# Utah Survey on Primative Weapons



## MuscleWhitefish (Jan 13, 2015)

I received an email for a survey for potential changes to Utah's Primitive Weapons.

Dear :
The Utah Division of Wildlife Resources is conducting a survey to obtain opinions from deer and elk hunters about the use of primitive weapons and emerging technologies. Results of this survey may be used to guide management recommendations and regulations on lawfully allowable hunting equipment. The survey should only take a few minutes of your time.
The survey is located online by clicking the link below:
https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/PrimitiveWeapons
If clicking on the web address above does not link you directly to the survey, then try copying and pasting the entire web address into your web browser, or simply type the entire web address as you see it above into the address bar of your web browser.
To participate in the survey, you will be asked to enter a Survey ID number.
*Your Survey ID number is .*
If you lose this Survey ID number, or do not have it when you take the survey, you may enter your name and email address instead. This information is used to verify that only licensed hunters take this survey, and is limited to one survey per person. 
Your input is very important to the management of wildlife in Utah. Thank you for taking the time to participate in this survey and for your support of hunting in Utah.
Sincerely,
Utah Division of Wildlife Resources

I would like to see crossbows as an option during the archery hunt.

I would like to use a magnifying scope on a muzzle-loader.

In case you didn't get it, You can click on the link and fill out the survey.

Hopefully it results in changes in the future.


----------



## willfish4food (Jul 14, 2009)

I have no opinion on crossbows, but I do about muzzle-loaders. With the current technology and design of muzzle-loaders, if you allow magnifying optics, in my opinion, there is very little disadvantage from a rifle shooting a modern cartridge. And if that's the case, why a special season with special regs? To me, the muzzle-loader season should be for people who enjoy the challenge of a primitive weapon, not just about another avenue to a less competitive tag.


----------



## wisconsinvette (May 18, 2013)

willfish4food said:


> With the current technology and design of muzzle-loaders, if you allow magnifying optics, in my opinion, there is very little disadvantage from a rifle shooting a modern cartridge. And if that's the case, why a special season with special regs? To me, the muzzle-loader season should be for people who enjoy the challenge of a primitive weapon, not just about another avenue to a less competitive tag.


This. Exactly.

Archery and muzzleloader hunts are supposed to be more primitive styles of hunting.


----------



## GeTaGrip (Jun 24, 2014)

I am all about keeping it primitive but what are thoughts on this, how many wounded animals would a magnafying scope for a muzzleloader eliminate or at minimum reduce? I know I see people trying and somtimes connecting on shots with 1X scopes that I take with a rifle that has a 6x or larger scope. Our own ethics aside cause a lot of folks don't have many. Do you think it would help keep a few deers legs intact?


----------



## MuscleWhitefish (Jan 13, 2015)

wisconsinvette said:


> This. Exactly.
> 
> Archery and muzzleloader hunts are supposed to be more primitive styles of hunting.


For the sake of discussion.

Primitive to me is a recurve bow.

Compound Bows today are far beyond primitive.

With There is really not if any a advantages of a crossbow over a compound bow.

I don't think there is a huge difference between the two.

With muzzleloaders.

Primitive to me is the flint lock system with iron sights.

Inline Muzzleloaders are far beyond primitive.

There in my mind is only one big advantage of using a magnifying scope on a muzzleloader, it is more clean and ethical kills by allowing the hunter to focus his eye piece.

If we want primitive, why not go to recurves and flintlocks rather than finding middle ground.

If we want to be progressive utilizing the technology currently available, then give hunters all the tools to succeed.


----------



## wileywapati (Sep 9, 2007)

.50 cals, smart guns, crossguns and high powered rifles
That just happen to have a sabot loaded at the muzzle. 

Remember when hunting was a fair chase event??

Take all of the above and turn them loose during the ANY WEAPON SEASON in
October. 

Bull$&[email protected]!!


----------



## huntinfanatic (Aug 3, 2012)

Getagrip, IMO it wouldn't help at all and would make it worse. Instead of guys lobbing lead 2-400 yards with a 1x scope you would have those same guys lobbing lead at 500, 600+ yards! I hate the idea of allowing magnifying scopes during muzzleloader season. If you want to use a scoped muzzleloader there is already a hunt for you, it's called the any weapon hunt!


----------



## Raptorman (Aug 18, 2009)

I think if it was limited to 3x or less it would be good for the Muzzy hunts. That way you can be more ethical because you have a better view of your target, while still keeping it "Primitive". That is just me though.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

How about using ethics before you pull the trigger? Keep your shots within the proper distances for a ML. 

I have a feeling it is going to get warm after that statement.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

MuscleWhitefish said:


> With muzzleloaders.
> 
> Primitive to me is the flint lock system with iron sights.
> 
> Inline Muzzleloaders are far beyond primitive.


Ah! Ok so the T/C Black Mountain Magnum flintlock is primative right? Composite Stock, 1/28" fast twist barrel for sabbots, 150grn mag charges, special flame channel designed to ignite pyrodex pellets... fiber optic sights... oh yea, it screams primative to me!

Inline muzzleloaders predate the "Hawkin" styles by over 100 years. Germany had inline frontstuffers in 1734.

What has changed is the computer CNC machines and lathes that turn out incredibly tight tolerance parts for guns that in turn make them super accurate and reliable, both todays sidelocks and inlines both benefit from those advances.

-DallanC


----------



## bloodtrail (Sep 20, 2007)

I agree on up to 3x power for muzzle loader scopes. At least 2x since 1x is lower than the natural vision of the human eye. I highly doubt that a slightly better scope with change the ethics of the hunter. I do believe that it will result in less wounded animals not being recovered.


----------



## Watcher (Dec 31, 2008)

*All sports have rules*

Once again it's about playing by the rules.

I have made the argument that for hunting ethics, the regulations set the low bar. Lots of examples were "unethical" behavior does not violate a law.

For equipment, I would make the argument the regulations set the high bar. Lots of examples were people use equipment far less powerful/sophisticated/technological than allowed by law.

The DWR is asking our opinion on what we think the "sport" of pursuit of game with primitive weapons is. Your opinion. I would be personally OK if they decided low bows and recurves; flintlocks with open or peeps. I would personally disappointed if they decided cross bows and high-power scopes on state-of-art MLers. 50 cal sniper rifles - now your just yank'n my chain right?

Primitive arms means something special to me and I personally hate to see it too diluted. Where the exact line is though?

However you've established the fact I've got no "sport cred" here.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

I got the survey and completed it. I am against crossbows during the archery season. I support allowing magnification scopes on muzzeloaders. I'm against allowing 50 cal rifles.


----------



## silentstalker (Feb 19, 2008)

I took the survey too. I voted to keep things as is. We have an any weapon hunt for scoped muzzy's and crossbows, and exceptions for those who need the draw loc/crossbow. I like it how it is.


----------



## Watcher (Dec 31, 2008)

*For the record*

I hunt with:
compound bow, graphite arrows, fixed blades;
In-line muzzy, 120 gr blackhorn, sabots, and 1x scope;
Rifles - a lot (but no 50's).


----------



## MuscleWhitefish (Jan 13, 2015)

DallanC said:


> Ah! Ok so the T/C Black Mountain Magnum flintlock is primative right? Composite Stock, 1/28" fast twist barrel for sabbots, 150grn mag charges, special flame channel designed to ignite pyrodex pellets... fiber optic sights... oh yea, it screams primative to me!
> 
> Inline muzzleloaders predate the "Hawkin" styles by over 100 years. Germany had inline frontstuffers in 1734.
> 
> ...


Touche


----------



## MuscleWhitefish (Jan 13, 2015)

Thought you guys against crossbows should read this.

http://www.outdoorlife.com/blogs/master-class/2013/05/crossbow-compound-bow-hunting-myth



> A crossbow developing 300 feet per second (fps) with a 420-grain arrow generates 86.78 foot-pounds of kinetic energy. A compound shooting a 350-grain arrow at 335 fps generates 87.24 foot-pounds of kinetic energy.


I don't see a difference between the two as far as a piece of archery equipment.


----------



## manysteps (Sep 28, 2009)

Yep, I have to weigh in here...

I've hunted with and shot muzzleloaders for over 25 years... and I've been a huge fan of bow hunting for about the same amount of time... (this year will be the first in 21 years that I'm actually hunting with a bow again though)

All of my life, muzzleloaders have been about traditional! Be it side lock or flint lock... I even passed up shooting a buck one year when--after I missed--a friend tried to hand me his scoped inline... it's just not my thing, and in my group, I would have never lived that down.

Now on to my opinions and observations...

Since inlines became popular, the "muzz crowd" has grown by leaps and bounds! I'm sure some of that has to do with the limited tags, and rifle hunters being "forced" to hunt a different season.

I've also seen more "crazy" shots being taken than I ever could have imagined. (a buck shot in the Crawfords at 384 yards to be exact)

Sure, sometimes you get lucky, but the effective range--and ethical range--of ANY muzz is under 200 yards.

This kind of stuff isn't limited to muzzleloaders either... As I've been DEEP into shooting my bow over the past year, I've met a ton of archers, and I've swapped a lot of stories... I can't tell you how many times I've heard from guys talking about how they were trying to shoot a buck at 90, 100, even 120 yards... and these are guys that have a hard time hitting the 6 ring in a Vegas 3 spot at 20 yards.

Add crossbows to the archery hunt, and magnifying scopes to the muzz hunt, and all you're doing is AMPLIFYING the actual problem... and that is guys taking shots beyond their ability (be it equipment, the shooter, or both)

The same probably goes for the any weapon hunt with .50 rifles, but since "that crowd" seems so crazy in "my book", I voted, "go for it"... (not like they aren't taking 1500 yard pot shots with their 300 win mags as it is... may as well have some kinetic energy if they connect)

Okay, rant's over... that's my 2 cents.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

MuscleWhitefish said:


> Thought you guys against crossbows should read this.
> 
> http://www.outdoorlife.com/blogs/master-class/2013/05/crossbow-compound-bow-hunting-myth
> 
> I don't see a difference between the two as far as a piece of archery equipment.


You don't have to hold the weight of the bow on a cross bow, it is ready to be released, without pulling it back. Big difference.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

The simple fact that they are even conducting a survey on this is very sad.


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

Personally, I think the inability to fire a second round quickly is one of my favorite things about the muzzleloader hunt. It calls for better accuracy and patience in the initial shot. As has already been stated, the inline predates the flintlock, and both are already way more reliable than ever before. I like the idea of a 3x scope, if anything to reduce the number of wounded animals out there. But who knows, that likely won't stop the idiots who shot a beef cow on the muzzleloader deer hunt last year


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

MuscleWhitefish said:


> Thought you guys against crossbows should read this.
> 
> http://www.outdoorlife.com/blogs/master-class/2013/05/crossbow-compound-bow-hunting-myth
> 
> I don't see a difference between the two as far as a piece of archery equipment.


I liked the first fact, as it was actually supported by something other than his opinion and anecdotal statements.

A crossbow and a compound bow are very different. It is not just about the amount of kinetic energy each produces. If this guy can throw his opinion out there as fact, so can I. A crossbow, in my opinion (or as the author in Outdoor Life put it....the facts) is simply a firearm that shoots an arrow instead of a bullet. That's why I don't support allowing crossbows during archery season.


----------



## MuscleWhitefish (Jan 13, 2015)

Vanilla said:


> I liked the first fact, as it was actually supported by something other than his opinion and anecdotal statements.
> 
> A crossbow and a compound bow are very different. It is not just about the amount of kinetic energy each produces. If this guy can throw his opinion out there as fact, so can I. A crossbow, in my opinion (or as the author in Outdoor Life put it....the facts) is simply a firearm that shoots an arrow instead of a bullet. That's why I don't support allowing crossbows during archery season.


In Wyoming crossbows are legal during the archery season. I haven't met someone that uses them during the archery season. I think it would be tapping into a 1% that would give them an opportunity to use it. A crossbow isn't going to shoot deer at 100+ yds any better than a compound bow(No one should take that shot). It has the same effective range as a compound bow. A crossbow is tougher to load and slower to reload for follow-up shots.

With it having the same effective range as a compound bow it does not make any sense to have it during the any weapon hunt.


----------



## Broadside_Shot (Feb 22, 2010)

Interesting Survey.

I wonder why this is coming up now. I have very little faith in surveys.

In the past they have shown one thing and the Wildlife Board went in the totally opposite direction (ie Statewide Archery).

The question like “Do you think Crossbow should be allowed during Archery Season” I put No. The next question then says “If they were allowed should you be able to use a magnifying scope”. They set it up to get an answer that acts like it is already in place.

I just Strongly believe that if we want a Future in Hunting, we can’t lose the Integrity of what hunting is supposed to be.

I don’t know what to think about the future of hunting anymore.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

My understanding is the Wildlife Board directed the UDWR to reconsider scopes on ML and crossbows to accommodate older hunters. 

I sat with the Committee in the early 2000's that discussed this topic and gave the recommendations which are in place today. All kinds of technology was looked at and discussed. At the time the conclusion was made to restrict certain technologies to keep the hunts somewhat "primitive" -- ie No smokeless powder, scopes on bows, magnifying scopes on ML, crossbows, electronics attached to the weapon, etc. Think of the advancements made in the past 15 years and how much better the tech is today. 

I sit in the camp of no crossbows and no magnifying scopes on MLs. I know many people who use crossbows in Wy and they do it because it is more effective tool for them. As for the wounding arguments, it would just allow people to shoot farther and still wound, but at greater distance. 

When is enough enough and why do we continually make it easier to kill the animals we hunt? It only takes away from the opportunity. I agree with Broadside, I find myself wondering about the direction hunting is headed. Just my opinion.


----------



## Watcher (Dec 31, 2008)

*Why (Sonny) I remember when! zzzzzzzzzz*

I remember when you practiced all summer to become proficient shooting instinctively with fingers at (maybe) 40 yards. Now you can take a compound off the shelf and proficiently be shooting 40 in a week. No wonder the archery craze and the fact I can't get a permit.

I really don't know what level of practice and discipline is required in shooting a cross-bow?

I remember when you had to build your own muzzle-loader from a kit, work up a load of black powder, clean the SOB in hot water and dish soap, and keep your shot to under a 100 yards. Now you can buy one off the rack at Wal-mart, throw a couple non-fouling pellets and a manufacturer's sabot in it, shoot decent groups out to 200 yards, and almost put it in your gun rack till next year. No wonder the muzzle loader craze and the fact I can't get a permit.

What has become of the term primitive?

On the other hand, Ugg, my great grandfather (x 100) (on my wife's side of course) used to complain when the neolithic people put down their rocks and took up spears. My neanderthal great grandfather(x40) OOgh complained when the **** sapiens brought out their bow and arrows against his clubs and spears.

Our own version of the arms race.


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

I think the current rules are a nice blend.
I'm torn on the cross bow thing but I can see there is some advantage of not having to draw before the shot.
As for ML why not just open sights no scope at all? -O|o-
.50 Cal rifle same open sights only.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

They even put a trick question in the survey. Question number 11:

*11. Should hunters be allowed to use very large-caliber firearms (50 caliber center-fire rifles or greater)?*

What is a question about a 50 caliber or larger center fire rifle question doing in a survey about primitive weapons? Unless they are thinking about a 50-190 Sharps or something along that line.

I personally think that it should go back to iron or open sights only even for us old folks. I had to go to a peep sight to be able to focus on both front rear and the target on my ML.

There is something to be said about the ML season in Oregon and Washington.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

On the ML thing, I just want to throw something out...

I am younger but my first ML was a CVA sidelock (sucked..) after that a CVA .45 (still sucked).

I have astigmatism and open sites aren't always the easiest for me. Once I bought my ML and got a nice 1X, I was absolutely thrilled at my setup. I can shoot open sights, but this makes it far more pleasurable, and ethical, for me.

That said, I would never ask for anymore from it. It is easy for me to look down a glass tube and use crosshairs. That is all I want a scope on my ML for. I don't need it to shoot far, and don't see a reason to extend to such distances.

From a marksmanship standpoint, of course I am fascinated by gunwerks ML, and watching them drop antelope at 700 yards. I appreciate the equipment. That isn't what I have in mind for the ML hunt though. I might prefer it over other rifles on the any weapon, but at that point it isn't primitive.


----------



## CPAjeff (Dec 20, 2014)

I took the survey - I like things they way they are.

My opinion - it is a clash of generations and the regulations are starting to show that. I look at my generation, dubbed the "attitude of entitlement generation" and see some people that want everything the easy way. I look at the older generation and how much harder some things were for them. I think that innovation and technical advances are wonderful, but I wonder what the limit will be? 

If I remember correctly, one question asked about the assistance of a smart gun. Seriously?? Seems like some people want hunting to reflect the latest video game instead of an act that requires human effort.


----------



## utahgolf (Sep 8, 2007)

I wonder what kind of lobbying is done by companies who want to see regs relaxed here????


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

RandomElk16 said:


> I have astigmatism and open sites aren't always the easiest for me. Once I bought my ML and got a nice 1X, I was absolutely thrilled at my setup. I can shoot open sights, but this makes it far more pleasurable, and ethical, for me.


+1. I have permanent double vision now. I would be all for a 2x scope... I will make 1x due as long as I can, hopefully my vision doesn't get to the point I have to give it up.

I look foward to all the young bucks who can hike to the furthest peak without breaking a sweat, can see a ant at 1000 yards... when they get a few years on them and knees start to go, other health issues kick in. Its one of those things that you just never think about when you are young. Then wham, something happens and your whole life changes, sometimes virtually over night.

Few years ago I was down on the boulder mts unhooking our camp trailer from the truck for a week of hunting... felt some wierd tingles in my chest. Fast forward a week, I walk out of the hospital with a heart stent... at age 43. It can indeed happen just that fast.



> That said, I would never ask for anymore from it. It is easy for me to look down a glass tube and use crosshairs. That is all I want a scope on my ML for. I don't need it to shoot far, and don't see a reason to extend to such distances.


Bingo... allow 2x and call it good... or allow 2x with doctors note if you must. Doesnt need to be more than that.



> From a marksmanship standpoint, of course I am fascinated by gunwerks ML, and watching them drop antelope at 700 yards. I appreciate the equipment. That isn't what I have in mind for the ML hunt though. I might prefer it over other rifles on the any weapon, but at that point it isn't primitive.


What they are doing is making it easier for the common man to pull off shots like this. Same thing with Compound bows... used to be bows sucked and you needed alot of practice to be good with them. The new bows are so easy to shoot the average guy can pick one up and be hitting close range targets from the get go.

Years past, there were great marksmen making incredible shots with old equiptment. Look at General George Sedwick, killed at 1000yards by a civil war sniper using a muzzleloader. Another cool shot was Billy Dixon in the Battle of Adobe Walls in 1874, he killed the indian chief at a verified 1,538 yards!!!

-DallanC


----------



## gdog (Sep 13, 2007)

......and move the elk rifle out of the rut. :mrgreen:


----------



## mtnrunner260 (Feb 15, 2010)

As for crossbows I don't feel that the archery hunt was intended to have a shoulder mounted weapon that uses a magnifying scope harvest animals at 100 yards plus.


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

mtnrunner260 said:


> As for crossbows I don't feel that the archery hunt was intended to have a shoulder mounted weapon that uses a magnifying scope harvest animals at 100 yards plus.


Double check your info on crossbow capabilities. Ranges are basically the same as compound bows.


----------



## BPturkeys (Sep 13, 2007)

The special hunts are a great thing in that they give opportunity! We are so far from "primitive" weapons on both the archery and ML hunts, to sit and quibble about what power scope is legal or if a crossbow is a "primitive weapon" (my lord, we aren't calling these modern compounds primitive are we?) is laughable. The system we have now gets more people into the field with less pressure in all hunts. The more you restrict a given hunt the less hunters will apply for that hunt and end up opting for the general hunt.
I'll take the pole and I'll vote for whatever they're asking for as long as it doesn't restrict or limit opportunity.


----------



## Azar (Oct 21, 2014)

I don't hunt either archery or muzzleloader currently and have no current plans to start. So I don't really have a horse in this race. And perhaps may opinion will mean less to those who do. So be it.

From my perspective, like what others have said, our "primitive" weapons seasons are not all that primitive. Modern bows and muzzleloaders have changed the game. I can understand the desire to keep the spirit of the "primitive" season. However, I do have a couple of thoughts.

I wouldn't oppose allowing low magnification scopes on a muzzleloader, say 2x to 2.5x. If a modern muzzleloader is effective and accurate out to 200 yards then I feel that would be an appropriate magnification to allow. I can understand the pushback from the more purist view of primitive weapons season, however. And I disagree with the argument that it shouldn't be allowed because slob hunters will just lob their shots at greater distances and wound more game. People who lob shots at game beyond their weapons capability are going to do so with iron sights, a 1x scope, or whatever else is allowed. They're slob hunters and restricting ethical hunters from using a reasonable increase in magnification won't change that. The slob hunters will be slob hunters no matter what you put in their hands.

As for crossbows, I would be against their use during the archery hunt in most cases but not all. While it's effective range and killing power may mirror compound bows, the point has been made that the crossbow does not have to be drawn before the shot or the pull held by the archer while the game is alert/wary. It is too close to a firearm in this case. The exception I would make would be for it's use to be allowed for a disabled hunter. Much like the case where a non-disabled hunter is not allowed to shoot from a vehicle, wherease a disabled hunter can. I feel it would be fair and reasonable to allow a similar exception in the case of a crossbow during the archery hunt for a disabled hunter.

Just my thoughts.


----------



## torowy (Jun 19, 2008)

I'm fine with crossbows on the archery hunt. I shoot a compound bow better than I shoot a crossbow.

I think more than 1x scopes on a muzzy is a bad idea. I already know of people shooting 300 yards with the 1x, don't give them the option to shoot farther.


----------



## MuscleWhitefish (Jan 13, 2015)

gdog said:


> ......and move the elk rifle out of the rut. :mrgreen:


Where's this poll?

I'd be 100% for it.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Health issues and eyes: I can't use sights on a bow because of my astigmatism and poor eyesight. Does that mean I need a scope? No, I shoot a recurve instinctively, no sights. I put in for a general season any weapon tag this year, because I know I won't have the time to put into practice. As for muzzle loaders, I don't shoot them, but I've put enough 1Xs and reddots on them to know that with corrective lenses, that is all you need if you can't shoot open sights. You can't tell how far away something is? You need to practice more. Can't get close enough? You need to practice more. You wound animals regularly? You need to practice more. You can't hold your bow at full draw long enough? You need to practice more. Can't practice? Put in for an any weapon hunt. If any of the before mentioned still happens.......


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

torowy said:


> I think more than 1x scopes on a muzzy is a bad idea. I already know of people shooting 300 yards with the 1x, don't give them the option to shoot farther.


Uh... people are already shooting 300 and beyond. These make it easy... or are you saying we should ban them also?










-DallanC


----------



## utahgolf (Sep 8, 2007)

DallanC said:


> Uh... people are already shooting 300 and beyond. These make it easy... or are you saying we should ban them also?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


looks like a tiny omelette maker to me


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

DallanC said:


> Uh... people are already shooting 300 and beyond. These make it easy... or are you saying we should ban them also?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Catapult?


----------



## willfish4food (Jul 14, 2009)

BPturkeys said:


> The special hunts are a great thing in that they give opportunity! We are so far from "primitive" weapons on both the archery and ML hunts, to sit and quibble about what power scope is legal or if a crossbow is a "primitive weapon" (my lord, we aren't calling these modern compounds primitive are we?) is laughable. The system we have now gets more people into the field with less pressure in all hunts. The more you restrict a given hunt the less hunters will apply for that hunt and end up opting for the general hunt.
> I'll take the pole and I'll vote for whatever they're asking for as long as it doesn't restrict or limit opportunity.


I agree that more opportunity is a good thing, and that's why I don't think the regs should be changed. If you make hunting the archery or ML hunts easier, more people will apply and a higher percentage of those who draw tags will be successful. With higher success rates one of two things can happen. Either the tag number stays static and the herds are over harvested or tags will need to be cut.

I guess it comes down to objectives. If you want to provide challenging "primitive" weapon hunts with more opportunity for those willing to take on the challenge, then don't change the system. If you want to shift some of the pressure off of the any weapon hunts by making the ML and archery hunts easier to get in on, then make the changes.

But, I still think that if you're going to allow magnifying optics on the current ML there's really no difference between that and a rifle except followup shots.


----------



## APD (Nov 16, 2008)

DallanC said:


> Uh... people are already shooting 300 and beyond. These make it easy... or are you saying we should ban them also?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


that thing is like a cross between a single pin bow sight and something on tom selleck's rifle in quigley down under.


----------



## Broadside_Shot (Feb 22, 2010)

Improved Technology does not give you more Opportunity.

It only makes you more effective and efficient. which in turn increases your Harvest rates. Which in turn means you have to decrease tags because there are not enough animals to sustain every hunter be able to Harvest.

Bottom Line!!!

Let us remember what the hunt is really about.


----------



## bowhunt3r4l1f3 (Jan 12, 2011)

Broadside_Shot said:


> Let us remember what the hunt is really about.


Delicious steaks...


----------



## derekp1999 (Nov 17, 2011)

I primarily voted for the current status quo.

A couple items that I included in the comments before completing the survey is that I wouldn't mind seeing some special hunts like other states have for the sidelock/flintlock muzzleloaders and recurve or longbow archery. Something special that would draw guys that wanted to hunt that way. And put those hunts at times when guys would really want to be in the field... like the mid-Nov Crawford Mtn muzzleloader hunt. I think that would add a nice bit of variety to our current application options.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Broadside_Shot said:


> Improved Technology does not give you more Opportunity.
> 
> It only makes you more effective and efficient. which in turn increases your Harvest rates. Which in turn means you have to decrease tags because there are not enough animals to sustain every hunter be able to Harvest.
> 
> ...


This really can not be overly emphasized. More animals is the only way to increase opportunity.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

derekp1999 said:


> A couple items that I included in the comments before completing the survey is that I wouldn't mind seeing some special hunts like other states have for the sidelock/flintlock muzzleloaders and recurve or longbow archery. Something special that would draw guys that wanted to hunt that way. And put those hunts at times when guys would really want to be in the field... like the mid-Nov Crawford Mtn muzzleloader hunt. I think that would add a nice bit of variety to our current application options.


I wouldn't, only because they have advanced the tech so far with flintlocks its really no difference between them and cap based smokepoles. Hell, some of the new flints have magnesium dust embedded in the flint making for near instance, reliable ignition. Stick all of that in a good old 1800's "calfs knee" and its now weather / wind proof as well. With modern tech still allowing sabots... a late nov / dec hunt is unwise.

Look, I love smokepoles, its my weapon of choice. My position is simple: Tech has advanced all types of muzzleloaders to the point they can all be super reliable, super accurate. Making specific hunts based on which way the hammer moves is a bad idea.

You want to limit muzzleloader ranges, focus on the components, NOT the gun. Require full lead, full bore projectiles unless patched. No sabots, no 44cal bullets out of a 50 cal gun. Limit ignition back to plain caps, no more primer based ignitions. And finally, limit powder types: Black powder or Pyrodex only, no more triple7, BH209 or other "clean" burning substitutes. Require exposed ignitions! Now you have a hunt that will be limited in range.

Personally, I dont think the DWR cares in the slightest how people kill stuff, added seasons are just to spread people around, so we arent all out there the same opening weekend.

Sorry, I get irk'ed at some of the responses in limiting things that are rather baseless. I've been saying for 20 years the single greatest technological revolution to muzzleloaders / firearms was the invention of the high tensil strength coil spring. Firearms of old used flat springs, they would break, get weak, come out of alignment and wreak all kinds of havoc. Now todays ignitions are 100% reliable, if the rest of the gun was loaded properly 100% ignition in any weather is fully achievable.

This tech applies to both inlines and sidelocks... and really at this point the only real difference between them is a few milliseconds of lock time and asthetics, and lately it seems more and more people want to limit guns based on asthetics. If we want to go that route, I really hate to see Dodges in the parkinglot unloading to go hunt, Polaris ATVs of all types, and head to toe camo. How 'bout we ban that stuff along with the inlines?

-DallanC


----------



## wisconsinvette (May 18, 2013)

MuscleWhitefish said:


> Thought you guys against crossbows should read this.
> 
> http://www.outdoorlife.com/blogs/master-class/2013/05/crossbow-compound-bow-hunting-myth
> 
> I don't see a difference between the two as far as a piece of archery equipment.


The difference is the mechanics of the shot and running around with a ****ed and loaded bow. Getting to full draw on an animal without spooking it is half the battle.

Also, using less wounded animals as a reason for magnified scopes is silly to me. The more magnification the longer shots some people will take. Most people are not ready to try and compensate for the trajectory of a heavy muzzleloader round. And I will add the people with cross bows thinking they can jump shoot deer.


----------



## MuscleWhitefish (Jan 13, 2015)

wisconsinvette said:


> The difference is the mechanics of the shot and running around with a ****ed and loaded bow. Getting to full draw on an animal without spooking it is half the battle.
> 
> Also, using less wounded animals as a reason for magnified scopes is silly to me. The more magnification the longer shots some people will take. Most people are not ready to try and compensate for the trajectory of a heavy muzzleloader round. And I will add the people with cross bows thinking they can jump shoot deer.


People will take long shots no matter the scenario.

I get what you are saying, but yet I still see no difference in crossbows.

I'm of the attitude. A primitive hunt should not limit your use of modern technology. If you still want to shoot a recurve, you can shoot a recurve. If you want to shoot a compound, shoot a compound, and if you want to shoot a crossbow shoot a cross bow. You will have the freedom to choose what you want to use and not have to worry about a guy firing long range bullets at your game.

Also, I believe that If you want to go iron sights on a muzzleloader go iron sights, if you want to go with a 1x go with a 1x, and if you want to go with a magnified scope go with a magnified scope. It doesn't change anything for those that want to hunt traditionally, but adds to those who want to get into the more traditional style of hunting.

Would the tags take longer to draw, probably - though because of the population they are doing that anyway. I would still say if you want more tags move the seasons around. You really do not need a high powered rifle or muzzleloader without restrictions during the elk rut. Sure, it's a draw for people to Utah and makes our success rates high, but if success rates were lower more tags could be given and bulls could find some deep dark canyons and grow to enormous sizes for those willing to go and find them.

End Rant


----------



## utahgolf (Sep 8, 2007)

Why do we have to change regs all the time???? Too many whiners out there wanting things easier. If People are upset about how small an animal looks when using a 1 power scope than how about they move a little closer to the animal and develop some hunting prowess. If people can't get any closer to the animal than they might have to pass on the animal and find another one to stalk. I know what I just described might sound a bit too much like hunting for some people but oh well. The only change that made sense about ML scope was allowing higher powers on ML's during the any legal weapon hunt.


----------



## torowy (Jun 19, 2008)

I received the survey today and filled it out to keep it how it is now.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

In my view technology increases success rates which equals less tags. I don't have any attachment to the nostalgia of a "primitive" weapon but I do care about opportunity and getting hunters on the mountain. I also think the line of "fair chase" has long since been blurred by even the current legal hunting methods but a line has to be drawn somewhere. I think we must limit technology to keep success rates relatively low to maintain a healthy hunter population.

I think wounding rates are more about lack of practice and not understanding your effective range. No matter the technology many will push the boundaries. Especially when buck fever kicks in. Archery is more difficult so naturally there are higher wounding rates and it can happen to anyone at any time but that is compounded by lack of enough practice by many required to become familiar with archery tackle. 

Don't be guilty of being part of the "microwave" generation and practice!


----------



## Caddis-n-Cutts (Sep 28, 2007)

I just got the email and took the survey. I voted "No" on everything. Leave things the way they are. In the notes I did say what Dallan and Derek said (I think that's who said it) Let's have a "true primitive" hunt out there for the folks that shoot recurve and ML's with a ball and patch have the dates open from mid Nov - mid Dec.


----------



## MuscleWhitefish (Jan 13, 2015)

bullsnot said:


> In my view technology increases success rates which equals less tags. I don't have any attachment to the nostalgia of a "primitive" weapon but I do care about opportunity and getting hunters on the mountain. I also think the line of "fair chase" has long since been blurred by even the current legal hunting methods but a line has to be drawn somewhere. I think we must limit technology to keep success rates relatively low to maintain a healthy hunter population.
> 
> I think wounding rates are more about lack of practice and not understanding your effective range. No matter the technology many will push the boundaries. Especially when buck fever kicks in. Archery is more difficult so naturally there are higher wounding rates and it can happen to anyone at any time but that is compounded by lack of enough practice by many required to become familiar with archery tackle.
> 
> Don't be guilty of being part of the "microwave" generation and practice!


Success Rates will rise?

Units will muzzleloader elk success rates:

Beaver 80%
Book Cliffs Bitter Creek 89.5%
Book Cliffs Roadless 77.8%
Cache Meadowville 37.5%
Cache North 36.4%
Cache South 52.9%
Manti 78.7%
Nebo 30.8%
Pahvant 70%
La Sal 50%
Monroe 100%
Mt. Dutton 88.2%
Nine Mile 100%
3 Corners 80%
Oquirrh 40%
Panguitch 57.1%
Paunsaugunt 85.7%
Boulder 100%
Fish Lake 63%
San Juan 60%
Diamond Mountain 100%
Southwest Desert 85%
Wasatch 62.9%
Deep Creek 80%

Average right now is 75% or 3 or 4. Which is not bad at all.

Utah units are ran on age objectives, unless I am wrong the permit numbers are on age objectives and not on overall elk taken.

Would magnifying scopes reduce permits, because more bulls are being killed of age objective? Possibly

Would the percentages go up in units that are traditionally tough units? Possibly.

It's going to take you 20 years to draw these tags either way. More if you are a non-resident. Given the 5 year waiting period, would you want to use the best tools of equipment available to be successful on those tags.

If you want the percentages to go down then take the rifle and muzzleloader out of the rut and either not hunt it or give it to archery.

You mentioned the archery wounding rate, which in whitetail studies is around 20%.

Wouldn't you want to give the archers the best available equipment to try and beat the odds.

There is no difference in the harvest percentage of compound bows and cross bows, so that is a dull point.

You can't say hunters can wound more animals with muzzleloaders and support archery, because the percentages of wounding with archery will still be higher.

How many people on a 15-20 year draw hunt will punch their tag if they wound an animal? Not many


----------



## nocturnalenemy (Jun 26, 2011)

MuscleWhitefish said:


> Success Rates will rise?
> 
> Units will muzzleloader elk success rates:
> 
> ...


Now do this for general season deer. If success goes up future tags must go down (unless we can figure out how to grow more deer consistenly... Calling Lonetree!) Waits get longer just to hunt general season ML. No thanks.


----------



## MuscleWhitefish (Jan 13, 2015)

nocturnalenemy said:


> Now do this for general season deer. If success goes up future tags must go down (unless we can figure out how to grow more deer consistenly... Calling Lonetree!) Waits get longer just to hunt general season ML. No thanks.


Monroe is the highest at 52%.

The highest in rifle is Vernal at 62%.

Most units are at 25-45% in both hunts.

General season deer is based on the population numbers and the RAC system, so it does not really matter what the harvest is.

Winters do more harm to general season deer permits than hunters do.

All draws are only getting worse in Utah, no matter which weapon or permit you choose. It's the human population growing.


----------



## nocturnalenemy (Jun 26, 2011)

MuscleWhitefish said:


> General season deer is based on the population numbers and the RAC system, so it does not really matter what the harvest is.
> 
> Winters do more harm to general season deer permits than hunters do.


While other factors are considered, tag numbers are largely set based on Buck: Doe ratios surveyed post hunts. Killing more bucks during the hunts will directly lower the Buck: Doe and thus lower future tags.

Now whether tags should be based on Buck: Doe ratios is an entirely different question (I'm for much lower Buck: Doe on all GS units), but as it stands now, that's how tag numbers are set.


----------



## brendo (Sep 10, 2013)

I said no to pretty much everything. I surprised myself by saying yes to smart guns but with the caveat of limiting yardage the gun is able to shoot. I got thinking about it and I think it would lower the amount of game wounded significantly if people actually used them but they probably wont. JMO


----------



## NevadaMax (Nov 28, 2013)

I took the survey and voted "no" on everything. I did so because the current situation has all of us waiting years and years to hunt. I do not want to make the hunts more attractive to additional applicants by making it "easier" by keeping weapons restrictions "technologically current." The current system isn't supporting the current stakeholders. For those of you that feel that aging members applying for LE or OIL should get preferential treatment by allowing increased weapon abilities I merely ask, "Did they not know what they have been putting in for the last 20+ years?" Where is the line? Should we start offering helicopter rides to each and every peak, so hunters can make an ethical shot without being winded or tired? Should hunt dates be based on weather, alleviating shakiness due to wind chill, which could cause wounding of an animal.......but not because lack of practice on the hunter's part. Haha, what's next, "meat activated" drones sent in to track down the wounded animal (from a 800 yd shot) and then transport it back to the trailhead parking lot?? That would be easier, and ethical because wounded/loss would go down, and as a benefit to us old guys it would be better on the hunter's aging knees, shoulders, etc.

I strongly feel that ideas like these are aimed at promoting general season hunters to explore primitive weapon hunts based on the presumption that the new status quo of primitive is being blurred and updated to rival general season weapon performance. It is all being pushed into one group, the "kill." The experience is being set by the wayside. If I am off based, let me know but the recent change to lump muzzy tags in with general deer tags is the beginning of a slippery slope!! Soon it will just be "X" amount of tags issued every year! So go at it with whatever, however, and wherever. Not sure about you guys but I don't want to be in the same canyon as a bunch of "American Sniper Wanna-Bes" lobbing .50 cal BMG rounds at elk herds 1,000 yds away...


----------



## Bucksnbulls08 (Sep 18, 2008)

MuscleWhitefish said:


> Thought you guys against crossbows should read this.
> 
> http://www.outdoorlife.com/blogs/master-class/2013/05/crossbow-compound-bow-hunting-myth
> 
> I don't see a difference between the two as far as a piece of archery equipment.


Compare equally. Crossbow vs. bow at same speed with same weight arrow / bolt. Crossbow is shot in rifle fashion, the bow still has to be held up and drawn back by hand. Not the same.


----------



## MuscleWhitefish (Jan 13, 2015)

nocturnalenemy said:


> While other factors are considered, tag numbers are largely set based on Buck: Doe ratios surveyed post hunts. Killing more bucks during the hunts will directly lower the Buck: Doe and thus lower future tags.
> 
> Now whether tags should be based on Buck: Doe ratios is an entirely different question (I'm for much lower Buck: Doe on all GS units), but as it stands now, that's how tag numbers are set.


I believe the DWR recommended that the Zion unit increase the tags this year and the RAC's said no. It's a process. It's not really black and white.

The idea of adding a maginfying scope on a muzzle-loader and having the success rates jump higher than the rifle rates is an interesting concept.

I'm pretty sure that wouldn't happen.

Like I said, Winter does more for the tag number fluctuations than hunter success does. It's pretty well proven.

Lonetree has a good plan to grow the deer further, but still winter is the bigger killer of deer than hunters are.


----------



## NevadaMax (Nov 28, 2013)

"I believe the DWR recommended that the Zion unit increase the tags this year and the RAC's said no. It's a process. It's not really black and white."


Umm, I just copied and pasted MuscleWhitefish's comment above. Think about how many guys shoot and miss at deer with iron sights then wish they could have their center fire rifle scope... Especially their BDC reticle. Not having that, most go back to rifle. But, think about how many guys would jump to and stay with muzzleloader if they knew they could use their magnifying scope with BDC. It would be a complete game changer!!! :-?:-?:-?


----------



## NevadaMax (Nov 28, 2013)

And that's the wrong quote..... Argh.


----------



## NevadaMax (Nov 28, 2013)

It wouldn't be an increase in muzzleloader hunters BUT instead an expansion of rifle hunters and it would negatively impact those hunters who choose the primitive approach which offers decent opportunity to those willing to put in the extra work and abide by further limitations.


----------



## NevadaMax (Nov 28, 2013)

We all should aim for the "One shot, one kill" methodology. That being said, where are we going?? If archery capabilities are encroaching typical muzzleloader distances, and muzzleloader shots surpass typical center fire rifle shots then what are the differences? 
Increasing muzzy range isn't helping the muzzy hunters but expanding "general season" hunts from end of Sept. to end of Oct.. We are backing ourselves into a corner and when efficiency becomes too easy then the only determining factor will be $.


----------



## MuscleWhitefish (Jan 13, 2015)

NevadaMax said:


> ...which offers decent opportunity to those willing to put in the extra work....


This statement applies to all hunts.


----------



## MuscleWhitefish (Jan 13, 2015)

NevadaMax said:


> We all should aim for the "One shot, one kill" methodology. That being said, where are we going?? If archery capabilities are encroaching typical muzzleloader distances, and muzzleloader shots surpass typical center fire rifle shots then what are the differences?
> Increasing muzzy range isn't helping the muzzy hunters but expanding "general season" hunts from end of Sept. to end of Oct.. We are backing ourselves into a corner and when efficiency becomes too easy then the only determining factor will be $.


Yes, but it is a state where you can jump to the front of the draw line if you have money and decide to spend it on Expo tags.


----------



## NevadaMax (Nov 28, 2013)

Ban the magnifying scope on any center fire rifle and watch the # of applicants drop significantly... Do this and like others stated, objectives will not be met thus available tag #'s will increase in subsequent years.


----------



## MuscleWhitefish (Jan 13, 2015)

NevadaMax said:


> It wouldn't be an increase in muzzleloader hunters BUT instead an expansion of rifle hunters and it would negatively impact those hunters who choose the primitive approach which offers decent opportunity to those willing to put in the extra work and abide by further limitations.


Nebraska went to magnifying scopes on ML's and still people choose the week long rifle season over the month long ML season.

New Mexico allows scoped ML's on elk and people aren't magically more successful that rifle hunters.

Primitive approach? What does that mean? 1890 hawkin with open sights with a ball & patch with actual black powder or A recurve bow with a wooden arrow with an arrowhead carved out of volcanic stone.

Right now we are shooting arrows twice the speed (if not more) than traditional archery equipment.

We have ML's that when you pull the trigger, it actually goes bang most of the time.


----------



## NevadaMax (Nov 28, 2013)

MuscleWhitefish said:


> Yes, but it is a state where you can jump to the front of the draw line if you have money and decide to spend it on Expo tags.


I feel that you are answering my proposed "solution statement" with a "problem statement." 
FWIW, I have the utmost respect for you Muscle. I appreciate hearing your view, it forces me to verify my feelings are fit to share.


----------



## MuscleWhitefish (Jan 13, 2015)

NevadaMax said:


> Ban the magnifying scope on any center fire rifle and watch the # of applicants drop significantly... Do this and like others stated, objectives will not be met thus available tag #'s will increase in subsequent years.


After 5 years,

Watch the tags raise to $500 for a resident general season deer tag and the application fees raise to $100 a species.

Watch as hunting slowly dies off, because of a lack of hunter recruitment.


----------



## MuscleWhitefish (Jan 13, 2015)

NevadaMax said:


> I feel that you are answering my proposed "solution statement" with a "problem statement."
> FWIW, I have the utmost respect for you Muscle. I appreciate hearing your view, it forces me to verify my feelings are fit to share.


It was just a snarky sacrasticish re-mark.

The fact is anyone would be hard pressed to not buy and tag or two, if they had the money.

The fact that it is a tax write off that goes to wildlife and not to the broke federal govenment is another plus.

I digress.

No Limitations for "Primative weapons"


----------



## NevadaMax (Nov 28, 2013)

MuscleWhitefish said:


> Yes, but it is a state where you can jump to the front of the draw line if you have money and decide to spend it on Expo tags.





MuscleWhitefish said:


> Nebraska went to magnifying scopes on ML's and still people choose the week long rifle season over the month long ML season.
> 
> New Mexico allows scoped ML's on elk and people aren't magically more successful that rifle hunters.
> 
> ...


How many Nebraskans are going "undrawn"? With no big game hunting opportunities for multiple years???

I am focusing on the general, everyday Utah hunters who want an opportunity 2 out of every 3 years and who shouldn't fear that the DWR is looking to merely increase app fee revenues by drastically reducing draw odds, while those willing to accept weapon limitations as a potential "draw-odd increaser" get passed by or "sold out."

In short, DWR should quite looking for new customers and start taking care of current customers.


----------



## NevadaMax (Nov 28, 2013)

Supply and demand.

The supply isn't changing but the DWR is trying to increase the demand, which increases their revenue. How do they increase demand? They make ALL hunts seem more desirable and hope that more apps will be submitted to hunt the same few animals. Revenue increases without any additional output towards wildlife populations. Hunters only complain after the check cashes and a new program has already been approved and implemented. Cha-Ching.


----------



## MuscleWhitefish (Jan 13, 2015)

NevadaMax said:


> How many Nebraskans are going "undrawn"? With no big game hunting opportunities for multiple years???
> 
> I am focusing on the general, everyday Utah hunters who want an opportunity 2 out of every 3 years and who shouldn't fear that the DWR is looking to merely increase app fee revenues by drastically reducing draw odds, while those willing to accept weapon limitations as a potential "draw-odd increaser" get passed by or "sold out."
> 
> In short, DWR should quite looking for new customers and start taking care of current customers.


I am more for the rule change in LE elk.

It's supply and demand. Utah's demand is too high for the supply. It really is what it is and the only way you would fix it is to have less people apply. No matter what route you take the odds are not going to get better unless you get less hunters and/or increase more deer.

From my research this year there are a few draw areas and quota areas for rifle in Nebraska, but most is OTC. Tags are cheap too $215 for a non resident. Last Year Nebraska sold 126,947 deer permits and only 7,691 muzzle-loader permits.

Idaho has OTC deer tags that are $317.

Alaska has OTC Sitka Blacktail Tags for $150.

Montana has OTC deer tags, South Dakota has OTC archery deer tags, etc

Other states have opportunities to hunt deer when you don't draw in Utah.

An easy way to afford other states hunting is to not buy fast food (or buy things on camofire) and put that money in a hunting fund. You'll be surprised how much money you can save other a 12 month period.


----------



## NevadaMax (Nov 28, 2013)

:grin: 
Muscle,I am a nonresident of a Utah. Tags are cheap for NR Nebraska. After I buy a NR Utah deer tag and archery elk plus hunting license I wonder why I invest $800 in Utah...should I leave that tab for you to cover??? The DWR will get it somehow. Or I could find like 18 Midwestern guys who could apply to Utah...but that might affect your draw odds AND really pad the pockets of the DWR!! 

As a matter of fact, the money I have paid to the Utah DWR dwarfs your "resident" investment. Try not to buy fast food, for the next 60 years and you may be in the ballpark....sorry;-)

And you never answered the question, "How many Nebraskan's went without any big game hunting opportunity?"


----------



## Dukes_Daddy (Nov 14, 2008)

NO to every question. 

Still love my Hawken but 40+ eyes do much better with my 1x on my CVA.


----------



## MuscleWhitefish (Jan 13, 2015)

NevadaMax said:


> :grin:
> Muscle,I am a nonresident of a Utah. Tags are cheap for NR Nebraska. After I buy a NR Utah deer tag and archery elk plus hunting license I wonder why I invest $800 in Utah...should I leave that tab for you to cover??? The DWR will get it somehow. Or I could find like 18 Midwestern guys who could apply to Utah...but that might affect your draw odds AND really pad the pockets of the DWR!!
> 
> As a matter of fact, the money I have paid to the Utah DWR dwarfs your "resident" investment. Try not to buy fast food, for the next 60 years and you may be in the ballpark....sorry;-)
> ...


Well, I'm in resident limbo. I'm not a Utah resident as of Nov 1 and I am in the Wyoming hunting resident year-long limbo program.

The $800 you spend in Utah is no different than the $800 I spend in Idaho to hunt.

I apply to a bunch of different state draws or for points. Last year I drew Sage Grouse out at Sheldon WMA in NW Nevada. I hunted spring bears and deer/elk in Idaho. I send Nevada my $200 or so bucks a year for points, until I am ready to apply there. It's like my yearly hunt chukars once investment.

Given the number of tags allocated to NR's, the Utah system is a money pit.

In Nebraska Deer is pretty well a given with OTC tags, but you might not get Republican or other harder to draw units. Pronghorn can be drawn. Elk draws are worse than Utah. Sheep are pretty well Sheep it's like a blind squirrel finding a nut.


----------



## Steveb (Sep 11, 2007)

No to everything.


----------



## silentstalker (Feb 19, 2008)

I am glad to see most on this thread are against this. I hope that reflects the overall results of the survey. 

Trying to change hunt options like crossbows and magnified scopes for the personal reason of drawing sooner is not a great approach IMO. The archery LE hunt is easier to draw for a reason. Its tough, its likely you wont tag out. The upside is you will be able to draw more than once. 

Anyone who thinks hunting with a crossbow is the exact same as hunting with a bow has clearly not bowhunted for long. A crossbow is heavy, akward, and bulky. Shot from a standing unsupported position they are equally accurate as a bow. However, if you sit in a ground blind with shooting sticks, they are extremely accurate. They are smoking fast as well. Crossbows require almost zero practice to be proficient. Sight it in and your done. 

The biggest and most drastic advantage crossbows have over bows is that they do not require the hunter to draw back at the moment of truth. This is a huge advantage. Countless stalks have been blown by bowhunters trying to draw on game either standing or sitting in a blind. The crossbow can be shot from a prone position or sitting on sticks for 30 minutes waiting for the perfect angle or animal position. These are not over exaggerated situations. They happen every day on the bowhunt. 

I completely support the hunts as is. Anyone unable to draw a bow for medical reasons can get an exemption.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

silentstalker said:


> I completely support the hunts as is. Anyone unable to draw a bow for medical reasons can get an exemption.


 I would like to see this change, but not in the way many of you may think. Currently, the medical reason has to be a permanent one. I would like to see it also be available to those with a temporary injury or condition. Two months ago I tore a ligament or tendon in my right shoulder while pulling out a battery from my F250 at a bad angle. I couldn't pull my bow and I thought, "No problem! I'll just get my doctor to sign a note and use a crossbow for my archery deer and elk hunts."

Well, not so fast, pilgrim! It's a two sided 8 1/2 by 11 DWR APPLICATION with exact details, your signature and the doctors signature ,and a permanent condition and a signed statement under penalty of law that the condition is as stated. And not all APPLICATIONS are approved by the DWR.

Now I had several choices. 1)Turn in both tags and fill out two applications for refunds. 2)Turn in both tags and forget the refunds. 3)Turn in the deer tag for a refund (or not) and change the elk tag for a rifle tag. 4) Hang on to the tags and hope the tear heals in time for the Extended Archery. 5) Come up with some kind of device/rig that would allow me to draw and shoot without using my right shoulder. 6)Turn the compound bow down to 40 lbs and figure out how to draw it in a more comfortable manner.

#6 seems to be working so far, but I have to stick it up in the air and bring it lever once it lets off and I can only take a few shots at a time.

I'm sure my situation isn't uncommon and a change wouldn't make much of a difference in success rates.


----------



## Dahlmer (Sep 12, 2007)

I received the survey and responded as well. I don't bow hunt, so to be fair I did not feel I could offer a valuable opinion there. After listening to some of the arguments, I can see where a crossbow may provide some advantage. I am curious to hear some arguments for or against the attached range finder.

I do hunt with a rifle and a muzzleloader. I believe if the goal was to keep the mz hunt more primative, then the choice was made years ago to move away from that. Allowing saboted pistol bullets and modern powders has moved the technology forward in this arena far more than a variable power scope will. If anything, I wonder if the DWR does not now have a responsibilty to ensure the technology in aiming the device is on par with the capability of the rifle and bullet being used. 

Modern bullet and powder combinations can be reliably effective out to at least 250 yards in terms of terminal energy. A one power scope or good peep system can be used, but does not really provide the fine tuning necessary to ensure you are in the 6-8 inch kill zone of a deer. At 100 yards my scope is covering up about 4 inches; at 200 it is at least 8...that leaves little room for error despite my bullet/powder combination being lethal at that distance. A 4 power scope would provide plenty of magnification without giving the impression that 300+ yard shots are doable. Besides, open sites or a one power scope is not going to prevent that from happening anyway. 

Just my two cents.


----------



## silentstalker (Feb 19, 2008)

elkfromabove said:


> I would like to see this change, but not in the way many of you may think. Currently, the medical reason has to be a permanent one. I would like to see it also be available to those with a temporary injury or condition. Two months ago I tore a ligament or tendon in my right shoulder while pulling out a battery from my F250 at a bad angle. I couldn't pull my bow and I thought, "No problem! I'll just get my doctor to sign a note and use a crossbow for my archery deer and elk hunts."
> 
> Well, not so fast, pilgrim! It's a two sided 8 1/2 by 11 DWR APPLICATION with exact details, your signature and the doctors signature ,and a permanent condition and a signed statement under penalty of law that the condition is as stated. And not all APPLICATIONS are approved by the DWR.
> 
> ...


I completely support what you are asking for. I would like it to be verified by a Dr. (General statement not directed at you) but even a "seasonal" injury should qualify IMO.

I would think this change would be met with little resistance. The only trick will be writing it tight enough to keep it injury related.

I am sorry its happening to you and messing up your season.

My Dad has a jacked up shoulder and has tried to use a 40# compound but even that has proven painful. I have a sweet crossbow for him to use if and when he makes the switch.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Dahlmer said:


> I received the survey and responded as well. I don't bow hunt, so to be fair I did not feel I could offer a valuable opinion there. After listening to some of the arguments, I can see where a crossbow may provide some advantage. I am curious to hear some arguments for or against the attached range finder.
> 
> I do hunt with a rifle and a muzzleloader. I believe if the goal was to keep the mz hunt more primative, then the choice was made years ago to move away from that. Allowing saboted pistol bullets and modern powders has moved the technology forward in this arena far more than a variable power scope will. If anything, I wonder if the DWR does not now have a responsibilty to ensure the technology in aiming the device is on par with the capability of the rifle and bullet being used.
> 
> ...


It is only the restrictions on the optics that keep the ML hunt primitive. Do away with those, and there is no reason for the special season.


----------



## Dahlmer (Sep 12, 2007)

Lonetree said:


> It is only the restrictions on the optics that keep the ML hunt primitive. Do away with those, and there is no reason for the special season.


Any glass at all pretty much excludes it from being primitive. I don't think the DWR really considers it a primitive hunt...it's a muzzleloader hunt. One shot and you have to stuff it all down the barrell. That is why there is a special season.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Not glass, magnification. Magnification is an enhancement above and beyond the mechanical technology.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Lonetree said:


> It is only the restrictions on the optics that keep the ML hunt primitive. Do away with those, and there is no reason for the special season.


The reason is to spread out hunters.

Until Option 2, it was ALWAYS considered an extension to the rifle hunt. The first Muzzle Loader tags extended your general deer season "any weapon" tag a week. Later it became its own hunt but the allotment came out of the general season "any weapon" tags... in fact, you could swap your tag between rifle and muzzleloader if you wanted to pay the $5 fee, it didnt matter. You draw ML or Rifle, it was considered the same thing by the DWR. The only distinction was general season and archery tags.

Its purpose was to spread out hunters, really nothing more. *It was never instituted as a limited harvest type hunt.

*
-DallanC


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Lonetree said:


> Not glass, magnification. Magnification is an enhancement above and beyond the mechanical technology.


Rifle Scopes were first invented and used in the 1600's... that predates hawkin muzzleloaders by nearly 250 years and inline muzzleloaders by 100 years.

-DallanC


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

And they have been considered a traditional use item for muzzle loader hunts for how long?


----------



## sagebrush (Sep 8, 2007)

after reading some of the comments about scopes for muzzle loaders some of you really think that the sky is falling. if you dont use a muzzle loader why do you even worry about it. it looks like most people are more worried about what the muzzle loader hunters are doing than what the archery or rifle hunters are doing.

I have hunted with all said weapons but choose the muzzle loader more than any of the others. it takes allot of skill for someone to make that first shot count. this includes any weapon not just muzzle loaders, cant seem to understand why it makes such a big deal about the scope, people are going to always try to make those long shot with what weapon they hunt with bow, rifle, shotgun or muzzle loader.

100 yards with bow, sky busting with shotgun , or 1000 yards with rifle. and 200 yards shot with muzzle loader.

I hope they do allow magifying scopes, seeing how my muzzle loader did come with one. maybe now I'll get to use the scope during the hunt.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Lets cut right to the heart of the real issue here. Its about entitlement. People want the benefits of longer seasons, less crowds, different times of the year, etc. But they don't want to accept the restrictions that come with those benefits, that's called entitlement. There is a spectrum that stretches from the most opportunity at one end, to the highest success at the other. crossbows, scopes on muzzle loaders, etc. unbalance the opportunity to success equation. 

If we are all as skilled as we claim to be on the internet, maybe we should accept fair chase restrictions on increased opportunity hunts, and prove it.

Flame away, but that is the real essence of this debate.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

Since we are talking about scopes on muzzle loaders how about going back into the 1800's and using the same type of scope that they had on the rifles if they could afford one.

http://winchestersutler.com/BCA_Scope.html


----------



## F250 (Feb 28, 2014)

The average age of hunters, as a group, is creeping up. Many states have recently changed their archery hunting regulations to allow the use of crossbows in an attempt to retain ageing hunters who want to continue participating in bow hunting. Allowing magnifying scopes to muzzle loaders would also allow older hunters with to continue hunting when iron sights and 1X scopes become an issue for tired old eyes.


----------



## hossblur (Jun 15, 2011)

There shoud be primitive seasons. The old muzz season the first of november. Limited to #11 caps, conicals or balls, loose powder, iron sights, no inline. Flintock or percussion, but you can even rate the twist. We used to have a blast in the old season, see tons of great bucks, but usually the technology, or more likely snow limited what we did, but still a freaking riot of a hunt.

Same for archery. Long bow, etc, etc.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

F250 said:


> The average age of hunters, as a group, is creeping up. Many states have recently changed their archery hunting regulations to allow the use of crossbows in an attempt to retain ageing hunters who want to continue participating in bow hunting. Allowing magnifying scopes to muzzle loaders would also allow older hunters with to continue hunting when iron sights and 1X scopes become an issue for tired old eyes.


Which is why we need to recruit more wildlife, so we can recruit more young hunters. Deer have been the engine that recruit and retain hunters. The decline in hunting and hunters perfectly matches the declines in deer and other wildlife.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

It is my opinion that no matter what we as hunters do or how many animals are out there most of the younger generation don't care to go hunting. Even in hunting families it is hard to get them to venture out into the cold in the fall of the year. Usually if you do get them out all they want to do is to play with their electronic games or update their status on Facebook. 

It doesn't matter if there are 4 times the animals they just don't care about hunting as a lot of us did when we were their age.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Critter said:


> It is my opinion that no matter what we as hunters do or how many animals are out there most of the younger generation don't care to go hunting. Even in hunting families it is hard to get them to venture out into the cold in the fall of the year. Usually if you do get them out all they want to do is to play with their electronic games or update their status on Facebook.
> 
> It doesn't matter if there are 4 times the animals they just don't care about hunting as a lot of us did when we were their age.


I don't buy it, it does not pass for all youth. If you look at hunting across the entire United States, and look at the decline of deer especially over the last 30 years, the declines match each other perfectly. Why? Because the corresponding declines in tags, because of a lack of deer, cut young hunters out. It reduces hunter recruitment incrementally every year.

Adding scopes, and crossbows to the mix, won't fix this.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Lonetree said:


> I don't buy it, it does not pass for all youth. If you look at hunting across the entire United States, and look at the decline of deer especially over the last 30 years, the declines match each other perfectly. Why? Because the corresponding declines in tags, because of a lack of deer, cut young hunters out. It reduces hunter recruitment incrementally every year.
> 
> Adding scopes, and crossbows to the mix, won't fix this.


BullChit... some states have had incredible increases in deer populations during this time. What has changed is lack of hunting land access, additional regulations, rise in expenses, incredible paperwork to even apply for tags, publics perception of hunting = bad/evil, lack of time to hunt, competition of other entertainment types (video games etc).

-DallanC


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

Lonetree said:


> I don't buy it, it does not pass for all youth. If you look at hunting across the entire United States, and look at the decline of deer especially over the last 30 years, the declines match each other perfectly. Why? Because the corresponding declines in tags, because of a lack of deer, cut young hunters out. It reduces hunter recruitment incrementally every year.
> 
> Adding scopes, and crossbows to the mix, won't fix this.


I know a couple of families that have had a hunting tradition back to the cave man. In both of them they have access to private property where there is a abundance of animals both deer and elk. The kids hunted as long as dad put in for the tags and paid for them but as soon as dad quit paying the kids stopped hunting and preferred to play with their electronics while sitting at home.
Another family hunted like it was a religion and out of 6 kids there is only one that hunts and it isn't because of no animals.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

elkfromabove said:


> I would like to see this change, but not in the way many of you may think. Currently, the medical reason has to be a permanent one. I would like to see it also be available to those with a temporary injury or condition. Two months ago I tore a ligament or tendon in my right shoulder while pulling out a battery from my F250 at a bad angle. I couldn't pull my bow and I thought, "No problem! I'll just get my doctor to sign a note and use a crossbow for my archery deer and elk hunts."
> 
> Well, not so fast, pilgrim! It's a two sided 8 1/2 by 11 DWR APPLICATION with exact details, your signature and the doctors signature ,and a permanent condition and a signed statement under penalty of law that the condition is as stated. And not all APPLICATIONS are approved by the DWR.
> 
> ...


 As I've thought about my situation over the last few days, I came up with another alternative that might not only solve my individual dilemma, but may be a better solution to the crossbow issues on the survey.

How about a separate general crossbow permit and season? The relationship between the hand-held bow and the crossbow is similar to the relationship between the rifle and the muzzy, and since the rifle and the muzzy permits and seasons are separated, why not the hand-held bows and crossbows? We could even run the seasons concurrent (or not) with maybe a shorter season on the crossbow to equal out success rates. And there wouldn't even be a need for a doctor's signature. I do see one difficulty with this scenario that may be a roadblock, and that's deciding where we should pull those tags from, but I think we could hammer that out. There may be other problems I'm not aware of, but I think it's an idea worth looking at. Comments?


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

I'd be all for it, and pull the tags from the any weapon season. This way you could pull X # of any weapon tags and add in X+Y tags for the crossbow, increasing opportunity while holding harvest relatively steady


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

MuscleWhitefish said:


> I believe the DWR recommended that the Zion unit increase the tags this year and the RAC's said no. It's a process. It's not really black and white.


 Well you're right that there is some complexity in it but essentially nocturnalenemy is right in how the tag numbers are created.

The issue you mentioned above has many root causes but those are different issues than what we are talking about here.

In this thread we are talking about something that could have a real impact on tag numbers permanently. By increasing hunter success a chain of events would ensue that would be unstoppable. It would impact every unit in the state including LE's and general units. Aside from game populations and sex ratios, hunter success is the biggest factor in determining tag numbers.

This has already happened to some degree and I feel we should stop it. Or least slow it down as much as possible. I firmly believe that it isn't just Facebook and video games that hurts hunter recruitment, but also it is becoming less "cool" to hunt and I think that impacts peoples psyche more than we can understand. Especially young people.

Look at what the public has done to the dentist in Minnesota, and it isn't happening because they all think he poached. We've seen it over and over during the past several years. Go outside the safety of a hunting forum or your own circle of friends and see what people are saying about hunting in general out there. Much of the criticism is based on ignorance but nonetheless its the fight we have on our hands at the moment. The less hunters there are the more "isolated" many will feel and they'll just quit so they don't have to feel like they are doing something many around them don't approve of.

I believe the absolute best way we can preserve hunting in the US is to get as many people as possible out doing it. If the deer population could sustain it I would love to see 200,000 hunters on the mountain again for opening day of the rifle deer hunt. Schools closed and big buck contests at the local used car lot and not a single person ashamed of it.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

elkfromabove said:


> As I've thought about my situation over the last few days, I came up with another alternative that might not only solve my individual dilemma, but may be a better solution to the crossbow issues on the survey.
> 
> How about a separate general crossbow permit and season?


 I think the fall calendar is already too crowded to add another hunt. Just MHO but I would support the idea of giving hunters a crossbow pass for legitimate injuries.


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

bullsnot said:


> I think the fall calendar is already too crowded to add another hunt. Just MHO but I would support the idea of giving hunters a crossbow pass for legitimate injuries.


Which they already have.

⫸<{{{{{⦇°>


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

bullsnot said:


> Well you're right that there is some complexity in it but essentially nocturnalenemy is right in how the tag numbers are created.
> 
> The issue you mentioned above has many root causes but those are different issues than what we are talking about here.
> 
> ...


Can I like this twice?


----------



## MuscleWhitefish (Jan 13, 2015)

bullsnot said:


> Well you're right that there is some complexity in it but essentially nocturnalenemy is right in how the tag numbers are created.
> 
> The issue you mentioned above has many root causes but those are different issues than what we are talking about here.
> 
> ...


I agree it's no different than basketball, soccer, baseball, etc. The more people that participate the bigger number of people that will remain. Growing deer herds will be the key along with public access and habitat preservation.

See Red Stuff


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

I've been as involved with recruitment over the past decade as just about anybody, but I'm throwing in the towel. I'm convinced that nothing we do will increase interest in hunting, particularly big game hunting. That's because we've taken a lot of the personal satisfaction out of hunting and just about everything in this survey is about doing more of the same.

If I look back on my fondest memories of hunting, every episode was something that was just plain miserable or even frightening at the time. If I look at the fireside stories I tell these days, none of them are about record book animals, magazine covers, YouTube videos or taking a hot shower in a 5th wheel trailer.

The industry has taken over hunting. Look at the forums. Which bow is best? Which broadhead is best? What's the best caliber for whatever? Which camo is best? How many game cameras do I need? What's the best bait? What's the best call? Hunters have turned into shoppers.

And by the way, where can I find the animals I'm hunting?

Personal satisfaction cannot be bought. Personal satisfaction comes from what we can do. Skills. Accomplishment. Woodsmanship. That's what really makes hunting what it is, isn't it? Without it, where's the appeal?


----------



## elkman (Sep 1, 2013)

Just a question. I admit I did not read all of the replies so forgive me if this has already been addressed. 
I seen some of the first few threads refer to being able to use a cross bow or a muzzle loader with a magnifying scope during the any legal weapon hunt. 
Can a muzzy have a magnified scope on any hunt? I did not think that was a legal weapon.
Can you use a cross bow in Utah? I did not think that was a legal weapon either.
I am not trying to be nit-picky just wondering because I think it would be kind of fun to hunt with a cross bow on the any legal weapon hunt. 
If you can I might go buy one for this season.


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

On the any weapon hunt it is legal to use a magnified scope on a muzzel loader or a cross bow.
It is not legal to use a scope of more than 1 power on the muzzle loader hunt.
You can use a cross bow on the archery hunt with a doctor's slip saying you are disabled.


----------



## utahgolf (Sep 8, 2007)

so I was looking through the survey results. I guess 57% are in favor of higher powered scopes on ML....How seriously do these "popularity" contests actually turn into a new reg or getting rid of a reg? I don't understand how you can take that 57% number as a valid number because many people who took the survey have probably never shot a muzzleloader, same thing with the archery questions. How many rifle hunters were saying yes to ML scope changes and never even intend to hunt ML? I don't understand the survey thing at all. Seems kinda ridiculous. Here's the link to results.
http://wildlife.utah.gov/public_meetings/rac/2015-09_rac_packet.pdf


----------



## MuscleWhitefish (Jan 13, 2015)

utahgolf said:


> so I was looking through the survey results. I guess 57% are in favor of higher powered scopes on ML....How seriously do these "popularity" contests actually turn into a new reg or getting rid of a reg? I don't understand how you can take that 57% number as a valid number because many people who took the survey have probably never shot a muzzleloader, same thing with the archery questions. How many rifle hunters were saying yes to ML scope changes and never even intend to hunt ML? I don't understand the survey thing at all. Seems kinda ridiculous. Here's the link to results.
> http://wildlife.utah.gov/public_meetings/rac/2015-09_rac_packet.pdf


I have hunted in Utah with muzzleloader and I was in favor of the magnifying scopes. I still doubt Utah will make the change, but would be happy if they did.


----------



## manysteps (Sep 28, 2009)

The results of the survey give the RAC somewhere to start from... if you really want you voice heard, attend the meetings and make it known.


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

bowhunt3r4l1f3 said:


> Delicious steaks...


Finally, the voice of reason.

.


----------



## 7mm Reloaded (Aug 25, 2015)

2X max on muzzle loaders :!:


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

utahgolf said:


> so I was looking through the survey results. I guess 57% are in favor of higher powered scopes on ML....How seriously do these "popularity" contests actually turn into a new reg or getting rid of a reg? I don't understand how you can take that 57% number as a valid number because many people who took the survey have probably never shot a muzzleloader, same thing with the archery questions. How many rifle hunters were saying yes to ML scope changes and never even intend to hunt ML? I don't understand the survey thing at all. Seems kinda ridiculous. Here's the link to results.
> http://wildlife.utah.gov/public_meetings/rac/2015-09_rac_packet.pdf


The question was not if anyone favored "high powered" scopes. It was "magnifying scopes." There is a difference. Everyone likes surveys, until the results are not what you want personally. Surveys are the way that any organization gets a large amount of feedback on a topic. They are used by private businesses and government alike. They are not infallible, but those that administer them already know that. As stated, they are a good starting point for a discussion.

Here are some of my thoughts on the survey results:

They surveyed about 77,000 and got about 19,000 responses (about 25%), and this result is considered "extremely high" compared to previous surveys? How pathetic is that? Honestly, it is no friggin wonder that SFW rules the roost. 90% of the hunting population can't even be bothered to submit a 3 minute survey in most situations.

Super-majority responses on these surveys like those to large caliber rifles and smart gun technology probably carry a lot more weight than a result with 57%. I would be surprised if they allowed magnification scopes during the muzzy season next year. But I would be equally surprised if that doesn't eventually get changed to allow them in the next 5 years. There is mounting support for this to happen, and it believe it will happen in the not-too-distant future.


----------



## utahgolf (Sep 8, 2007)

I thought in the survey they were talking magnified as in more than a 1x scope??? I consider high powered scope on a ML anything more than a 1x..... A 4x is high powered to me... Of course a bunch of rifle hunters are going to say yes to ML having magnified scopes. Most ML guys I know want it the way it is.


----------



## Dahlmer (Sep 12, 2007)

utahgolf said:


> I thought in the survey they were talking magnified as in more than a 1x scope??? I consider high powered scope on a ML anything more than a 1x..... A 4x is high powered to me... Of course a bunch of rifle hunters are going to say yes to ML having magnified scopes. Most ML guys I know want it the way it is.


Considering there were only 19,000 responses I doubt it was a bunch of rifle hunters saying they wanted scoped muzzleloaders. The generalization seems to be that rifle hunters are lazy, unmotivated bums...it wouldn't follow that they turned out in big numbers to answer a survey.

I do hunt with a muzzleloader and I did indicate that I would like to see magnified scopes allowed during muzzleloader season. There are a few arguments that I hear consistently against magnified scopes and to be honest none of them hold water in my mind.

Scopes are not the lynchpin to a mass conversion of rifle hunters to muzzleloader. You still have to load you powder and bullet separately down the barrell. You still have to use a separate primer or cap. You still have at best about 30 seconds between shots. You still have much more work to build up a consistent load and no matter how good it is, shot to shot, you will suffer from significantly higher variability. Black powder substitutes have made a lot of headway, but even the top of the line powders still are much dirtier and corosive. I can't remember the last time I got blow back from my rifle or a plugged flash channel...it's never even been a consideration.

Magnified scopes won't improve success ratios. Muzzleloader success ratios are already on par with any weapon success ratios. I don't believe guys will be any more likely to take unethical shots with a scope nor to be any more lethal with those shots than they already are.

A magnified scope will not improve ballistics nor a guys understanding of those ballistics. To be honest if he will take a 300 yard shot with a scope...he's likely to do the same with open sights. Muzzleloaders will always suffer from significantly lower velocites and ballistic cooeficients. In fact, some argue that BC's are worthless as they relate to muzzleloaders.

The reality is this, if my muzzleloader is capable of shooting PBR at 175-180 (which most are) then my optics should be capable of providing me the ability to aim as precisely as possible at that range. This survery is the first time I have heard the DWR refer to the archery and muzzleloader hunts as primitive weapon hunts. If that is what they want then they let the cat out of the bag a long time ago.


----------



## utahgolf (Sep 8, 2007)

Dahlmer said:


> Considering there were only 19,000 responses I doubt it was a bunch of rifle hunters saying they wanted scoped muzzleloaders. The generalization seems to be that rifle hunters are lazy, unmotivated bums...it wouldn't follow that they turned out in big numbers to answer a survey.
> 
> I do hunt with a muzzleloader and I did indicate that I would like to see magnified scopes allowed during muzzleloader season. There are a few arguments that I hear consistently against magnified scopes and to be honest none of them hold water in my mind.
> 
> ...


I bet there would be more people than you think making the switch if they could use higher powered scopes. I know both of my buddies who would switch in a heart beat but they can't stand a 1x. But I guess we probably should allow it so we can make more ethical kills. We should even develop a ML round that is completely encased for better accuracy. We also should allow a magazine as well, just for a quick follow up shot for ethics sake. -O,- But I do agree, guys who don't pay attention to what the bullet is capable of will miss by a mile. That isn't my biggest concern. but since there are many more rifle hunters in this state I wouldn't be surprised if it was a pretty good number of them weighing in on the survey vs people who actually ml hunt...


----------



## mcc9 (May 20, 2008)

Personally, I am in favor of 4x scopes for ml because it will help get cleaner shots/kills. I still wouldn't shoot more than 100-150 yards because of the loss of takedown ability the further out you get. I haven't shot anything more than 60 yards away with ml so I would still only take good quality shots, but that is just me. It would be nice to have that option. That and I have two 4x scopes sitting collecting dust that would fit great on my ml's.


----------



## utahgolf (Sep 8, 2007)

I just don't understand the ethics logic. There is nothing preventing anyone from getting closer to the animal to make a clean kill. Hunting prowess is an often overlooked skill these days.


----------



## Bo0YaA (Sep 29, 2008)

Allow the scopes to match the performance of the modern ML. IMO a 4x would be plenty sufficient. Shots to 250yds are very doable and have plenty of killing power with a modern inline and a stout load of BH209 or T7 regardless of what some people think.


----------



## Bo0YaA (Sep 29, 2008)

utahgolf said:


> I just don't understand the ethics logic. There is nothing preventing anyone from getting closer to the animal to make a clean kill. Hunting prowess is an often overlooked skill these days.


 I agree, however I hear about just as many 70-100 yard bows shots each year as I do 200+yard muzzy shots. So your statement applies to each of the so called primitive weapons. Personally, I switched from muzzy to bow last year and killed my first archery buck at 40 yards and also passed on one at 60. The problem is, just because you and I may not take those shots doesn't mean others won't. At least give them to tools to do so in a quick and clean manner. Rather than wounding and losing the animal.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

I guess I'll never understand why we continue to look to regulations that make it easier to kill the animals we love to hunt-- which in turn reduces the opportunity to hunt.

I have had the opportunity to hunt with a magnifying scope on an ML as that was the only way for a non-resident to get a tag in that State. 226 yards, right through the lungs. I felt confident to 300. My hunting companion was proficient to 450 with his ML.

So all the guys who say magnifying scopes make it more "ethical" and less "wounding" are not living in the real world. Throw a 4x or 6x on an ML and you have 500+ yard shots becoming much more prevalent and 300 will be normal. Then there will just be wounding at 300 yards. I don't buy the arguement that "I won't shoot over 150 yards if I have a scope on my ML". That is just not the real world. Throw a 4x or 6x or greater on your ML, shoot it and you will be pushing the limits even more than the 150 yard open sight. There will be more killing.

Some guys are doing this with the current regs, but many will be doing it with a magnifying scope. A Wildlife Board member already said he is thinking 4x or 6x. Those high country bucks will take a pounding.

If they pass magnifying scopes on MLs then my household will triple the applicants for the hunt. After all, it is all just about killing them anyway, right?

For those who don't believe what I stated above:
http://www.gunwerks.com/Shooting-Systems/muzzleLoader - the price will come down and many other manufacturers are offering LR MLs.








http://www.longrangehunting.com/forums/f32/itll-get-better-158557/


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

Bo0YaA said:


> I agree, however I hear about just as many 70-100 yard bows shots each year as I do 200+yard muzzy shots. So your statement applies to each of the so called primitive weapons. Personally, I switched from muzzy to bow last year and killed my first archery buck at 40 yards and also passed on one at 60. The problem is, just because you and I may not take those shots doesn't mean others won't. At least give them to tools to do so in a quick and clean manner. Rather than wounding and losing the animal.


Ummmm, or missing the animal........


----------



## Bo0YaA (Sep 29, 2008)

Understanding ballistics becomes a much greater part of shooting a muzzy over 250 then I think you are giving attention to. I'm comfortable out to 200 now, with a 1x because I have established my load over a chronograph and know whats its doing out to 200. In fact the last little buck I killed with a muzzy was right at 200. Most hunters however don't have the same understanding of ballistics as you, me and lots of other guys on this forum. Most guys never shoot their gun until a week before the hunt. So even if they sight it in at 200 (which means 5" high at 100 average) chances are, the majority aren't going to know that at 300 then are going to be 22 inches low. So yes, they will miss completely at 300 regardless of x power scope. I know there are some of those uber high performance guns out there but again, we are talking about the majority of guys on the hill with a smoke pole, not the very small minority that will own one of those things. Regardless, if they pass it or not, I'm an archery guy now, so at the end of the day it really doesn't matter to me. Other than my daughter gets to hunt all three seasons for 3 more years lol.


----------



## nocturnalenemy (Jun 26, 2011)

Packout said:


> I guess I'll never understand why we continue to look to regulations that make it easier to kill the animals we love to hunt-- which in turn reduces the opportunity to hunt.


This^^^^


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

golf,

22% of the respondents indicated that they primarily hunt with muzzleloaders. 31% were primarily archery hunters. 47% were primarily rifle hunters. If you pushed that out to the general population of hunters in the state, I would think that you have a higher number of muzzy and archery hunters responding to this than there are actually muzzy and archery hunters statewide. I don't have those numbers, but that is my guess. 

Anyone know the numbers across the state? It may not even be possible to determine. My brother, for example, has an archery elk tag and a rifle deer tag this year. Last year my other brother had a muzzleloader elk tag and a rifle deer tag. We've all killed deer with both a rifle and a muzzleloader over the years.


----------



## MuscleWhitefish (Jan 13, 2015)

A surplus of people reduce hunts more than loosened regulations.

A successful hunters in most cases do not effect the number of tags as much as bad winters, car accidents, predation, and other environmental factors (pesticides).

The Muzzleloader Elk success rates are still pretty good with the current regulations.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

7MM RELOADED said:


> If you guys are in favor of a 4x scope on a muzzle loader, what would you think of a 4x max on rifles too? I didnt think so. Leave things the way they are.


How are those two things even remotely connected?


----------



## utahgolf (Sep 8, 2007)

Vanilla said:


> golf,
> 
> 22% of the respondents indicated that they primarily hunt with muzzleloaders. 31% were primarily archery hunters. 47% were primarily rifle hunters. If you pushed that out to the general population of hunters in the state, I would think that you have a higher number of muzzy and archery hunters responding to this than there are actually muzzy and archery hunters statewide. I don't have those numbers, but that is my guess.


 That's my point, who knows who is being surveyed really and what the makeup really is in these surveys??? But when is enough enough? Next we'll see a survey on using drones for scouting.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

The way that I look at it is if you want higher magnification scopes on a muzzle loader then do it but use the muzzle loader during the regular rifle season. 

I actually think that they have gone a little too far from a season that was suppose to be a little bit more like get back into the past idea when it first came out. 

If it was up to me we would all be using side locks, open sights, loose powder, and round balls for the muzzle loader season.


----------



## CVHunter INACTIVE (May 28, 2013)

You don't have to draw a crossbow. When you are in archery range of mule deer that is huge. If you don't think so you haven't tried much. 
In general it seems to me like big game hunting has taken a big turn for the worse. With long range rifles and cross bows. Any scope on a muzzle loader. Seams like it becomes all about shooting skills and not really hunting skills. 
I feel inspired to just go fishing. And bird hunting.


----------



## MuscleWhitefish (Jan 13, 2015)

utahgolf said:


> That's my point, who knows who is being surveyed really and what the makeup really is in these surveys??? But when is enough enough? Next we'll see a survey on using drones for scouting.


I believe the survey covered those with Utah Deer Tags this year and those who found out about it via word of mouth.

I was at Dixie State at the time of the rebels undoing. We the students voted for the nick name to be the Red Devils.

They stated there was not enough votes to change the name to the Red Devils and changed the name to the Red Storm.

They also created the infamous Bull-Nado.

http://media.bonnint.net/slc/916/91658/9165800.jpg

So, there is that.

A survey in Utah can be meaningless, because they will just do what they want.

I would like to have magnifying scopes on muzzleloaders, but I doubt it will happen this go-round.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

This survey will be brought up in the next round of RAC and Wildlife Board meetings, even though this is the fishing regulations round. Whether it's an informational item or an action item, I don't know, but we'll probably get an idea on what the DWR is planning on proposing.

Northern RAC - Sep 8, Brigham City
Central RAC - Sep 9, DWR Office, Salt Lake
Southern RAC - Sep 15, Snow College, Richfield
Southeastern RAC - Sep 16, City Council Chambers, Green River
Northeastern RAC - Sep 17, DWR Office, Vernal

Wildlife Board - Oct 1 - DWR Office, Salt Lake


----------



## redleg (Dec 5, 2007)

Critter said:


> The way that I look at it is if you want higher magnification scopes on a muzzle loader then do it but use the muzzle loader during the regular rifle season.
> 
> I actually think that they have gone a little too far from a season that was suppose to be a little bit more like get back into the past idea when it first came out.
> 
> If it was up to me we would all be using side locks, open sights, loose powder, and round balls for the muzzle loader season.


_O\\+1_O\\


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

elkfromabove said:


> This survey will be brought up in the next round of RAC and Wildlife Board meetings, even though this is the fishing regulations round. Whether it's an informational item or an action item, I don't know, but we'll probably get an idea on what the DWR is planning on proposing.
> 
> Northern RAC - Sep 8, Brigham City
> Central RAC - Sep 9, DWR Office, Salt Lake
> ...


Informational only but it will come up.


----------



## ut1031 (Sep 13, 2007)

*RAC Attendance*

As is typically the case, many on here rant and rave and express an opinion but when it comes to attending a RAC Meeting, few if any attend and give their opinions in person. The Central RAC was last night and when this topic came up, I was the only one who spoke. Next week are the other RAC meetings, I challenge you all to attend one and make your voice heard.


----------



## Dahlmer (Sep 12, 2007)

ut1031 said:


> As is typically the case, many on here rant and rave and express an opinion but when it comes to attending a RAC Meeting, few if any attend and give their opinions in person. The Central RAC was last night and when this topic came up, I was the only one who spoke. Next week are the other RAC meetings, I challenge you all to attend one and make your voice heard.


So, are you willing to share with us the general tenor of the discussion?


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

???










-DallanC


----------



## Dahlmer (Sep 12, 2007)

^^^^^

Smart A$$ 

*Full Definition of TENOR*

1
_a_*:* the drift of something spoken or written *:* purport 
_b_*:* an exact copy of a writing *:* transcript 
_c_*:* the concept, object, or person meant in a metaphor

2
_a_*:* the melodic line usually forming the cantus firmus in medieval music 
_b_*:* the voice part next to the lowest in a 4-part chorus 
_c_*:* the highest natural adult male singing voice; _also_*:* a person having this voice 
_d_*:* a member of a family of instruments having a range next lower than that of the alto

3
*:* a continuance in a course, movement, or activity

4
*:* habitual condition *:* character

Synonyms

1. sense, import, content, substance, gist.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

-DallanC


----------

