the muzzy hunt. Bottom line, if they want to sell those tags, this is a good way to do it and we all know in the end, its all about the $$


Soooo, lets let a few of those boneheads who think its perfectly fine to take a 120 yard shot with a bow and a 1200 yard shot with their 22-250 at live animals just because they hit a target once or twice that was static and there was no wind ANOTHER reason to push the limits of their equipment? Okay, if that's the argument, I guess I'm sold. :roll: Too bad I just spent $200.00 on a solid 1x for my muzzleloader scope! What were they thinking limiting a "primitive" weapon to "primitive" accessories? :O•-:


----------



## Mojo1

-_O- The vast majority of t today's black powder guns are not true primitive firearms. I still remember when no one had yet come out with 209 ignition or high performance sabots. inlines weren't around. You seldom saw a scope on a hawken

Dumbasses are gonna be dumbasses no matter what kind of equipment restrictions are in place.


----------



## klbzdad

True Mojo1. The way things are going, the only true "primitive" weapon is a rock. Hell, even sling shots or wrist rockets should be approved to have a variable power scope mounted to them.


----------



## goofy elk

Bought a brand new Remington 700 camo special 7mm this week, long story short,
It came with a new 3x9 scope, took it off and put a Nikon on the new 7mm.....

Put the new factory scope on my 50 cal knight 2 days ago, CANT WAIT TO USE IT 

My 50 cal with a new 3x9,,,,,Ready to rock-n-roll :!:
[attachment=0:3jv3codk]100_3793a.jpg[/attachment:3jv3codk]


----------



## klbzdad

goofy elk said:


> Bought a brand new Remington 700 camo special 7mm this week, long story short,
> It came with a new 3x9 scope, took it off and put a Nikon on the new 7mm.....
> 
> Put the new factory scope on my 50 cal knight 2 days ago, CANT WAIT TO USE IT
> 
> My 50 cal with a new 3x9,,,,,Ready to rock-n-roll :!:
> [attachment=0:9lbbolap]100_3793a.jpg[/attachment:9lbbolap]


I actually took a peek through a 3x9 scope today. THAT I personally wouldn't have a problem with, actually. There was just enough magnification that if you zero'd that sucker at 100 yards you'd still have a sight window big enough to adjust if your target was 200 yards out. Are we allowed to change our minds around here, or it is just a few who think the rest of us are stupid?


----------



## manysteps

If it were my decision, I'd move to open sights, and no inlines... don't see any sense in limiting to patched round ball since that isn't an ethical load beyond 50 yards IMHO...

My reasoning is slightly different than the last 14 pages I just read though. 

As the technology has improved over the last few years, I've seen a VAST increase in "stupid" out in the field... each year, the muzz hunt becomes more and more like the rifle hunt. (including having shots going over my head from some idiot who doesn't look beyond his target)

This has nothing to do with the weapon, it's the hunter that gets attracted to it. They choose a muzz because it's less crowded than their usual rifle hunt, but they still hunt like idiots.

Those people would never venture into muzz hunting any more than they'd venture into archery... just too much work having to practice and learn your weapon as well as your limitations.

Really, my ideal would be to have a "primitive" muzz season where only sidelocks/flintlocks are allowed... heck I'd take that season even being after the rifle hunt is over.

Really though, it's not about the equipment with me... it's about the "some" of the people that equipment attracts to the hunt.


----------



## DallanC

manysteps said:


> Really, my ideal would be to have a "primitive" muzz season where only sidelocks/flintlock


Both sidelocks and flintlocks have benefited from just as many technology improvements as inlines. Several MFG's produce barrels for for use on both inlines and sidelocks. The only difference is the direction the hammer moves and a few milliseconds of lock time.

People tend to ignore the same improvements of Hawkin's have, when complaining about inlines (which btw predate hawkin's by 100 years).

Anyone remember the T/C Black Mountain Magnum? A Flintlock designed with synthetic stock, stainless steel barrel, fast 1/24" twist barrel for sabots, fiber optic sights, special flame channel designed specifically for Pyrodex Pellets, and special flints to allow for a very reliable ignition system. You want to allow that but restrict an inline? LOL

-DallanC


----------



## Cooky

I had a percussion Black Mountain Magnum. Musket caps, three pellets and Tru-Glow sights. Primitive as all get out. The recoil with that crooked stock made me have to lay down for a minute between shots.


----------



## DallanC

Hahaha yea I'll bet. My normal load is 90grns of powder and its plenty. For elk I stepped it up to 110 but those 150grn loads are not fun.


-DalanC


----------



## klbzdad

That's no kidding Dallan and Cooky!


----------



## Donk

It's all about the MONEY.


----------



## goofy elk

Donk said:


> It's all about the MONEY.


Care to explain how 'money" has anything to do with this change :?:


----------



## utahgolf

goofy elk said:


> Donk said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's all about the MONEY.
> 
> 
> 
> Care to explain how 'money" has anything to do with this change :?:
Click to expand...

I think this change caters more to the out of state crowd making certain tags more attractable and a higher powered scope would certainly be a factor in certain peoples decision making process on higher value ML tags. I don't think it's really been pushed by any great number of locals has it goofy? I could be mistaken and willing to admit that but I don't hear too many problems or people with issues about it. More of a "other states do it" type of mentality.


----------



## Critter

In reality only 4 states west of the continental divide allows scopes on muzzle loaders. Utah, Wyoming, Montana, and Nevada. All the rest of the states you can not have a scope on it for the muzzle loader season along with other restrictions as far as powders, bullets, 209 shotshell primers, and in lines.

This chart is a little old but a lot of it is still in effect.

http://www.traditionsfirearms.com/MuzzleloadingRegs.pdf


----------



## wbcougster

if this does pass, when would they allow 4x scopes in the field? Would it be for the the 2013 season?


----------



## goofy elk

utahgolf said:


> goofy elk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Donk said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's all about the MONEY.
> 
> 
> 
> Care to explain how 'money" has anything to do with this change :?:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think this change caters more to the out of state crowd making certain tags more attractable and a higher powered scope would certainly be a factor in certain peoples decision making process on higher value ML tags. I don't think it's really been pushed by any great number of locals has it goofy? I could be mistaken and willing to admit that but I don't hear too many problems or people with issues about it. More of a "other states do it" type of mentality.
Click to expand...

The only place this argument has any validity is with the conservation permits:

http://wildlife.utah.gov/hunting/biggam ... ermits.pdf

There's a dozen and a half, ML tags , THAT's it....
Golf, do you REALY think they are trying to pass a law to accommodate 18, tags :?:

And yes, I'm a 'local'.....Put a 3x9 on my muzzy last week, hoping it passes 

And wbc, I HOPE it will go into affect foe 2013 :!:


----------



## Elkoholic8

Whether or not the DWR allows magnified scopes or not, this whole issue boils down to ethics. Someone mentioned earlier in here that we are talking about ethical hunters vs. non ethical hunters. The unethical hunters will shoot just to shoot and hope for the best. It will not matter what kind of scope or sight they are using. 

As mojo said, Dumbasses will be Dumbassses! You can't fix stupid. You can't regulate it either.

How many times have you heard people say "I wouldn't try that shot on a 2 point, but if it was a record book buck on the last day I would try it"? I hear that alot, and THOSE are the people we need to worry about taking shots beyond their limitations.


----------



## utahgolf

goofy elk said:


> utahgolf said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> goofy elk":1tpgtw78][quote=Donk]It's all about the MONEY.[/quote]
> Care to explain how 'money" has anything to do with this change :?:[/quote]
> I think this change caters more to the out of state crowd making certain tags more attractable and a higher powered scope would certainly be a factor in certain peoples decision making process on higher value ML tags. I don't think it's really been pushed by any great number of locals has it goofy? I could be mistaken and willing to admit that but I don't hear too many problems or people with issues about it. More of a "other states do it" type of mentality.[/quote]
> The only place this argument has any validity is with the conservation permits:
> [URL="http://wildlife.utah.gov/hunting/biggame/pdf/2013_conservation_permits.pdf said:
> 
> 
> 
> http://wildlife.utah.gov/hunting/biggam ... ermits.pdf[/URL]
> 
> There's a dozen and a half, ML tags , THAT's it....
> Golf, do you REALY think they are trying to pass a law to accommodate 18, tags :?:
> 
> And yes, I'm a 'local'.....Put a 3x9 on my muzzy last week, hoping it passes
> 
> And wbc, I HOPE it will go into affect foe 2013 :!:[/quote:1tpgtw78]
> 
> You're right goofy, why would anyone ever propose something that accomodates or caters to a small amount of people???? Pretty sure that never happens at all, with anything. :roll:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## copple2

I'd like to see this happen. I'm not too concerned about other hunters hoping on the muzzy band wagon. I think it would be good for the sport. Also, it might extend the like of some older hunters whose eyesight might not be what it use to.

copple2


----------



## Elkoholic8

I was doing some reading on the Chuck Hawkes web site and ran across ths little passage, and I thought it was fitting for this discussion.

"no scope can improve trajectory or make a gun more accurate. It simply allows better, more precise use of the tool that we already have. A scope in no way encourages people to shoot beyond their comfort zone; the converse is true. Those with the propensity to throw Hail Mary's have always done so, regardless of equipment. Thoughtful use of a scope stops the wasting of a button buck with a doe tag, thoughtful use of a scope stops a shot when there is no backstop, or when another animal is directly behind your quarry".

I say make them legal to use. No one is forcing you to buy one!


----------



## proutdoors

Excellent post, Elkoholic8!


----------



## utahgolf

"A scope in no way encourages people to shoot beyond their comfort zone; the converse is true."

I would agree with that quote but you also have to think that with a higher powered scope, that their comfort zone is increased to a greater distance. I will never argue that a scope changes trajectory/ballistics but there's a reason the majority of these long range shooters/snipers aren't using open sites and 1x's. They're using higher powered scopes for a reason. There's a rifle season and a ML season, two different weapon hunts with different requirements/restrictions. Quit trying to turn one into the other. Work a little harder to get into more of a "comfort zone" instead of letting optics extend that comfort zone for you.


----------



## Critter

It has been my observation during Utah's muzzle loader hunt that those that have scopes on their smoke poles will and do take longer shots that they should be. One hunter told me that he had his calibrated out to 300 yards. I even watched one young hunter miss a nice 4x4 buck at 50 yards because his uncle that loaned him his muzzle loader told him that it was sighted it for 200 yards. The young hunter didn't realize what the trajectory was when he cut the range down to 50 yards.


----------



## Bo0YaA

Critter not sure what type of gun or load that kid was using. I can however tell you that my standard load is 2 inches high at 50, 3.39 inches high at 100, dead on at 180 and only 2.5 inches low at 200. If I really want to go long with it, its still only 16 inches low at 280.

I consider my max comfortable shot to be 250 @ 9.6 inches low. Hold with the horizontal cross-hair across the back and I have meat in the freezer. Tough to do with a 1x scope for sure, deer has to be in the right spot at the right time (high visibility background) but with a 3x9, pc of cake.


----------



## utahgolf

Bo0YaA said:


> I consider my max comfortable shot to be 250 @ 9.6 inches low. Hold with the horizontal cross-hair across the back and I have meat in the freezer. Tough to do with a 1x scope for sure, deer has to be in the right spot at the right time (high visibility background) but with a 3x9, pc of cake.


how would it be a piece of cake with a 3x9???? A scope has nothing to do with ballistics, therefore a higher powered scope has very little to do with helping a hunter increase their range and comfort zone????


----------



## utahgolf

I'm now done with this thread, I'm glad we can all politely agree to disagree and a healthy debate is never a bad thing. Right now it really doesn't matter what scope you can or can't use if you first cannot even draw the tag!!!!!!!! I think that's the most important issue.


----------



## Bo0YaA

with a 3x9 your not dependent on a high visibility background to place the shot. As I said, with a 1x scope it is difficult only because of the ability to see clear enough. Not by the ballistics of the gun, the gun has more then enough power to shoot accurately and kill ethically at 250 yards.


----------



## wbcougster

I was just forwarded a copy of the RAC agenda and I did not see any reference to 4X scopes for the muzzleloader hunts. Would htis abe addressed in another meeting? or is it not up for discussion this year? Thoughts?


----------



## waspocrew

wbcougster said:


> I was just forwarded a copy of the RAC agenda and I did not see any reference to 4X scopes for the muzzleloader hunts. Would htis abe addressed in another meeting? or is it not up for discussion this year? Thoughts?


I was wondering the same... when can we expect a decision to be made about this?


----------



## goofy elk

Spring 2013
– Target Date – Scopes on Muzzleloader Rifles
MOTION: I move that we ask the division to report to the Board on the issues and concerns with using a magnifying
scope on a muzzleloader, this is to be placed on the action log and the report shall be discussed at the May 2013 work
session.
Assigned to: Mike Fowlks
Action: Under Study
Status: Scheduled for discussion at the May 1, 2013 Work Session
Placed on Action Log: December 6, 2012


----------



## bullsnot

Although I don't have any strong opinions on this I have to wonder why we need a change?


----------



## swbuckmaster

It definitely hurts my 33%, 33%, 33% allocation propositions. 

I cant stand how utah thinks it has to rifle bomb the crap out of every thing. Then those same guys are moaning about not finding game or saying buck to doe ratios are too low.


----------



## redleg

I wish Utah would let me enjoy a real muzzleLoader hunt.


----------



## Fishrmn

redleg said:


> I wish Utah would let me enjoy a real muzzleLoader hunt.


Let me guess. You wanna use a flintlock, real black powder, patched round ball, open sights?

Guess what? You can.


----------



## Hunter Tom

I plan to submit the following to the Wildlife Board:

I am a 68 year old avid muzzleloader hunter. I have had my eye lenses replaced and can no longer use iron sights at all and the 1x scope is very difficult to use with my failing eyesight. Most older hunters have various degrees of declining eyesight discourageging or eliminating them from this hunt. We strongly appeal to the board to allow magnifying scopes as most states do. The board could at least allow their use for people who have a doctor’s statement of poor eyesight similar to the allowed use of crossbows for the impaired. A partial easing would allow the state to evaluate the effect of full easing.


----------



## klbzdad

Sooooo, if I can't sneak up on big game anymore, if I can get a note from my doctor that says I need to "hunt" from a helicopter is that okay? Shooting is NOT hunting. You can shoot a muzzleloader with any scope you want at the shooting range but if you can't hunt with a muzzleloader then maybe its time to move to the rifle season. Sorry that anyone has any physical challenge (I have my own to overcome in order to be able to hunt) but this is a pandoras box that won't end with muzzleloader. Next people will be wanting lasers on their rifles. IMHO.


----------



## bullsnot

Hunter Tom said:


> I plan to submit the following to the Wildlife Board:
> 
> I am a 68 year old avid muzzleloader hunter. I have had my eye lenses replaced and can no longer use iron sights at all and the 1x scope is very difficult to use with my failing eyesight. Most older hunters have various degrees of declining eyesight discourageging or eliminating them from this hunt. We strongly appeal to the board to allow magnifying scopes as most states do. The board could at least allow their use for people who have a doctor's statement of poor eyesight similar to the allowed use of crossbows for the impaired. A partial easing would allow the state to evaluate the effect of full easing.


Thanks for the post Tom, you answered my question.

Let me ask you a fair question. Your signature says "There is no rush like getting in close bow range." If that's the case and your eyesight is failing can't you just get closer to game with your smokepole? It seems you can still hunt with a bow without magnification right? If you get within 30 yards and you can't see well enough without magnification to see what you're shooting at I'm not convinced you can see well enough to identify game much less see well enough to take a shot at something.

I don't know that the "every other states allows it" is a strong enough argument to make a change either, at least by itself.


----------



## Critter

I believe what Tom is hinting at is that with his eyesight that he can't focus on both the front and rear sight but then that is what the 1x scope is for isn't it? 

As for other states allowing it, you better check it out before you go. There are still a lot of states out there that don't even alow a 1x scope during their ML hunts.


----------



## Fishracer

I dont think we need to change anything. Leave it alone!


----------



## wbcougster

I reached out to Board and asked for some specifics. Here is the reply.

Any proposed changes would be for the 2014 season. We have already set the regulations for this year. There are provisions that allow for an eyesight impairment to be taken into account and a certificate of registration to be issued allowing for a higher powered scope on a muzzleloader. That standard is 20/40 corrected vision.

A work session is open to the public but there is no public comment taken during the meeting. 

We were asked by the board to consider changing the muzzleloader scope requirement for general season any weapon hunts but we are not considering proposing a change to the standard for muzzleloader hunts at this time. This issue will be heard in upcoming big game RAC and Board meetings and the public will be allowed to comment then. The use of powered scopes on muzzleloaders is largely a social issue so I would certainly encourage you and any others with an opinion to show up and voice that in the meetings.


----------



## redleg

We were asked by the board to consider changing the muzzleloader scope requirement for general season any weapon hunts but we are not considering proposing a change to the standard for muzzleloader hunts at this time


----------



## redleg

We were asked by the board to consider changing the muzzleloader scope requirement for general season any weapon hunts but we are not considering proposing a change to the standard for muzzleloader hunts 
+1


----------



## campfire

redleg said:


> We were asked by the board to consider changing the muzzleloader scope requirement for general season any weapon hunts but we are not considering proposing a change to the standard for muzzleloader hunts at this time


I don't remember anyone ever objecting to magnified scopes on ml during the general season. So does this mean that all 18 pages of this thread have just been lip service? _(O)_


----------



## Uni

campfire said:


> redleg said:
> 
> 
> 
> We were asked by the board to consider changing the muzzleloader scope requirement for general season any weapon hunts but we are not considering proposing a change to the standard for muzzleloader hunts at this time
> 
> 
> 
> I don't remember anyone ever objecting to magnified scopes on ml during the general season. So does this mean that all 18 pages of this thread have just been lip service? _(O)_
Click to expand...

Pretty much. Been a good debate though.


----------



## redleg

I haven’t figured out how to use quotes correctly but I want to say, the any weapon hunt is where scopes belong.
My eyes are old and don’t focus well, that is why I use peep sights.


----------



## CP1

Go take a look at HHA's new Optimizer movable sight base. It basically allows you to mount a 1x scope, pick a site tape according to your ballistics, stick it on to the dial and BOOM- you are ready to shoot out to 400 yds. With systems like this I think we should either allow any scope OR do what Colorado does and say NO to scopes all together.


----------



## ut1031

As long as we are talking about scopes, they need to also look at crossbows. Currently the same 1x scope can be used. The problem is that all but one manufacturer sells the bows in packages and they all have either a 3x or 4x scope on them. So to be legal you now have to purchase another scope(1x).


----------



## massmanute

My suggestion: Limit scopes on muzzle loaders to 2.75X or less.


----------



## tshuntin

I haven't read through all this thread, so excuse me if this is stated already. Is there any life to this proposal of switching Utah's muzzleloader rules to allow more than a 1X scope?


----------



## Critter

Just as a update to what they are talking about. 

The suggestion has been made to the wildlife board to alow scopes of any power to be used on muzzle loaders during the any weapon hunt. Right now a muzzle loader can only have the 1x scope on it no matter what hunt it is used on. 

Nothing that they discussed had anything to do with the regular muzzle loader hunt.


----------



## tshuntin

Thanks for the info. That will bring me to my next thread. Thanks!


----------

