Muzzleloaders

30Hart said:

To get the desired effect you'd have to have limitations on iron sights too. There are iron sights with built in windage and elevation adjustments that can keep it on the vitals of an elk out to 600 yards with the most accurate high speed muzzys.

Click to expand...

diablo said:

Wow - what percentage of muzzy hunters would be capable of a shot with any open sights past about 300? A tenth of one percent??!

Click to expand...

elkassassin said:

TAKE F'N NOTE!

You Take Something From The SmokePolers!

You're Gonna Take From The StickFlippers as Well!

You're Gonna Clamp Down On Long Range Rifles at The Same Time As Well!

It's Gonna Be:

ALL GAVE SOME!

Not!

Some Gave All!

Fair & F'N Square Or None Of It's Flyin!

Click to expand...

shootem said:

I wish that were the case! In terms of fairness, it seems logical, however only scopes on muzzys are on the agenda for discussion.

Click to expand...

elkassassin said:

And It's No F'N Different Than Banning The Lion Hunting in KALI!

Or Trying To Ban Black Guns!

They'll Pick on the Easiest For Them First!

I Don't Have A Problem With it As Long As The Other 2 Weapon Types Get Restrictions As Well!

Fair is Fair!

Or it at least it Used To Be!

It Will Be a CHICKEN-SSHHIT Move if They only Put Restrictions on SmokePoles!

Click to expand...

twopointdn said:

I voted yes, they should have never made the change several years ago to allow magnified scope on muzzleloader for muzzleloader season. It was fine the way it was with the 1x scope and/or open sights muzzleloader season. If you want to see some naïve comments and lack of knowledge of the capabilities of muzzleloaders listen to the WB meeting when they passed the rule make magnified scopes legal for muzzleloader season. That alone should be reason enough to put it back to how it was before they made magnified scopes legal. Everyone may not agree with me but I’m tired of everyone thinking they have a long range muzzleloader and shooting at stuff way further then they should be shooting at stuff. Some of these people projectiles will not even perform at the distances they are shooting due to the low velocities at the point of impact. There are more factors to consider than just hitting a steel plate. Obviously this changes some with the really long range muzzleloader that are pushing projectiles at 2700 fps. This has been a sour subject with me since that WB meeting, if they had any good reason to make the change then I maybe could have lived with it but you listen to that WB meeting and be the judge. Everyone is making the point that it has not change harvest success rate any by making the change so that will make it just another point for it going back the way it was and no one should have a problem with that in that regard. No need for magnified scopes on muzzleloader during muzzleloader season. If you want to use a single shot loaded from the muzzleloader 2700 fps magnified scope rifle use it on the any weapon hunt. Sorry for the rant but I’m tied of the bullet lobbers just because they can see the crease behind the shoulder blade with their 15x scope from 500 yards… just tune the turret mentality people. Leave that for the any weapon hunts.

Click to expand...

elkassassin said:

TAKE F'N NOTE!

You Take Something From The SmokePolers!

You're Gonna Take From The StickFlippers as Well!

You're Gonna Clamp Down On Long Range Rifles at The Same Time As Well!

It's Gonna Be:

ALL GAVE SOME!

Not!

Some Gave All!

Fair & F'N Square Or None Of It's Flyin!

Click to expand...

JakeH said:

I disagree bess.

They gave the smokepolers scopes a few years ago, and look what they did with them.

Immediately ramped that sh!t to ? and started pushing the limits and creating new tech and making it more and more main stream. Look how many new companies there are now focusing just on long range muzzleloaders.

The pole smokers did it to themselves, you guys created this mess. I don't look at it as taking it away, it's just taking it back to how it used to be.

Not saying we cant put some limits on the other things, but the only ones to blame for the current situation is the muzzy hunters.

Click to expand...

elkassassin said:

WOW!

You Don't See The Advancements of Technology in The Archery & Rifle Equipment?

Just The SmokePolers?

I Guess Nobody-else with Archery & Rifles Are Pushing The Limits?

Might Wanna SPLAIN That One?

Click to expand...

JakeH said:

Did I say that? Nope pretty sure i said we could put some limits on the other two as well, but there was specific limitations put on muzzleloaders and as soon as they was Taken away the sh!t went crazy.

How bout you Splain that one.

Click to expand...

middlefork said:

I know it is crazy but anybody have any real data? Anybody?
I don't mind having discussions but just maybe we could try and define what we want to accomplish and then maybe make some adjustments to how to accomplish it.

Click to expand...

elkassassin said:

Well!

We Hunt With All 3 Weapons!

The Bow That I Thought Was Neat Shhitt in 1978 was a 40 lb Compound!

Guess They Haven't Advanced in Technology?

My First SmokePole in 1980 was a HAWKENS with a 75-100 Yard MAX Gun,Yes I Admit They Have Advanced in Technology!

In 1980 I Upgraded To a 7MAG,I Thought I Was Perty BAD at The Time Thinking I Might Make a 400 Yard Shot with it,Ya The Technology Has Advanced Way Beyond this Rifle!

Technology on ALL Weapons have went CRAZY!

But As Usual:

The STICKFLIPPERS BLAMES THE SMOKEPOLERS!

THE SMOKEPOLERS BLAME THE LONG RANGE RIFLES!

THE LONG RANGE RILERS BLAME THE STICKFLIPPERS!

AND VICE-VERSA!

AND SO ON & SO ON.........................!

WE ARE ALL F'N GUILTY & RESTRICTING THE SMOKEPOLERS ALONE IS NOT GONNA FIX THE F'N ISSUES WE HAVE ON THE GAME HERDS!

Click to expand...

JakeH said:

Hell anyone who is a true muzzloader hunter should be all for going back, I'm sure adding scopes didn't do you guys any favors in drawing tags.

Click to expand...

middlefork said:

I know it is crazy but anybody have any real data? Anybody?
I don't mind having discussions but just maybe we could try and define what we want to accomplish and then maybe make some adjustments to how to accomplish it.

Click to expand...

middlefork said:

I know it is crazy but anybody have any real data? Anybody?
I don't mind having discussions but just maybe we could try and define what we want to accomplish and then maybe make some adjustments to how to accomplish it.

Click to expand...

dogvalleymule said:

Go back to the cap and ball muzzleloader

Click to expand...

Silentstalker said:

Pretty sure the DWR provided ample data to support the scope change a few years ago. The data said loud and clear - the change would do very little to harvest based on current success rates and permit numbers. It was really a moot point when compared to the annual harvest of the any weapon hunt.

Click to expand...

Silentstalker said:

If you want to make any difference at all to saving bucks (which again, won’t grow our herd at all) you need to start and stop with the rifle hunt.

They kill truckloads and truckloads more bucks annually than bow hunters and muzzy hunters ever kill.

I love how rifle hunters like to point to the 100 yard bows and long range muzzy but the reality and facts of the matter prove that rifles kill way more bucks.

So, I’m with ElkA on this one. Leave the bows and muzzy scopes alone unless you’re really after change which means drastic changes to rifle hunting. I’m talking technology and permit numbers.

Click to expand...

Silentstalker said:

Pretty sure the DWR provided ample data to support the scope change a few years ago. The data said loud and clear - the change would do very little to harvest based on current success rates and permit numbers. It was really a moot point when compared to the annual harvest of the any weapon hunt.

Click to expand...

shootem said:

Then go back to open sights lever action 30-30. Just sayin?

Click to expand...

30Hart said:

Like I said clubs spears and rocks only.

Click to expand...

middlefork said:

And this is what it basically comes down to.

You are trying to define other hunters in your image. And along the way eliminate competition for tags. At least be honest.

Click to expand...

roadrunner said:

If their data unequivocally showed the addition of scopes wouldn't change a thing, then why is it even a relevant item of discussion now?

If their data was wrong then, who's to say their data now is even right relative to the increased imapct it's had? Or could it be just as wrong?

Click to expand...

SanPitch said:

Do you happen to know the date of that meeting? I don’t remember watching that one I’d be interested to hear what they had too say

Click to expand...

JakeH said:

Wrong, not trying to paint anyone anything, personally I'm not a fan of muzzloaders can't stand the stupid things. But I do see how many more people are using them and are setting them up for farther and farther shots.

Feel like they should go back to the rules they had for years.

Click to expand...

elkantlers said:

Restricting scopes on muzzleloaders really only makes a difference with general season and LE deer. With Gen elk and LE Elk, the rifle guys go first. So, saying that Muzzleloader hunters are killing all the critters is not really accurate. The muzzleloader guys are getting what's left after the archers and rifle guys have gone through them.

Click to expand...

middlefork said:

And this is what it basically comes down to.

You are trying to define other hunters in your image. And along the way eliminate competition for tags. At least be honest.

Click to expand...

hossblur said:

No. The word "primitive" should come back into play.

I'm further than the OP. I'd prefer Idaho rules.

No scope, only loose powder, no sabots.


If you want to hunt rifle season, do so. If you want primitive weapon seasons, they need to be at least somewhat primitive

Click to expand...

Silentstalker said:

There you go again assigning your own beliefs to weaponry that doesn’t suit you. They were never defined by the DWR to be primitive weapons. They were designed to give additional opportunities and spread out hunting pressure.

I love it when hunter turns on hunter. You guys are great for the sport.

To what end are we looking to limit this crap? Are you trying to save bucks? Are you trying to make it easier for yourselves to be successful on that fat spike or two point you guys slaughter from your truck on the rifle hunt?

The statistics show that adding these scopes to the muzzy hunt do nothing to the success rates. If you’re looking to make change you have got to limit the ability of the glutinous group at the table. Rifle hunters kill more deer than anyone by a landslide. It’s not even comparable.

Saying technology needs to be dealt with and then ignoring the largest users of technology is moronic and just another step in the wrong direction that Utah seems to do year in and year out.

Click to expand...

tex270 said:

Open sights.

Click to expand...

BillyBoB said:

(Pre-scope) 2013-2015 GS muzzy deer success rates statewide averaged 33.5%
Muzzleloader scopes were legalized in 2016
(Post-scope) 2017-2019 GS muzzy deer success rates statewide averaged 35.2% (+1.7%)
In those 6 years of data of our states 29 different units, 17 units averaged an increase and 12 units averaged a decrease

How many folks have one of these missle launching muzzleloaders that shoot 2700fps OR have the ability to shoot that far?? I would guess it be very minimal. Obviously not enough to make much of a dent in success rates.
However, I’ve read the comments here. While there are a lot of opinions on style, personal ethics (which vary significantly by hunter), it’s alarming to see hunters so divided because someone else does it differently than you would.
I use a CVA accura V2 with a 3x9 and my max is 250 yards. Anything past that, I’m concerned about ft/Ibs of energy and velocity.
Open sights would probably put me 100 yards max.
I’ve tested my muzzle velocity at 1695 ft/sec and that’s what I stick with because it’s a tack driver.
My only muzzy kill (besides the 50+ yearling bucks that I’ve passed on over the years) was a kill at 85 yards, standing, free handed. Only because I needed the meat that year.
I helped my brother on a LE muzzy deer hunt 2 years ago. Spot and stalk. He and I sat on that deer for 30 minutes at 45 yards until he stood up from his bed.
I prefer a muzzy hunt in September because the weather is perfect and I typically see the most deer. Plus I like transition capes. Although I’m not one of the missle launcher muzzy type, this restriction would significantly cut my killing distance.
I’m ok with limiting how the muzzleloader is loaded if that helps minimize shot distances. I’m ok with limiting the scope to a 3x9 for those who have failing eye sight like myself and want to make a good clean kill at 200 yards.
But to claim your disdain because the next hunter does it differently than you and you want rules changed because of your opinion, is the reason the anti-hunters are sitting back laughing.
:/

Click to expand...

BillyBoB said:

(Pre-scope) 2013-2015 GS muzzy deer success rates statewide averaged 33.5%
Muzzleloader scopes were legalized in 2016
(Post-scope) 2017-2019 GS muzzy deer success rates statewide averaged 35.2% (+1.7%)
In those 6 years of data of our states 29 different units, 17 units averaged an increase and 12 units averaged a decrease

How many folks have one of these missle launching muzzleloaders that shoot 2700fps OR have the ability to shoot that far?? I would guess it be very minimal. Obviously not enough to make much of a dent in success rates.
However, I’ve read the comments here. While there are a lot of opinions on style, personal ethics (which vary significantly by hunter), it’s alarming to see hunters so divided because someone else does it differently than you would.
I use a CVA accura V2 with a 3x9 and my max is 250 yards. Anything past that, I’m concerned about ft/Ibs of energy and velocity.
Open sights would probably put me 100 yards max.
I’ve tested my muzzle velocity at 1695 ft/sec and that’s what I stick with because it’s a tack driver.
My only muzzy kill (besides the 50+ yearling bucks that I’ve passed on over the years) was a kill at 85 yards, standing, free handed. Only because I needed the meat that year.
I helped my brother on a LE muzzy deer hunt 2 years ago. Spot and stalk. He and I sat on that deer for 30 minutes at 45 yards until he stood up from his bed.
I prefer a muzzy hunt in September because the weather is perfect and I typically see the most deer. Plus I like transition capes. Although I’m not one of the missle launcher muzzy type, this restriction would significantly cut my killing distance.
I’m ok with limiting how the muzzleloader is loaded if that helps minimize shot distances. I’m ok with limiting the scope to a 3x9 for those who have failing eye sight like myself and want to make a good clean kill at 200 yards.
But to claim your disdain because the next hunter does it differently than you and you want rules changed because of your opinion, is the reason the anti-hunters are sitting back laughing.
:/

Click to expand...

30Hart said:

Well there won't ever be any on the regular rifle hunts...never ever. Just combine the muzzy and rifle hunts and let them use either.

Click to expand...

Robiland said:

The only problem with the stats you gave is that all we know is that a deer died. But, what was the quality of that deer (size, mature, age class). Are we slightly more successful on deer in general, or are we slightly more successful on mature deer? It would be interesting to know the data from that. I get its only 1.7% increase over all, but what about age class of the 35% killed? Anyways.....just a thought.

Click to expand...

shootem said:

I completely agree!! Everyone who is against some form of technology should first start with yourself. If you are against a particular tool or form of technology, don’t use it, but don’t shove it down the throats of those who don’t see it you’re way.

For those that disagree with having scopes on muzzleloaders fine, simply don’t use a scope. What works for some doesn’t work for everyone. I’m sick and tired of the constant fighting amongst hunters when we should be uniting as a group. We are our own worst enemy here. Take a step back and take accountability and responsibility for you’re own actions and stop trying to regulate others for you’re own selfish desires.

Click to expand...

BillyBoB said:

Robiland
As per mule deer plan, our GS hunts are managed for opportunity. If you don’t like the way it’s managed, take that up with them. General season hunts aren’t managed for quality (mature bucks) although finding them in general season hunts are literally what I live for and is my personal challenge. (Hence why I pass on so many yearling bucks annually)
But then again, I’m not gonna knock the guy who doesn’t do it the same as myself.
I purposely pulled the data I did because:
1- there’s more data to gather information for GS
2-LE hunts people typically go harder, hire guides etc

I chose to gather information and be unbiased

Click to expand...

slamdunk said:

I agree we need to unite, but at some point we have to police ourselves with technology.
It evolves because we continue to accept it as part of our arsenal.
Finding that balance amongst us is the challenge.

Click to expand...

Robiland said:

Never said I had a problem with it. Just mentioned that are we more successful on mature deer with the scopes VS the opportunity buck on the side of the road?

My thought is that we cant continue to knock off the top end (mature bucks) year in and year out due to our technology. I get general season is general season. And maybe that is why we need 1 application for deer, not general and LE, since we all know both are LE. Just managed differently each unit. Just like all other states.

Click to expand...

BillyBoB said:

Slam, I 100% agree with you.
On this subject, I don’t believe that the majority of hunters posses the ability and/or equipment to kill at distances that are unfair to the animal. Nor are the majority willing to. For the WB to claim to know it to be a fact or true is naive on their part.
They might make that assumption but I don’t believe we should managing hunters based on hunches or assumptions when it could be dramatically taking time away from more important efforts

Click to expand...

middlefork said:

I know it is crazy but anybody have any real data? Anybody?
I don't mind having discussions but just maybe we could try and define what we want to accomplish and then maybe make some adjustments to how to accomplish it.

Click to expand...

Robiland said:

Never said I had a problem with it. Just mentioned that are we more successful on mature deer with the scopes VS the opportunity buck on the side of the road?

My thought is that we cant continue to knock off the top end (mature bucks) year in and year out due to our technology. I get general season is general season. And maybe that is why we need 1 application for deer, not general and LE, since we all know both are LE. Just managed differently each unit. Just like all other states.

Click to expand...

elkantlers said:

Why?

Click to expand...

Silentstalker said:

There you go again assigning your own beliefs to weaponry that doesn’t suit you. They were never defined by the DWR to be primitive weapons. They were designed to give additional opportunities and spread out hunting pressure.

I love it when hunter turns on hunter. You guys are great for the sport.

To what end are we looking to limit this crap? Are you trying to save bucks? Are you trying to make it easier for yourselves to be successful on that fat spike or two point you guys slaughter from your truck on the rifle hunt?

The statistics show that adding these scopes to the muzzy hunt do nothing to the success rates. If you’re looking to make change you have got to limit the ability of the glutinous group at the table. Rifle hunters kill more deer than anyone by a landslide. It’s not even comparable.

Saying technology needs to be dealt with and then ignoring the largest users of technology is moronic and just another step in the wrong direction that Utah seems to do year in and year out.

Click to expand...

BillyBoB said:

I am one who would support splitting up some of our GS deer units/hunts for quality.
But there is also a much easier solution to your stance. Decrease tags.
But I am all for adding a 4th tier of hunting.
(premium, LE, GS, and “premium GS)

I can’t speak for everyone but my personal experience is this.
The past two years of scouting and helping archery hunters on GS has had me seeing the best quality (mature bucks) ever since 2008. With one buck at near 190 inches and 2-3 in the 170 range. All in the same easy to draw unit. Bedding right under the noses of archery hunters.
Another easy to draw unit I found a 180 inch deer on opening of archery season. With hunters all around.
The quality is there because I see it.
Most just don’t want to do the work to find them.
No camera needed either

Click to expand...

slamdunk said:

Personally skimming the cream off the top isn't really a problem IMO, it's how and why it's being done that is the issue.

Click to expand...

BillyBoB said:

(Pre-scope) 2013-2015 GS muzzy deer success rates statewide averaged 33.5%
Muzzleloader scopes were legalized in 2016
(Post-scope) 2017-2019 GS muzzy deer success rates statewide averaged 35.2% (+1.7%)
In those 6 years of data of our states 29 different units, 17 units averaged an increase and 12 units averaged a decrease

How many folks have one of these missle launching muzzleloaders that shoot 2700fps OR have the ability to shoot that far?? I would guess it be very minimal. Obviously not enough to make much of a dent in success rates.
However, I’ve read the comments here. While there are a lot of opinions on style, personal ethics (which vary significantly by hunter), it’s alarming to see hunters so divided because someone else does it differently than you would.
I use a CVA accura V2 with a 3x9 and my max is 250 yards. Anything past that, I’m concerned about ft/Ibs of energy and velocity.
Open sights would probably put me 100 yards max.
I’ve tested my muzzle velocity at 1695 ft/sec and that’s what I stick with because it’s a tack driver.
besides the 50+ yearling bucks that I’ve passed on over the years, my only muzzy kill was at 85 yards, standing, free handed. Only because I needed the meat that year.
I helped my brother on a LE muzzy deer hunt 2 years ago. Spot and stalk. He and I sat on that deer for 30 minutes at 45 yards until it stood up from his bed.
I prefer a muzzy hunt in September because the weather is perfect and I typically see the most deer. Plus I like transition capes.
Although I’m not one of the missle launcher muzzy type and very few are, I can’t call into question someone else’s capabilities. All we can do is hope ALL hunters are doing their most diligent effort to respect the animals they hunt. You can’t regulate ethics.
While I’ve sat and listened to the wildlife board say that “it’s out of control” is the most ignorant and disrespectful comment. It’s over exaggerated. To claim to know who’s being ethical or not is absurd!
I’m ok with limiting how the muzzleloader is loaded if that helps minimize shot distances. I’m ok with limiting the scope to a 3x9 for those who have failing eye sight like myself and want to make a good clean kill at 200 yards.
But to claim your disdain because the next hunter does it differently than you and you want rules changed because of your opinion, is the reason the anti-hunters are sitting back laughing.
:/

Click to expand...

Robiland said:

Never said I had a problem with it. Just mentioned that are we more successful on mature deer with the scopes VS the opportunity buck on the side of the road?

My thought is that we cant continue to knock off the top end (mature bucks) year in and year out due to our technology. I get general season is general season. And maybe that is why we need 1 application for deer, not general and LE, since we all know both are LE. Just managed differently each unit. Just like all other states.

Click to expand...

slamdunk said:

Personally skimming the cream off the top isn't really a problem IMO, it's how and why it's being done that is the issue.

Click to expand...

elkantlers said:

Please explain what the issue is?

Click to expand...

slamdunk said:

For profit
View attachment 71486

Click to expand...

slamdunk said:

For profit
View attachment 71486

Click to expand...

elkantlers said:

baiting is a non-issue now.

Click to expand...

hossblur said:

Now do the success rates prior to scopes, sabots, 209

Don't cherry pick data. Once muzzies became single shot rifles, not primitive weapons, the success rates blew up.

Click to expand...

OpeningDay said:

I am one of the 2% as I built a "Long Range" Muzzy. Built specifically for a Henry Mountains tag for this fall. I will admit, I still giggle that I have a drop chart for my Smoke Pole. haha. This gun is deadly and accurate out to 500 yards. It shoots much further, but IMO does not have the energy to be an efficient killer beyond 500. I too am also for restricting these type of weapons. However, if you restrict and then put double the people in the field, what is left has nowhere to hide. We just push them over the next hill where another is waiting . You can send (10) Snipers in to kill them out or (100) with rocks. They still get get killed. Ultimately, it is either about building herds (Bucks & Does) or putting more people in the field. I personally don't see how we can have both.

Click to expand...

BigBuckz said:

Out of the 2% of people that have a " long range muzzy" I would be willing to bet only 1% actually know how to shoot long range with a muzzy. So is taking away from that 1% really going to solve anything here.

Click to expand...

hossblur said:

Now do the success rates prior to scopes, sabots, 209

Don't cherry pick data. Once muzzies became single shot rifles, not primitive weapons, the success rates blew up.

Click to expand...

BigBuckz said:

Out of the 2% of people that have a " long range muzzy" I would be willing to bet only 1% actually know how to shoot long range with a muzzy. So is taking away from that 1% really going to solve anything here.

Click to expand...

elkantlers said:

baiting is a non-issue now.

Click to expand...

elkassassin said:

And It's No F'N Different Than Banning The Lion Hunting in KALI!

Or Trying To Ban Black Guns!

They'll Pick on the Easiest For Them First!

I Don't Have A Problem With it As Long As The Other 2 Weapon Types Get Restrictions As Well!

Fair is Fair!

Or it at least it Used To Be!

It Will Be a CHICKEN-SSHHIT Move if They only Put Restrictions on SmokePoles!

Click to expand...

elkantlers said:

Why?

Click to expand...

Robiland said:

Why, well, do the does just let 1st buck come along to bread her? Or do they wait until its time and they are hot and a mature buck walks by? With fewer mature bucks, it may take longer to bread the does. Hence, 2nd cycles. If the majority of the does were bread 1st cycle, the fawns will drop sooner and be healthier for the winter. That is just my thought. No science or studies. I am like the rest of you, I want to kill the biggest buck every year. That might be why I only have 4 mature bucks on the wall. I could have more, but I suck at hunting sometimes, LOL.

Click to expand...

HUNTINFORLIFE said:

except they didn't have scopes prior to 2016. Also, that vote goes up today with the muzzleloaders that are available and it never passes in the first place. That being said. If we just got ride of the range finder I think that would probably be far across the board for all weapon types.

Click to expand...

hossblur said:

The "who" was baiting isnt

Click to expand...

hossblur said:

Eventually we are going to control rifles by cutting rifle tags and seasons. By making success rates lower with muzzies, we don't have to lose hunters, just change their weapon choice.

Click to expand...

Bux n Dux said:

When that .-06 is killing more deer annually than the scoped inline muzzleloader, it’s pretty easy to identify it as a problem. Maybe not THE problem, but it definitely isn’t helping any.

You really believe restricting a guy’s weapon will be the difference between him cutting a tag or not cutting a tag? Maybe we need to do a survey and see who’s killing deer EVERY year they have a permit compared to guys who don’t have a 100% success rate. A killer will always be a killer. Might not kill the target animal anymore, but that tag will still likely be filled.

I’d like to see a voluntary experiment from a group of hunters. Find a couple guys who have filled 4 of the last 4 muzzleloader deer tags they have had with a scoped inline. Find a couple guys who have been 0 for 4 on their tags. Then take that inline away and hand them a muzzleloader that meets the requirements of Idaho or a state with similar restrictions. Give them the same amount of time to hunt, And let’s see if deer are still being killed and who’s killing them. I think the results would be surprising (to you anyway).

10% kill 90%.

Click to expand...

elkantlers said:

Huh?

Click to expand...

elkantlers said:

What is you definition of Mature? You don't need 6-7 year old bucks to breed a doe.

I think that shooting the oldest bucks every year is a good thing.

Click to expand...

Bux n Dux said:

When that .-06 is killing more deer annually than the scoped inline muzzleloader, it’s pretty easy to identify it as a problem. Maybe not THE problem, but it definitely isn’t helping any.

You really believe restricting a guy’s weapon will be the difference between him cutting a tag or not cutting a tag? Maybe we need to do a survey and see who’s killing deer EVERY year they have a permit compared to guys who don’t have a 100% success rate. A killer will always be a killer. Might not kill the target animal anymore, but that tag will still likely be filled.

I’d like to see a voluntary experiment from a group of hunters. Find a couple guys who have filled 4 of the last 4 muzzleloader deer tags they have had with a scoped inline. Find a couple guys who have been 0 for 4 on their tags. Then take that inline away and hand them a muzzleloader that meets the requirements of Idaho or a state with similar restrictions. Give them the same amount of time to hunt, And let’s see if deer are still being killed and who’s killing them. I think the results would be surprising (to you anyway).

10% kill 90%.

Click to expand...

slamdunk said:

What baffles me is that the consensus seems to be that if a particular buck doesn't fall to a long range weapon by description, it won't fall to a 30-06 by the end of the season.
A dead deer is a dead deer regardless of WHAT kills it.

Click to expand...

roadrunner said:

But at least now it will be more difficult to pattern it...

Click to expand...

hossblur said:

NO ONE spends money on tools that dont work.

Click to expand...

slamdunk said:

What baffles me is that the consensus seems to be that if a particular buck doesn't fall to a long range weapon by description, it won't fall to a 30-06 by the end of the season.
A dead deer is a dead deer regardless of WHAT kills it.

Click to expand...

hossblur said:

You really believe restricting a guy’s weapon will be the difference between him cutting a tag or not cutting a tag? Maybe we need to do a survey and see who’s killing deer EVERY year they have a permit compared to guys who don’t have a 100% success rate. A killer will always be a killer. Might not kill the target animal anymore, but that tag will still likely be filled.



Yes. Feel free to look at rifle vs muzzy vs archery for the answer.

Look at the owner of this site.

Go

back and look at all the deer he's killed, how many were archery. And he's probably in the top 1% of deer hunters in the west.

Same as with cams. NO ONE spends money on tools that dont work.

Click to expand...

hossblur said:

I love that spin.

"My definition"

Since I'm old enough to have hunted PRIOR to inlines, I might have a little idea.

And AGAIN it's the same talking points.

Here's a fact. I still own a Thompson New Englander. Shooting .90 grains of powder, a 390 gr lead slug, primed by a #11, with iron sights, it was at best a 100yr gun. Outside that, the sight would cover the animal.

My CVA Accura shooting #209, 777, 245gr sabot even with the garbage package scope is a 250+ gun all day.

Why not go after rifles first? It's harder. How are you going to do it? I shoot an 06', they've been around since WW2 surplus. How are you going to slow it down? It was the gun of choice DURING the golden age of mulies. Hard to prove it's the problem.

Pulling scopes off muzzies makes a difference. Taking 209 and sabots does as well. And it doesn't render guns useless.

Eventually we are going to control rifles by cutting rifle tags and seasons. By making success rates lower with muzzies, we don't have to lose hunters, just change their weapon choice.

Click to expand...

Bux n Dux said:

Exactly. Limiting or restricting muzzleloaders is just setting things up for a banner rifle deer hunt. One restriction won’t fix a thing. But restrictions across all weapons MIGHT have some impact. That still doesn’t fix the DEER problem. People in utah have somehow got the impression that bucks make babies. Maybe BYU should do a study on that so people will understand that concept

Click to expand...

Silentstalker said:

I grew up hunting with my hawken I built in high school shop class. Still have it. I also have an inline. I love how you’re the leading authority on everything and none of us know a damn thing about anything.

My point is this:

You and slam are pushing for a change to the muzzleloader. You’re claiming that it will make a difference.

The data shows otherwise. If you’re trying to make a difference I believe you tackle the issue that gets you the biggest bang for your buck.

Slam says it’s 2% of the shooters are long range shooters. So, how many bucks a year does that translate to that are killed based on this technology? How many of those would have been shot anyways? The net gain to this piss poor shotgun approach to public perception is almost zero.

You don’t want to change the rifle technology even tho it is undeniable that they have greater technology and kill thousands more bucks annually because it’s “harder”??

How convenient….

If you’re looking to make meaningful change, do it right. Quit attacking another’s hunting choices because it’s the easy topic of the day. Instead let’s make meaningful changes or Leave it alone.

Click to expand...

Bux n Dux said:

That’s not true! Harbor freight and Craftsman wouldn’t be in business if that was the case!

Click to expand...