Final Muzzleloader Scope Committee Recommendation

Status
Not open for further replies.
slamdunk said:
Well since your "serious question" quickly turned to negative sarcasm, I'll just remind you that "rifles" were already hit with no electronics other than illuminated reticles, rendering any automation of ballistics compensation illegal.

The ALW season means just that.......Any Legal Weapon can be used and will always have the highest success rates......obviously.
Wanna use an AR platform, air gun, crossbow.....go for it, as long as it's defined as a legal weapon in the rules.

These aren't about changing success rates, none of them are.
The scope decision is about keeping the muzzleloading rifle a relatively close range weapon as that hunt was originally intended.......please follow along.
Click to expand...
Really? Eliminating Electronic scopes is the best you can come up with.

Absolutely pathetic.

This whole committee was started with the intent to benefit the animals. Pretty fuggin sad that we went from that to “this isn’t about changing success rates”. YOU FOLLOW ALONG! CHANGING SUCCESS RATES WAS THE FOUNDING IDEA!

You guys are an absolute joke. And you certainly don’t represent the average hunter.
 
Bux n Dux said:
Really? Eliminating Electronic scopes is the best you can come up with.

Absolutely pathetic.

This whole committee was started with the intent to benefit the animals. Pretty fuggin sad that we went from that to “this isn’t about changing success rates”. YOU FOLLOW ALONG! CHANGING SUCCESS RATES WAS THE FOUNDING IDEA!

You guys are an absolute joke. And you certainly don’t represent the average hunter.
Click to expand...
I’m not usually on board with your logic but in this case I believe your accesment is spot on. I wonder how it jumped the track, who did it and what was the reason behind them doing it. Probably never know.

Oh well.
 
UtyoteKiller said:
What are you using for a sight?
Click to expand...
Here is my ancient open-sighted crossbow.
VERY powerful at almost 280 fps!!

IMG_5805.jpeg
 
Bux n Dux said:
This whole committee was started with the intent to benefit the animals.
Click to expand...

2lumpy said:
I’m not usually on board with your logic but in this case I believe your accesment is spot on. I wonder how it jumped the track, who did it and what was the reason behind them doing it. Probably never know.

Oh well.
Click to expand...

I’m not sure this is true. I followed along with the discussions at least in the public meetings when this committee was created, and I even attended one of the tech committee early meetings. I don’t ever remember this being about the animals. I only remember it being about managing hunters and what “we” want certain hunts to be.

I could have missed things along the way, but I’ve been under the understanding from the beginning that this was not about animals, but people.
 
Vanilla said:
I’m not sure this is true. I followed along with the discussions at least in the public meetings when this committee was created, and I even attended one of the tech committee early meetings. I don’t ever remember this being about the animals. I only remember it being about managing hunters and what “we” want certain hunts to be.

I could have missed things along the way, but I’ve been under the understanding from the beginning that this was not about animals, but people.
Click to expand...
I follow the meetings as well. I have for many years. This whole thing started with “let’s give the animals a chance”. It spurred the trail cams, bait, electronic shiz… all of it. Granted, the bans on tech are now coming from 2 different angles, benefiting the wildlife was the initial focus.

I suppose it’s time to make an appointment at the eye doctor and get my COR lined out. Just like the rest of the state is going to do…
 
Vanilla said:
I’m not sure this is true. I followed along with the discussions at least in the public meetings when this committee was created, and I even attended one of the tech committee early meetings. I don’t ever remember this being about the animals. I only remember it being about managing hunters and what “we” want certain hunts to be.

I could have missed things along the way, but I’ve been under the understanding from the beginning that this was not about animals, but people.
Click to expand...
You are 100% correct.
 
Bux n Dux said:
I follow the meetings as well. I have for many years. This whole thing started with “let’s give the animals a chance”. It spurred the trail cams, bait, electronic shiz… all of it. Granted, the bans on tech are now coming from 2 different angles, benefiting the wildlife was the initial focus.

I suppose it’s time to make an appointment at the eye doctor and get my COR lined out. Just like the rest of the state is going to do…
Click to expand...

You keep saying the same things, and just because you say it loud don't make it true, AND the stats you use are useless.

It is 100% about limiting hunters. Which should limit success. But it's a dam in the continued race in tech.

Comparing a CVA Accura, which was the new kid when scopes came out, to pre scope isn't neatly the same as comparing TODAYS LR muzzys to pre scope.

And. Had we not bitched about FLIR, guys like yourself with the "best money can buy" would be rocking one on every gun.

Had cams not been limited, with the rise of systems like starlink, real time transmitting cams would be the norm, be ause, "best money can buy".

You either heard what you wanted(most likely), or mis understood.

Limiting tech MIGHT roll back success. But it WILL curtail gains.

That's the point
 
hossblur said:
You keep saying the same things, and just because you say it loud don't make it true, AND the stats you use are useless.

It is 100% about limiting hunters. Which should limit success. But it's a dam in the continued race in tech.

Comparing a CVA Accura, which was the new kid when scopes came out, to pre scope isn't neatly the same as comparing TODAYS LR muzzys to pre scope.

And. Had we not bitched about FLIR, guys like yourself with the "best money can buy" would be rocking one on every gun.

Had cams not been limited, with the rise of systems like starlink, real time transmitting cams would be the norm, be ause, "best money can buy".

You either heard what you wanted(most likely), or mis understood.

Limiting tech MIGHT roll back success. But it WILL curtail gains.

That's the point
Click to expand...
It's completely pointless trying to argue with a spoiled kid who didn't get everything he wanted for Christmas.

It's obvious he's the type that buys a Ferrari and demands the speed limit changes to fit his "tech".

He can just do like he did with trail cameras, put on a plastic badge, ride around the mountains on his stick pony and enforce laws he is against.

And no.....he's not attended a single technology meeting, his description of "followed all the meetings" means followed internet chatter.
 
Last edited:
Bux n Dux said:
This whole thing started with “let’s give the animals a chance”.
Click to expand...

Okay, stated that way, I can see some of that sentiment in the early discussions on this issue. And I do think many assume a by-product of limiting tech will “give the animals a chance” and maybe even curtail success rates.

I was thinking more about the animals in the straw man so many throw out about “this isn’t going to increase the herds like they claim” that I’ve heard ad nauseam on this forum. I don’t know a single instance where a person really involved has ever made a claim even close to that. It’s just an easy argument to set up and knock down, but it’s one people involved aren’t making and never did.

But the idea that we need to limit tech to keep this sporting and fair chase, ie- “give the animals a chance,” yes…that has been part of the discussion. No doubt! I don’t think that narrative has changed, however. It’s still about limiting hunters and their tech.
 
Vanilla said:
Okay, stated that way, I can see some of that sentiment in the early discussions on this issue. And I do think many assume a by-product of limiting tech will “give the animals a chance” and maybe even curtail success rates.

I was thinking more about the animals in the straw man so many throw out about “this isn’t going to increase the herds like they claim” that I’ve heard ad nauseam on this forum. I don’t know a single instance where a person really involved has ever made a claim even close to that. It’s just an easy argument to set up and knock down, but it’s one people involved aren’t making and never did.

But the idea that we need to limit tech to keep this sporting and fair chase, ie- “give the animals a chance,” yes…that has been part of the discussion. No doubt! I don’t think that narrative has changed, however. It’s still about limiting hunters and their tech.
Click to expand...
Good comments.

I can tell you with fact, because I was there (he wasn't) that meeting #2 data was produced to show success rates only spiked in the first two years, then pretty much leveled off and even dropped after that for various reasons.

Even with data NOT showing a buck slaughter free for all, the narrative never changed one bit along the way as to where technologyis taking that particular weapon.
In fact, i was shocked at the end, Monday night when the vote was heavy majority to completely remove scopes when I was positive in my intuition it was stop at 1x.
FWIW......I voted to go back to 1x and stood by my word to everyone here and the rest of the GP.

WHATEVER the WB decides, I will gladly hunt open sights because I love that hunt regardless.
 
slamdunk said:
FWIW......I voted to go back to 1x and stood by my word to everyone here and the rest of the GP.

WHATEVER the WB decides, I will gladly hunt open sights because I love that hunt regardless.
Click to expand...
I thought you said you were going to vote for 4x.
 
I’ve only ever hunted open sights on a muzzy.

Killed a couple animals doing such back in the day when I was still muzzy hunting. I don’t think I would have even dreamed of firing a shot beyond about 125 yards.

Recently I shot a muzzy that was not open sights and we moved out to 500 yards. It was fun. And very accurate. That animal (had it been an animal and not a 9” target) would have been dead, no doubt. I can see why there are folks wanting to limit that type of tech on this type of hunt. Enjoy it while you can boys!
 
slamdunk said:
I did, but it was tossed and it came down to 1x or removal....I voted best I could.
Click to expand...
Makes sense.

I participated in a muzzleloader scope survey a couple of weeks ago from the DWR. Is that something that was sent out by the committee or was it initiated elsewhere? Do you know the results of that survey?

I was not impressed with the wording of the survey. It seemed geared to obtain a specific result.
 
Mallardsx2 said:
To me, this is muzzleloader hunting…

View attachment 119810
Click to expand...
I had to find my old school picture. Those were some fun times before all this modern stuff. People don’t even know what they are missing out on. Like MrShaner, I remember my dad taking me to Fort Bridger and to Ogden to rendezvouses as youth and shooting Ace of spade cards and trying to break a string with a nut tied on it. It was fun. I wish I would have never sold my Hawkin in the picture. A step back would be nice if the WB can get on board with it. I like the comments someone made earlier in this thread about there should be something noticeable different between the archery, muzzleloader, and rifle (ALW) hunts and that is not the case anymore. I also agree that the muzzleloader hunt today is no where near the intentions of why they created a muzzleloader season for use to enjoy.

D20556AA-AB0D-4F5D-A842-5B34C01612F1.jpeg
 
slamdunk said:
It's completely pointless trying to argue with a spoiled kid who didn't get everything he wanted for Christmas.

It's obvious he's the type that buys a Ferrari and demands the speed limit changes to fit his "tech".

He can just do like he did with trail cameras, put on a plastic badge, ride around the mountains on his stick pony and enforce laws he is against.

And no.....he's not attended a single technology meeting, his description of "followed all the meetings" means followed internet chatter.
Click to expand...
I haven’t been to a tech meeting because the public isn’t informed on when they take place.

I follow far more than what’s being thrown around on MM. I watch every RAC and WB meeting. I have submitted public input comments when I’ve been allowed to do so. I’ve reached out to board members, sent emails…. I’ve been involved. I’m up to date and have watched what’s been done and said over the years.

That’s more than what your average hunter is doing with keeping up.

And for the record, I’m all for limiting tech. I’ve stated numerous times I’d be fine with going back to traditional style archery only hunts. What I’m not in favor of, is creating a better Hunt quality for 1 weapon type at the expense of other weapon types. Let’s take the rifle hunt and make it a straight wall lever gun open sight hunt! IDGAF. I support change when it impacts everyone equally AND most importantly, benefits our wildlife in the long run. This satisfies neither.

Bottom line, We are managing feelings. Not wildlife. That’s what my issue is.
 
Last edited:
Is That Where your Handle Came From?:D



twopointdn said:
I had to find my old school picture. Those were some fun times before all this modern stuff. People don’t even know what they are missing out on. Like MrShaner, I remember my dad taking me to Fort Bridger and to Ogden to rendezvouses as youth and shooting Ace of spade cards and trying to break a string with a nut tied on it. It was fun. I wish I would have never sold my Hawkin in the picture. A step back would be nice if the WB can get on board with it. I like the comments someone made earlier in this thread about there should be something noticeable different between the archery, muzzleloader, and rifle (ALW) hunts and that is not the case anymore. I also agree that the muzzleloader hunt today is no where near the intentions of why they created a muzzleloader season for use to enjoy.

View attachment 119885
Click to expand...
 
So?

We're Gonna Increase The Kill Rate Within The rifle Hunts Now?

We/Somebody Needs To Hone In On How To Increase Deer Numbers!

And Not Just From One Weapon Type Hunt To The Next Weapon Type Hunt!

I'm Willing To Give!

But It's Gonna Take A HELL Of Alot More Than Taking SmokePole Scopes To Fix What Needs Fixed!
 
elkassassin said:
Is That Where your Handle Came From?:D
Click to expand...
You got it. I killed a lot of two points back in the day. If we found any buck the hunt was on. I actually missed a big four point the night before I killed the buck in the picture and I did not think twice about hunting this buck even though there were bigger ones in the area. My family did not pass up anything in front of them if there was a tag they could put on it. Me and my dad drew muzzleloader Book Cliff deer tags many years ago and after the first day of hunting I was telling my dad about some of the bucks I past up. He did not understand why I would pass up bucks. To my dad it did not matter that it took us eight years to draw the tag we was on a deer hunt to him. The next day when I was hunting with him… sure enough the first buck we seen was a small three point and my dad was going for his gun. I had to talk him out of shooting that buck so he could shoot a slightly bigger small 3x4 that was just behind the small three point. My dad was happy that day. Fun memories.
 
Don’t admit to shooting 2 points. Bessy is going to have a come apart!!!

How dare anyone commit such an abomination!!!
 
Bux n Dux said:
And for the record, I’m all for limiting tech. I’ve stated numerous times I’d be fine with going back to traditional style archery only hunts. What I’m not in favor of, is creating a better Hunt quality for 1 weapon type at the expense of other weapon types.
Click to expand...
elkassassin said:
So?

We're Gonna Increase The Kill Rate Within The rifle Hunts Now?
Click to expand...

Which is it guys?
Did the muzzleloaders increase succes after variable magnification scopes or did it not affect the success rate of Muzeloader hunting.
I am really confused.


elkassassin said:
But It's Gonna Take A HELL Of Alot More Than Taking SmokePole Scopes To Fix What Needs Fixed!
Click to expand...

You will never really get it will you!
 
Those of you preaching the success rates will go up on the ALW hunts now are the same guys saying success rates didn't increase as per data when muzz scopes were implemented.

Which is it, you can't have both?

All the sudden we'll save bucks when we weren't killing them with the scope change in 2016?

Sounds like scopes significantly increase success rates, on paper or not, if this is the new stance ?‍♂️

Notdonehunting asked a great question, but we get two answers from the same people depending on how it's phrased ?
 
Hey NotDon!

I Get It Just Fine!

When We Gonna Do Something Serious To Increase Deer Numbers?

Still Waiting For An Answer On That One?




notdonhunting said:
Which is it guys?
Did the muzzleloaders increase succes after variable magnification scopes or did it not affect the success rate of Muzeloader hunting.
I am really confused.




You will never really get it will you!
Click to expand...
 
Hey Niller?

If You Wanna Shoot a 2 Point Get After It!

But We Would Like a Pic Of You Sportin That 2 Point!:D



Vanilla said:
Don’t admit to shooting 2 points. Bessy is going to have a come apart!!!

How dare anyone commit such an abomination!!!
Click to expand...
 
I Guess We've Done All The BITTCHING & WHINING We Need To Do For Now!

I Shined All My SmokePoles Up About A Month Ago!

I've Got One That'll Work For Whatever They Decide!

Still Don't Know How I'm Gonna See The Front Sight I Filed Down To A Hair When I Had 20/10 Vision on The HAWKENS?

I Can Usually Hunt All 3 Weapon Types!

Maybe Them 2,000+ Yard LongRangers Ain't Gonna Be So Bad After All?:unsure::unsure::unsure::mad::mad::mad:!

But I Can't Stand The PUMPKIN Patch nor The BS That Goes With It!
 
I've been using one in Colorado for a couple of years with the same muzzleloader I use in utah just swap the scope for the open sight system. Nothing else has to change. The extended range in muzzloaders is more due to the advancements in the rifle not the scope
 
notdonhunting said:
Which is it guys?
Did the muzzleloaders increase succes after variable magnification scopes or did it not affect the success rate of Muzeloader hunting.
I am really confused.




You will never really get it will you!
Click to expand...
It didn’t increase success. It impacted quality.

If you have been in the field every year prior to the change and after the change, you would know that.
 
slamdunk said:
It was heavy majority vote last night by the committee to recommend to the WB "Open Sight Only" rule in the state of Utah for General and LE big game hunts going forward.

A COR would still an option for use of a 1x scope.

I am not posting this to encourage debate and questioning for arguments, it is what it is and now up to the WB for final ruling.
Click to expand...
Exactly why we don’t need another “committee”. This the technology committee takes away from the overall process of why RACS and a wildlife board is in place. It needs to go. A bunch of talking heads who want to be somebody in my opinion.
 
slamdunk said:
Those of you preaching the success rates will go up on the ALW hunts now are the same guys saying success rates didn't increase as per data when muzz scopes were implemented.

Which is it, you can't have both?

All the sudden we'll save bucks when we weren't killing them with the scope change in 2016?

Sounds like scopes significantly increase success rates, on paper or not, if this is the new stance ?‍♂️

Notdonehunting asked a great question, but we get two answers from the same people depending on how it's phrased ?
Click to expand...
since 2009, how many general muzzleloader hunts have YOU held a tag for in your pocket that you actually hunted on?
 
@Bux n Dux
I agree with your quality versus quantity comment.

Having said that, all three hunts are getting really good at that.
The archery bucks getting harvested this year are the best quality I ever remember seeing, some great bulls as well.
 
slamdunk said:
@Bux n Dux
I agree with your quality versus quantity comment.

Having said that, all three hunts are getting really good at that.
The archery bucks getting harvested this year are the best quality I ever remember seeing, some great bulls as well.
Click to expand...
Apparently you didn't see his worn out knees comment before it got nuked.....not sure you would have agreed on that one Slammy.
 
Leave the scopes on and move the muzzy season to the late October hunt. Move both rifle seasons up. Anyone good with that? How about you elkass?
 
slamdunk said:
Well since your "serious question" quickly turned to negative sarcasm, I'll just remind you that "rifles" were already hit with no electronics other than illuminated reticles, rendering any automation of ballistics compensation illegal.

The ALW season means just that.......Any Legal Weapon can be used and will always have the highest success rates......obviously.
Wanna use an AR platform, air gun, crossbow.....go for it, as long as it's defined as a legal weapon in the rules.

These aren't about changing success rates, none of them are.
The scope decision is about keeping the muzzleloading rifle a relatively close range weapon as that hunt was originally intended.......please follow along.
Click to expand...
slamdunk said:
Nope, missed it apparently.
I'm on the mountain hunting elk.......priorities ?
Click to expand...
So the limitations on rifles affected maybe 1% and bow limitations affected about the same but recommended muzzleloader recommendation affect 90+% sound fair?
 
325wsm said:
So what are they going to do when they find out there are already open sight systems that are very accurate at 400+ yards?
Click to expand...
The change should not be to remove scopes, it should be to ban any closed ignition system and anything other than flint/#11 cap/musket cap.
 
slamdunk said:
@Bux n Dux
I agree with your quality versus quantity comment.

Having said that, all three hunts are getting really good at that.
The archery bucks getting harvested this year are the best quality I ever remember seeing, some great bulls as well.
Click to expand...
ITS A GENERAL TAG. Since when was quality what the priority is for that hunt type? I thought these were opportunity hunts?

So more quality bucks make it through the muzzy, just to get slammed by the rifle guys 3 weeks later.

I stand by what I’ve said the entire time. Limiting success at the expense of 2 hunt types to create a better hunt quality for another. Managing feelings. Sell outs. All of it. Bunch of clowns on this “committee”. You don’t represent the average general hunter. You represent the guides, outfitters and other hunt orgs that benefit from big money made off ALW tags. Horschit all around.
 
Just wait until the “primitive” hunts are implemented on archery and rifle hunters. The language of “These hunts were never originally intended for long distance will come into play.”
Hams hunt are already open sights on rifles as the prelim. Don’t think it won’t be coming.

Your tech committee will dress up in moccasins and re-enact a vision of the great frontier.
And the board members will be in awe !

I agree w Bux and Ducks on the special interest BS agenda. The scope removal recommendations are nothing more or less than what it is. Personal feelings -no facts or data to back it up. Such as the words “I know”
“I know muzzies can shoot deer at 1100 yards cuz a member of the tech committee said he did.”
“I know that the average muzzy hunter can easily kill deer at 500 yards” cuz my billy bob did it.
“I know a muzzy is just a center fire rifle now”
“I know a gunwelrks muzzy can kill an antelope easily at 700 yards cuz here’s the video”
“I know muzzles are rifles cuz billy bob and I went down to cal ranch and we couldn’t find our “nipples” for our Hawkins -only these new fangled paramounts”

Pun intended on all the “I knows” by all the billy bobs that don’t represent the average hunter - just personal feelings. JMO
 
Bux n Dux said:
ITS A GENERAL TAG. Since when was quality what the priority is for that hunt type? I thought these were opportunity hunts?

So more quality bucks make it through the muzzy, just to get slammed by the rifle guys 3 weeks later.

I stand by what I’ve said the entire time. Limiting success at the expense of 2 hunt types to create a better hunt quality for another. Managing feelings. Sell outs. All of it. Bunch of clowns on this “committee”. You don’t represent the average general hunter. You represent the guides, outfitters and other hunt orgs that benefit from big money made off ALW tags. Horschit all around.
Click to expand...

Please use your intelligence to point out where I said anything about GS and "quality"?
Another "yelling" opportunity for you to act tough and impress your three followers?
You really need to work on your comprehension skills and stopp ASSuming simply for the sake of pouting and arguing.

You're already too far gone to understand it.....enjoy your season, I'm done wasting time on you.
 
Last edited:
slamdunk said:
Well since your "serious question" quickly turned to negative sarcasm, I'll just remind you that "rifles" were already hit with no electronics other than illuminated reticles, rendering any automation of ballistics compensation illegal.

The ALW season means just that.......Any Legal Weapon can be used and will always have the highest success rates......obviously.
Wanna use an AR platform, air gun, crossbow.....go for it, as long as it's defined as a legal weapon in the rules.

These aren't about changing success rates, none of them are.
The scope decision is about keeping the muzzleloading rifle a relatively close range weapon as that hunt was originally intended.......please follow along.
Click to expand...
Slam, serious question for you. The Leupold xv6 scopes that have the internal anti-cant lights, those would be considered illegal under the new scope rules, correct?
 
257Tony said:
Slam, serious question for you. The Leupold xv6 scopes that have the internal anti-cant lights, those would be considered illegal under the new scope rules, correct?
Click to expand...
If the WB accepts the recommendations as is, illuminated reticles are OK as long as there are no internal ballistics and ranging capabilities built in.
Anti cant would (should) be fine.
 
Last edited:
slamdunk said:
I will say this......I find it profound that a lot of the same guys saying "removing scopes only saves deer for the rifle hunt" are the same ones saying "there was no change in harvest rates so why remove them".

You can't have both hypothesis.

If the harvest rates didn't change when scopes were implemented then the same amount of bucks will still be harvested by both groups.

And if you're making the claim that there will be more bucks for rifle hunters going forward without scopes, then you are admitting the scopes effectiveness.
Click to expand...
Yep!
 
Downrange said:
Keep the muzz hunt the same with the same tech and get rid of the early rifle season all together. ?‍♂️?‍♂️
Click to expand...
I hope we all are able to understand why the muzzy hunt has been the first firearm hunt on the general units. I believe it is because of this term called “Primitive Weapon”. The same term is used to describe archery hunts. Which is why the bow hunts take place while deer are still in velvet. The muzzy being the first firearm hunt is an advantage. Muzzy hunts go first because of the disadvantage of using a “Primitive Weapon “.
 
257Tony said:
Slam, serious question for you. The Leupold xv6 scopes that have the internal anti-cant lights, those would be considered illegal under the new scope rules, correct?
Click to expand...
This is correct- it would be illegal as the scope is capable of electronic function beyond the illuminated reticle.
R657-5-8. Rifles, Shotguns, Airguns, and Crossbows.(1) A rifle used to hunt big game must :
(c) have no attachment capable of electronic function, other than illuminated reticles.


slamdunk said:
If the WB accepts the recommendations as is, illuminated reticles are OK as long as there are no internal ballistics and ranging capabilities built in.
Anti cant would (should) be fine.
Click to expand...
The electronic capabilities restrictions include more than just ranging and ballistics. Leveling, camera, atmospheric conditions, time, etc. are all functions made illegal by the above Rule. The only electronic function a device attached to a firearm can perform is an illuminated reticle.
 
slamdunk said:
I will say this......I find it profound that a lot of the same guys saying "removing scopes only saves deer for the rifle hunt" are the same ones saying "there was no change in harvest rates so why remove them".

You can't have both hypothesis.
Click to expand...

But they do.
They claim Muzeloader hunters only increased In killing the mature bucks, Muzeloader hunters did not increase killing pisscutters. ?
We all know this is BS
 
slamdunk said:
Please use your intelligence to point out where I said anything about GS and "quality"?
Another "yelling" opportunity for you to act tough and impress your three followers?
You really need to work on your comprehension skills and stopp ASSuming simply for the sake of pouting and arguing.

You're already too far gone to understand it.....enjoy your season, I'm done wasting time on you.
Click to expand...
Incredibly hilarious an old fart like you would think slamming someone on their follower count is offensive to everyone younger than them. Unlike most of the clowns you associate with (and apparently yourself) follower count means dik to me. You’re going to have to try harder than that to insult me.

FWIW, Walmart has a sale on carhart pants with reinforced knees right now. Might want to stock up for this quarters round of back room, RAC and WB meetings. Very worst case scenario, you could always save them for expo season. That’s when you need them the most anyways.
 
I’ll voice an opinion towards leaving it the way it is. This isn’t going to move the needle for improving deer or elk herds. The muzzle loader is still a 300 yard weapon with a scope and you better have some powder behind that charge or your facing a tough experience.

We have allowed technology advancements on rifles and a bow and arrow equipment but we won’t leave a good scope on a muzzle loader.

I hope the wildlife board recognizes that this isn’t a game changer. Go to those RAC meetings fellas. Voice your opinion.

My life will go on either way but I’d like to see it stay.
 
Bux n Dux said:
Incredibly hilarious an old fart like you would think slamming someone on their follower count is offensive to everyone younger than them. Unlike most of the clowns you associate with (and apparently yourself) follower count means dik to me. You’re going to have to try harder than that to insult me.

FWIW, Walmart has a sale on carhart pants with reinforced knees right now. Might want to stock up for this quarters round of back room, RAC and WB meetings. Very worst case scenario, you could always save them for expo season. That’s when you need them the most anyways.
Click to expand...
Wow.....your personal insults are starting to make me feel sorry for you.
I could stoop to your level, but I'll stay slightly above it for comprehensive measures since arrogance is all you seem to understand.

You stated previously something about me being on my knees to the committee and it was nuked?
Hmmmmm, interesting ASSumption, since I was the only one who voted "Ney" on the scope removal.....same as you would have done, no?

Isn't it ironic we would have voted the same way, yet here we are?
Guess you think your tough internet mouth would win a majority vote?

We're you out of school with chicken pox the day they taught what "majority" means in the third grade?

I'm assuming by your explosive head size and extreme arrogance that you feel that if you were on that committee your voice would win over all the other?
Pathetic.

What would your plan be, start a food fight against the others in the room and demand they leave your 24x on your smoke pole?
I can see it now, ketchup all over your flat brim Kuiu hat that was signed by Camer Hanes.
Good thing your ears were half covered.

Oh never mind, I'm giving you far too much credit.
You'll never see any type of position within the DWR, guess you'll have to keep trying to find your fame on Instagram.

For someone claiming we need to tame tech, you sure are against it.
 
Last edited:
Packout said:
This is correct- it would be illegal as the scope is capable of electronic function beyond the illuminated reticle.
R657-5-8. Rifles, Shotguns, Airguns, and Crossbows.(1) A rifle used to hunt big game must :
(c) have no attachment capable of electronic function, other than illuminated reticles.



The electronic capabilities restrictions include more than just ranging and ballistics. Leveling, camera, atmospheric conditions, time, etc. are all functions made illegal by the above Rule. The only electronic function a device attached to a firearm can perform is an illuminated reticle.
Click to expand...
Great points, leveling is something I don't remember being discussed but I will definitely dig into it.
The discussions were automated ranging and ballistics compensations.
 
slamdunk said:
Wow.....your personal insults are starting to make me feel sorry for you.
I could stoop to your level, but I'll stay slightly above it for comprehensive measures since arrogance is all you seem to understand.

You stated previously something about me being on my knees to the committee and it was nuked?
Hmmmmm, interesting ASSumption, since I was the only one who voted "Ney" on the scope removal.....same as you would have done, no?

Isn't it ironic we would have voted the same way, yet here we are?
Guess you think your tough internet mouth would win a majority vote?

We're you out of school with chicken pox the day they taught what "majority" means in the third grade?

I'm assuming by your explosive head size and extreme arrogance that you feel that if you were on that committee your voice would win over all the other?
Pathetic.

What would your plan be, start a food fight against the others in the room and demand they leave your 24x on your smoke pole?
I can see it now, ketchup all over your flat brim Kuiu hat that was signed by Camer Hanes.
Good thing your ears were half covered.

Oh never mind, I'm giving you far too much credit.
You'll never see any type of position within the DWR, guess you'll have to keep trying to find your fame on Instagram.

For someone claiming we need to tame tech, you sure are against it.
Click to expand...
It’s an 18x on my muzzleloader and I’ve never owned a flatbrim in my life. I’m one of the first OGs blocked on cam hanes list when I made a meme that said “want to know what the hardest part about ‘BEAST MODE’ is? Telling your parents that you’re gay”. Shortly after that meme hit social media his catch phrase was changed to “keep hammerin”.

No, our vote wouldn’t have been the same. My rec would be traditional archery only hunts, no scopes and loose powder on the muzzle hunts, straight wall, lever gun and open sight rifle hunts. For all general season deer and elk hunts. Want to use your fancy tech weapons? Draw a LE tag or an antlerless tag. Can you imagine the opportunity that would give to hunters of all types? OTC archery deer tags could be a thing again for residents. Possibly for muzzleloader too if you had to use full bore projectiles and exposed ignitions… I’d also want the ban of all range finder devices. And this is coming from someone who has all the fancy tech **** you guys hate so bad right now. Kill it all! Why? it benefits the wildlife and give more opportunities to hunters. That’s what I want.

I burned the DWR bridge long before I had any social media presence. If you knew who I was, you’d already know that ?
 
Packout said:
This is correct- it would be illegal as the scope is capable of electronic function beyond the illuminated reticle.
R657-5-8. Rifles, Shotguns, Airguns, and Crossbows.(1) A rifle used to hunt big game must :
(c) have no attachment capable of electronic function, other than illuminated reticles.



The electronic capabilities restrictions include more than just ranging and ballistics. Leveling, camera, atmospheric conditions, time, etc. are all functions made illegal by the above Rule. The only electronic function a device attached to a firearm can perform is an illuminated reticle.
Click to expand...
Now the next question is, how impossible is this going to be to enforce? Most of these scopes look exactly like any other scope.
 
"During this fall's early hunts (from Aug. 1 to Sept. 11), conservation officers have contacted roughly 10,000 individuals and inspected the hunting and fishing licenses of 4,300 people."

Utah's Department of Natural Resources to combine law enforcement agencies | Utah

https://www.fox13now.com/news/local-news/utahs-department-of-natural-resources-to-combine-law-enforcement-agencies is DWR splitting off to just be biology and no Leo?
www.monstermuleys.info www.monstermuleys.info

Seems like a no brainer. More contacts.
 
Bux n Dux said:
It’s an 18x on my muzzleloader and I’ve never owned a flatbrim in my life. I’m one of the first OGs blocked on cam hanes list when I made a meme that said “want to know what the hardest part about ‘BEAST MODE’ is? Telling your parents that you’re gay”. Shortly after that meme hit social media his catch phrase was changed to “keep hammerin”.

No, our vote wouldn’t have been the same. My rec would be traditional archery only hunts, no scopes and loose powder on the muzzle hunts, straight wall, lever gun and open sight rifle hunts. For all general season deer and elk hunts. Want to use your fancy tech weapons? Draw a LE tag or an antlerless tag. Can you imagine the opportunity that would give to hunters of all types? OTC archery deer tags could be a thing again for residents. Possibly for muzzleloader too if you had to use full bore projectiles and exposed ignitions… I’d also want the ban of all range finder devices. And this is coming from someone who has all the fancy tech **** you guys hate so bad right now. Kill it all! Why? it benefits the wildlife and give more opportunities to hunters. That’s what I want.

I burned the DWR bridge long before I had any social media presence. If you knew who I was, you’d already know that ?
Click to expand...
I don't know who you are, nor do I care.
Hiding behind your keyboard is perfectly fine by me, you mean absolutely nothing to me.

Sorry to bear the bad news to you but I'll give you a little education on how a committee works.

Your ego doesn't have an ounce of merit in a group of a dozen or more people that are trying to find a common ground as a formed and invited committee, in fact, it's a sure way out the door instantly.

Look at your own ideas.
You would be asking to take all weapons back to the early 1900's but here you are crying about one proposal??
Good lord, dude......

Why are you insinuating this is a one and done final proposal to the WB?
This technology committee isn't going anywhere, there will be more to come, I can assure you of that.

And yes, our vote WOULD most certainly have been the same because it boiled down to scope or no scope after everything in the middle was tossed out.
I voted no, just like you would have because that's all there was.

Hopefully that doesn't give you a headache trying to understand that.
 
slamdunk said:
I don't know who you are, nor do I care.
Hiding behind your keyboard is perfectly fine by me, you mean absolutely nothing to me.

Sorry to bear the bad news to you but I'll give you a little education on how a committee works.

Your ego doesn't have an ounce of merit in a group of a dozen or more people that are trying to find a common ground as a formed and invited committee, in fact, it's a sure way out the door instantly.

Look at your own ideas.
You would be asking to take all weapons back to the early 1900's but here you are crying about one proposal??
Good lord, dude......

Why are you insinuating this is a one and done final proposal to the WB?
This technology committee isn't going anywhere, there will be more to come, I can assure you of that.

And yes, our vote WOULD most certainly have been the same because it boiled down to scope or no scope after everything in the middle was tossed out.
I voted no, just like you would have because that's all there was.

Hopefully that doesn't give you a headache trying to understand that.
Click to expand...
I’m not crying about losing my scope. In fact, if you look back over the last year, I’m all for it. I don’t need a scope to kill a deer. I’ll kill one regardless. Same goes for archery. Take a way my comound bow, I’ll still kill one with a recurve. Lots of guys can say the same.

Once again, what I’m not in favor of, is making changes that won’t impact success rates. I’m not in favor of managing feelings. This does nothing to benefit wildlife, except for getting a few more mature animals on the landscape for the rifle hunters to shoot at.

The committee is nothing more than a bunch of toadies.
 
MrShane said:
If there is another word for what is going on please teach me.
Any infighting in our ranks that divide us hunters is not good for any of us in the long run.
Click to expand...

I have never used a scope on a muzzleloader and prob never will. That said, I see no issue with “debating” this issue. There is a word. No harm to the sport in my mind. Is a debate about using helicopters to locate game divisive? It just depends on your perspective and what line you draw. Don’t see it as divisive.
 
Bux n Dux said:
I haven’t been to a tech meeting because the public isn’t informed on when they take place.

I follow far more than what’s being thrown around on MM. I watch every RAC and WB meeting. I have submitted public input comments when I’ve been allowed to do so. I’ve reached out to board members, sent emails…. I’ve been involved. I’m up to date and have watched what’s been done and said over the years.

That’s more than what your average hunter is doing with keeping up.

And for the record, I’m all for limiting tech. I’ve stated numerous times I’d be fine with going back to traditional style archery only hunts. What I’m not in favor of, is creating a better Hunt quality for 1 weapon type at the expense of other weapon types. Let’s take the rifle hunt and make it a straight wall lever gun open sight hunt! IDGAF. I support change when it impacts everyone equally AND most importantly, benefits our wildlife in the long run. This satisfies neither.

Bottom line, We are managing feelings. Not wildlife. That’s what my issue is.
Click to expand...

We are managing hunters. We keep telling you that, you fail to listen.

We manage hunters in all types of aspects, it's nothing new.

We didn't start allowing scopes to increase herds. I didn't hear the whining when that started
 
Who’s We Hossy ?
Why were scopes voted on and allowed in 2016 ?
No whining about wounded game and poor eyesight was there ?
Don’t lecture someone on failing to listen until you learn to read.

You could try your “I Know” crap again.
hossblur said:
We are managing hunters. We keep telling you that, you fail to listen.

We manage hunters in all types of aspects, it's nothing new.

We didn't start allowing scopes to increase herds. I didn't hear the whining when that started
Click to expand...
s
 
Ballistic said:
Who’s We Hossy ?
Why were scopes voted on and allowed in 2016 ?
No whining about wounded game and poor eyesight was there ?
Don’t lecture someone on failing to listen until you learn to read.

You could try your “I Know” crap again.

s
Click to expand...


We, is the DWR.

Voted on by small vocal minority, and, I'm imagining a vocal optics industry behind the scenes.

Sorry, we don't change bow let offs cuz your old. We don't give you keys to the gates cuz your old. If you can't see, there's a any weapon season, just for you. I realize the Tard way is to demand special, but your not. Bifocals cost less than scopes.

But let's be honest. No one in 2016 foresaw LR muzzys.

I could give a chit about scopes, I want ignitions limited. Put a 12x on a hawkens, it's still a hawken. It's the ignition that drives the issue. But ignition is harder to police. Now we could just limit them, and expect SPORTSMEN to be SPORTSMEN, but this is Utah, so the tards will be out in full force, so we know how that goes.

But if you think for a second there isn't a "we", you're nuts.

And if you think muzzys are being picked on, then it's over, you're nuts. This is the begining on tech, not the end.

I promise, you can muzzy hunt without turrets, BDC, or even crosshairs. It's not that tough. Might have to make it 50more ft.
 
hossblur said:
We are managing hunters. We keep telling you that, you fail to listen.

We manage hunters in all types of aspects, it's nothing new.

We didn't start allowing scopes to increase herds. I didn't hear the whining when that started
Click to expand...
What a shame. “We are managing hunters.” Not wildlife.

That is the most disappointing and disgusting reality in utah hunting I’ve ever heard.

Go back through all my banned accounts. I wasn’t in favor of it when it passed. Did I put a scope on my muzzleloader when it was legal? Absolutely. But it wasn’t a move I agreed with.

I’m already ahead of the curve of 99% of you guys. Just Thursday I went and developed a load for a muzzleloader (not the one I’m playing with next week) with a scope on it. Found one it liked, took it home, ripped that fugger off and put it on a rifle that needed a scope on it. All I need is my 1x scope mounted back on once I get my COR after my eye doctor visit.

“Managing hunters….”. Wow. Sit and think on that statement for awhile. That certainly puts Utahs wildlife as a priority doesn’t it?
 
hossblur said:
But let's be honest. No one in 2016 foresaw LR muzzys.
Click to expand...
Better get your facts right before you start spouting off on them. The RUML was released in the spring of 2014. 2 years prior to magnified scopes being legal. Anyone with a brain could see the road we were headed down.

For someone who knows it all, there’s sure a lot of flaws in your statements.
 
Bux n Dux said:
What a shame. “We are managing hunters.” Not wildlife.

That is the most disappointing and disgusting reality in utah hunting I’ve ever heard.

Go back through all my banned accounts. I wasn’t in favor of it when it passed. Did I put a scope on my muzzleloader when it was legal? Absolutely. But it wasn’t a move I agreed with.

I’m already ahead of the curve of 99% of you guys. Just Thursday I went and developed a load for a muzzleloader (not the one I’m playing with next week) with a scope on it. Found one it liked, took it home, ripped that fugger off and put it on a rifle that needed a scope on it. All I need is my 1x scope mounted back on once I get my COR after my eye doctor visit.

“Managing hunters….”. Wow. Sit and think on that statement for awhile. That certainly puts Utahs wildlife as a priority doesn’t it?
Click to expand...

Shooting times, bag limits, units, caliber restrictions, let off, pound requirements, electronics, drones, choppers/planes, etc, etc, etc, etc,etc.

Ever pick up a proclamation? It's a book almost solely full of regs, laws, requirements REGULATING PEOPLE. Not sure how the hell you missed it, or why it's so hard to comprehend other than you just want to *****.
 
Bux n Dux said:
Better get your facts right before you start spouting off on them. The RUML was released in the spring of 2014. 2 years prior to magnified scopes being legal. Anyone with a brain could see the road we were headed down.

For someone who knows it all, there’s sure a lot of flaws in your statements.
Click to expand...

Great. There was a RUML at shot show in 14'. So?

The RUML wasn't the reason for pushing scopes, and you know it, same as me.

But since your being a smart azz, tell us morons, what road are we headed down now? What wil muzzys look like in 7 years?

You took off your scope. Did ya die? Gun still shoot without it? Did it still go boom? It didn't break did it? I mean you and Ballistic have cried so damn much I'm assuming you had to toss that gun in the garbage and take up golf without a scope?

Here's what I found out shooting one without a scope yesterday. Gun goes boom. Damnest thing, apparently the scope wasn't necessary, huh?
 
hossblur said:
We, is the DWR.

Voted on by small vocal minority, and, I'm imagining a vocal optics industry behind the scenes.

Sorry, we don't change bow let offs cuz your old. We don't give you keys to the gates cuz your old. If you can't see, there's a any weapon season, just for you. I realize the Tard way is to demand special, but your not. Bifocals cost less than scopes.

But let's be honest. No one in 2016 foresaw LR muzzys.

I could give a chit about scopes, I want ignitions limited. Put a 12x on a hawkens, it's still a hawken. It's the ignition that drives the issue. But ignition is harder to police. Now we could just limit them, and expect SPORTSMEN to be SPORTSMEN, but this is Utah, so the tards will be out in full force, so we know how that goes.

But if you think for a second there isn't a "we", you're nuts.

And if you think muzzys are being picked on, then it's over, you're nuts. This is the begining on tech, not the end.

I promise, you can muzzy hunt without turrets, BDC, or even crosshairs. It's not that tough. Might have to make it 50more ft.
Click to expand...
Oh Hossy…….
You should just come out and say your “we” is your group of moccasin wearers that only “know” what your limited knowledge of what a hawken can do.
You’re still stuck on patch and ball.

You never learned what a Minie (maxi) ball was did you ?
Or that in (dated back to 1847) war -that Minie ball (pointed conical bullet) had an effective range of 300 yards and a max range of 1/2 mile (880 yards).

In-line ignition was out in 1982.

It didn’t just start in 2016 Hossy.

So your “we” group wants to go back to pre 1847 regs now ?

What are you going to do when I (not we) show up with a green mountain ( hawken conversion) long barreled muzzy w open sights and shoot 1000 yards with it?
You know - the type the NMLRA shooters are using with rules that date back to the late 1800,s.

Here’s where you are Hossy.
Say milk (hawken -patch and ball)10 times in a row

What does a cow drink ? Your answer -Milk/Hawken……..
It’s really spilled milk Hossy. LOL !
 
Ballistic said:
Oh Hossy…….
You should just come out and say your “we” is your group of moccasin wearers that only “know” what your limited knowledge of what a hawken can do.
You’re still stuck on patch and ball.

You never learned what a Minie (maxi) ball was did you ?
Or that in (dated back to 1847) war -that Minie ball (pointed conical bullet) had an effective range of 300 yards and a max range of 1/2 mile (880 yards).

In-line ignition was out in 1982.

It didn’t just start in 2016 Hossy.

So your “we” group wants to go back to pre 1847 regs now ?

What are you going to do when I (not we) show up with a green mountain ( hawken conversion) long barreled muzzy w open sights and shoot 1000 yards with it?
You know - the type the NMLRA shooters are using with rules that date back to the late 1800,s.

Here’s where you are Hossy.
Say milk (hawken -patch and ball)10 times in a row

What does a cow drink ? Your answer -Milk/Hawken……..
It’s really spilled milk Hossy. LOL !
Click to expand...


I'm going to put your picture on the book cover of
"Utard, an attempted explanation", by Hossblur



I
 
Whites. WE were exposed to inlines in the early to mid 90's by Whites. Followed by Knights.

I could post the Chuck Hawks article with Doc White talking about building inlines in the 60's, but you were so superior and full of yourself in your genius, you said 82', so I don't want to destroy your knowledge.

But either way, the WE that don't spend the weekend sitting on a bench thinking we changed the world adding or subtracting a grain of powder, WE got turned on to inlines with the Whites.

And WE all shot maxi balls as well, so again thanks for the education, but WE all shot them. Thompson sold them to us, we didn't even have to cast them.

I, have only shot patch and ball out of my pistols, so no I, am not a patch and ball guy.

But, I would be fine shooting patch and ball, if that meant I'd be hunting. Hunters hunt. Be it patch and ball, dart guns, sling shots, or whatever, hunters want to hunt.

I have a feeling, as the tech committee starts addressing tech, we will lose some guys. Guys will choose the bench, over the mtn.
 
hossblur said:
Whites. WE were exposed to inlines in the early to mid 90's by Whites. Followed by Knights.

I could post the Chuck Hawks article with Doc White talking about building inlines in the 60's, but you were so superior and full of yourself in your genius, you said 82', so I don't want to destroy your knowledge.

But either way, the WE that don't spend the weekend sitting on a bench thinking we changed the world adding or subtracting a grain of powder, WE got turned on to inlines with the Whites.

And WE all shot maxi balls as well, so again thanks for the education, but WE all shot them. Thompson sold them to us, we didn't even have to cast them.

I, have only shot patch and ball out of my pistols, so no I, am not a patch and ball guy.

But, I would be fine shooting patch and ball, if that meant I'd be hunting. Hunters hunt. Be it patch and ball, dart guns, sling shots, or whatever, hunters want to hunt.

I have a feeling, as the tech committee starts addressing tech, we will lose some guys. Guys will choose the bench, over the mtn.
Click to expand...
Hossy
Did you just admit (with some facts) that folks were shooting advanced whites before 1982 ?
I’m Proud of You !
1982-2016 was 34 years (for inline ignition) and now it’s longer -but hunters didn’t want scopes in 2016 did they ?

Write your book Hossy - I’ll buy it !!!!
 
hossblur said:
Whites. WE were exposed to inlines in the early to mid 90's by Whites. Followed by Knights.

I could post the Chuck Hawks article with Doc White talking about building inlines in the 60's, but you were so superior and full of yourself in your genius, you said 82', so I don't want to destroy your knowledge.

But either way, the WE that don't spend the weekend sitting on a bench thinking we changed the world adding or subtracting a grain of powder, WE got turned on to inlines with the Whites.

And WE all shot maxi balls as well, so again thanks for the education, but WE all shot them. Thompson sold them to us, we didn't even have to cast them.

I, have only shot patch and ball out of my pistols, so no I, am not a patch and ball guy.

But, I would be fine shooting patch and ball, if that meant I'd be hunting. Hunters hunt. Be it patch and ball, dart guns, sling shots, or whatever, hunters want to hunt.

I have a feeling, as the tech committee starts addressing tech, we will lose some guys. Guys will choose the bench, over the mtn.
Click to expand...
It's no use arguing with guys who think a speed limit was put into place to slow the cars down.
You know how today's Smart Cars can read and all......?
 
Last edited:
slamdunk said:
It's no use arguing with guys who think a speed limit was put into place to slow the cars down.
You know how today's Smart Cars can read and all......?
Click to expand...
That’s a great analogy Slam !
What about speed limits on rifle and archery ?
The current tech restrictions are not stopping folks from shooting extreme distances- just forcing someone to acquire skill.
I can still shoot 2 miles with my rifle.
I can still shoot 120 yards with my bow.

Removing electronics from rifles and bows isn’t in the same gas-lit ballpark as removing scopes from muzzleloaders.
 
Ballistic said:
That’s a great analogy Slam !
What about speed limits on rifle and archery ?
The current tech restrictions are not stopping folks from shooting extreme distances- just forcing someone to acquire skill.
I can still shoot 2 miles with my rifle.
I can still shoot 120 yards with my bow.

Removing electronics from rifles and bows isn’t in the same gas-lit ballpark as removing scopes from muzzleloaders.
Click to expand...
I'll TRYone last time to explain it as simple as possible.

The relatively "short range" rifle, (muzzleloader) was intended to be a primitive style of hunt that has obviously gotten out of what it's intended purpose was.

The ALW hunt is for ANYTHING "legal" that ANYONE wants to use to be successful at punching a tag.
Want to use an airgun.....go for it.
50BMG.....go for it.


The fate is not sealed, the WB makes the final decision.
 
Ballistic said:
Hossy
Did you just admit (with some facts) that folks were shooting advanced whites before 1982 ?
I’m Proud of You !
1982-2016 was 34 years (for inline ignition) and now it’s longer -but hunters didn’t want scopes in 2016 did they ?

Write your book Hossy - I’ll buy it !!!!
Click to expand...



: I started designing the 91 in the late 60s when, as a joke, I built a bolt-action muzzleloader to spoof the traditionalists at Green River Rifle Works. I used the Springfield as a guide with its pull-**** action and with a Model 70-like stock and lines. We all laughed and went our way.

The rifle sat rusting for years until Tony Knight was bold enough to come out with the Knight M85. I got it out, spent several years messing with it, deleted the bolt and kept the pull-**** for simplicity, and brought it out in 1990 as the M90. I made 60 guns by hand and sold them all. -Doc White from Chuck Hawks


Now, you can keep twisting and spinning. I never said there weren't shooters doing anything. I'm not a shooter. So I could care less. But I did say WE, got into inlines in the early to mid 90's.

I have zero idea what inline you were shooting in 82, but I guarantee that it wasn't mass produced, and wasn't on the racks at Wolfs or Sunset Sports, or anywhere.
 
hossblur said:
Great. There was a RUML at shot show in 14'. So?

The RUML wasn't the reason for pushing scopes, and you know it, same as me.

But since your being a smart azz, tell us morons, what road are we headed down now? What wil muzzys look like in 7 years?

You took off your scope. Did ya die? Gun still shoot without it? Did it still go boom? It didn't break did it? I mean you and Ballistic have cried so damn much I'm assuming you had to toss that gun in the garbage and take up golf without a scope?

Here's what I found out shooting one without a scope yesterday. Gun goes boom. Damnest thing, apparently the scope wasn't necessary, huh?
Click to expand...
If you are going to pick a point to argue with, at least stick with it. The RUML was a sign of things to come. YOU said no one saw LR muzzleloaders coming when they allowed scopes in 2016. That might be true for you with as far as you’ve got your head up your azz.

Scopes aren’t necessary. But the hard factual data says they aren’t unnecessary either. That is, unless you’re trying to improve the quality of the animals being hunted with other weapon types…. ?
 
slamdunk said:
I'll TRYone last time to explain it as simple as possible.

The relatively "short range" rifle, (muzzleloader) was intended to be a primitive style of hunt that has obviously gotten out of what it's intended purpose was.

The ALW hunt is for ANYTHING "legal" that ANYONE wants to use to be successful at punching a tag.
Want to use an airgun.....go for it.
50BMG.....go for it.


The fate is not sealed, the WB makes the final decision.
Click to expand...
No, it was never intended to be a primitive weapon hunt type from the start. Utah didn’t even have that definition of a “primitive” hunt until last year. It was intended as an “additional opportunity”. You have turned it more into a “primitive” type hunt. But it certainly didn’t start out that way.

Did you order your new reinforced knee pants yet? Don’t want to see you miss out on that deal with the WB only a couple months away.
 
Ballistic said:
That’s a great analogy Slam !
What about speed limits on rifle and archery ?
The current tech restrictions are not stopping folks from shooting extreme distances- just forcing someone to acquire skill.
I can still shoot 2 miles with my rifle.
I can still shoot 120 yards with my bow.

Removing electronics from rifles and bows isn’t in the same gas-lit ballpark as removing scopes from muzzleloaders.
Click to expand...

"Just forcing someone to aquire a skill"

Yup. And the vast majority of dudes aren't going to spend the year sitting on a bench, building custom get ups to shoot 1000 yards.

The vast majority, WE, with most likely rock either the sights on the gun, or will have to screw on some fiber optic sights, and we will shoot as far as we can see, or more likely until the front sight covers up the deer.

And, a few deer will walk. AND, there will be a marker put out, stopping never ending "advancements".
 
Bux n Dux said:
Kinda like how you’ve chosen this forum to talk about hunting instead of actually going hunting?
Click to expand...

I've been hunting for a month. I picked up a bow, for more OPPURTUNITY. Tried shooting doves last night.

Like most your other "knowledge", you'd be wrong, yet again
 
Bux n Dux said:
No, it was never intended to be a primitive weapon hunt type from the start. Utah didn’t even have that definition of a “primitive” hunt until last year. It was intended as an “additional opportunity”. You have turned it more into a “primitive” type hunt. But it certainly didn’t start out that way.

Did you order your new reinforced knee pants yet? Don’t want to see you miss out on that deal with the WB only a couple months away.
Click to expand...


@Lumpy, feel free to jump in.

It was created as a hunt for HOBBYISTS. That hobby being muzzleloaders, mostly built from kits, that used primarily percussion caps, but some flint.

It definitely wasn't a single shot rifle hunt, which is what it's become
 
Bux n Dux said:
If you are going to pick a point to argue with, at least stick with it. The RUML was a sign of things to come. YOU said no one saw LR muzzleloaders coming when they allowed scopes in 2016. That might be true for you with as far as you’ve got your head up your azz.

Scopes aren’t necessary. But the hard factual data says they aren’t unnecessary either. That is, unless you’re trying to improve the quality of the animals being hunted with other weapon types…. ?
Click to expand...

What's the hard factual data saying they aren't unnecessary?

The vast majority of dudes who just hunt and don't hang at a range, didn't see LR muzzys coming. Is that better?

Fir the 51st time

THIS ISNT A ONE AND DONE FOR THE TECH COMMITTEE.

I personally can't wait for the crocodile tears when they start on rifles?
 
Bux n Dux said:
No, it was never intended to be a primitive weapon hunt type from the start. Utah didn’t even have that definition of a “primitive” hunt until last year. It was intended as an “additional opportunity”. You have turned it more into a “primitive” type hunt. But it certainly didn’t start out that way.

Did you order your new reinforced knee pants yet? Don’t want to see you miss out on that deal with the WB only a couple months away.
Click to expand...
You must have saw these "pants" when you were stocking up on red and white bobbers and snelled cheese hooks while gearing up for your fishing trip to the community pond.

I'm done with you, your mouth, your BS and your sexual innuendos, tough guy.

You are nothing in the hunting world and never will be, and thank God for that.

You claim to know me but if you ASSume we've crossed paths before, you definitely didn't leave even the slightest impression, sorry, not sorry.

You've been in trouble with the law or have already had some type of negative interactions with them according to your own claims, yet you come on here as a disguised coward and want us all to believe in your lack of reasoning, lack of intelligence and lack of comprehensive skills.
You are a pathetic scorned little child, and that is all the credit you deserve.

I'm done.......with you.
 
slamdunk said:
You must have saw these "pants" when you were stocking up on red and white bobbers and snelled cheese hooks while gearing up for your fishing trip to the community pond.

I'm done with you, your mouth, your BS and your sexual innuendos, tough guy.

You are nothing in the hunting world and never will be, and thank God for that.

You claim to know me but if you ASSume we've crossed paths before, you definitely didn't leave even the slightest impression, sorry, not sorry.

You've been in trouble with the law or have already had some type of negative interactions with them according to your own claims, yet you come on here as a disguised coward and want us all to believe in your lack of reasoning, lack of intelligence and lack of comprehensive skills.
You are a pathetic scorned little child, and that is all the credit you deserve.

I'm done.......with you.
Click to expand...
You’ve said you’re done with me like 10 time. Buy it’s like a bad case of diarrhea. You just can’t stop! ?

So I need to be someone in the hunting world to have an opinion? That perfectly sums up your committee’s attitudes. It also sums up the public input at the WB and RAC meetings. thank you for finally being honest.. Fug everyone else, unless you’re a big deal. They we will listen... maybe. Well I’ve sure killed a lot of **** for being a nobody. Probably more than most of your little committee members have combined. So what does that mean? Nothing. Because I don’t go hunting to gain attention or try to get anything out of it but personal satisfaction. Sounds like status within the “industry” is all you’re concerned about. Unfortunately you just hold the position of knob gobbler. But you have to start somewhere I suppose ??‍♂️

Ps, I’m proud of my criminal record. Bring it up and try to embarrass me with it. It won’t have the slightest impact on me whatsoever. I don’t care. ?
 
slamdunk said:
I'll TRYone last time to explain it as simple as possible.

The relatively "short range" rifle, (muzzleloader) was intended to be a primitive style of hunt that has obviously gotten out of what it's intended purpose was.

The ALW hunt is for ANYTHING "legal" that ANYONE wants to use to be successful at punching a tag.
Want to use an airgun.....go for it.
50BMG.....go for it.


The fate is not sealed, the WB makes the final decision.
Click to expand...
Slam
It’s the whole time line that’s the issue - not just its origins. When it got out of hand is truly hard to pinpoint. You could start with 1982 or earlier or the mid 90,s. If the mid 90,s then that’s still 20 years of advancements. Who is the mid 90,s were buying Hawkens ? 2016 set the precedence on scopes -and now it’s rare to not see one. Hunters voices were heard. There were reasons for scopes to be allowed.
And now (7 years later) in 2023 the WB will be making the final decision for restrictions or not.

So forward/forward/forward ……..
Hit the damn brakes in 2024 and sell it as “Returning to its origins”

What about rifle and archery origins ?
Are you going to let them keep driving in the fast lane ?
It’s pretty obvious the muzzleloader is getting pulled over and ticketed.
Hopefully I’m wrong and the WB will make a compromise and/or hunters will voice their opinions and optics will stay.
 
hossblur said:
@Lumpy, feel free to jump in.

It was created as a hunt for HOBBYISTS. That hobby being muzzleloaders, mostly built from kits, that used primarily percussion caps, but some flint.

It definitely wasn't a single shot rifle hunt, which is what it's become
Click to expand...
You calling for help Hossy ?
1-800- I need the facts dot com
Lol !
 
hossblur said:
: I started designing the 91 in the late 60s when, as a joke, I built a bolt-action muzzleloader to spoof the traditionalists at Green River Rifle Works. I used the Springfield as a guide with its pull-**** action and with a Model 70-like stock and lines. We all laughed and went our way.

The rifle sat rusting for years until Tony Knight was bold enough to come out with the Knight M85. I got it out, spent several years messing with it, deleted the bolt and kept the pull-**** for simplicity, and brought it out in 1990 as the M90. I made 60 guns by hand and sold them all. -Doc White from Chuck Hawks


Now, you can keep twisting and spinning. I never said there weren't shooters doing anything. I'm not a shooter. So I could care less. But I did say WE, got into inlines in the early to mid 90's.

I have zero idea what inline you were shooting in 82, but I guarantee that it wasn't mass produced, and wasn't on the racks at Wolfs or Sunset Sports, or anywhere.
Click to expand...
I know your not a shooter Hossy
You’ve said it many a time.

Here’s your quote Hossy from post #181
“But either way, the WE that don't spend the weekend sitting on a bench thinking we changed the world adding or subtracting a grain of powder.”

I’m a bit worried that you’re lecturing hunters about shooting and precision as it relates to hunting.
Maybe you should take hunters safety again. Even the short range game may not be for you. Adding that grain of powder could mean the difference between a tumbling or an accurate load.

You better get closer like barrel on the fur closer !
 
I don’t get why this went from discussion about technology regulations to a long schlong contest, but here we are!

I’d suggest if people don’t like the way things are going, then get involved. The world is run by those that show up.

I posted this in one of the other muzzy scope threads, but I’ll reiterate it here. I’ve been pretty torn on this topic all along. I still don’t have strong feelings either way. I think the question for policy makers should be this:

Do we (the proverbial “we,” not anything else to avoid confusion on that term on this thread) want the muzzy hunts to be different than they are? If the policy makers in Utah want that, then they should implement the necessary changes and move on. If the policy makers are okay with where things are at, let’s quit wasting time on it.

I used to hunt muzzy exclusively for deer many years ago. I only ever shot open sight muzzies and was never great at it. I killed a couple deer along the way. I might be muzzy hunting in a little over a week, and the gun I’ll be using if I do is VERY different than what I used to use 12 years ago. Very, very different.

If “we” are okay with that very real difference, then so be it. There isn’t anything morally wrong about these new guns. It’s just a policy decision that needs to be made. And I’m still not sure what the best policy is.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

gr8fuldoug
Tangent Theta
Replies
0
Views
187
gr8fuldoug
gr8fuldoug

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

20141028_173641.jpg
D16352F8-D5B1-4CDC-B991-862B98D4832C.jpeg
thumbnail.jpg
IMG_3064.jpeg
IMG_3183.JPG
FB_IMG_1676654756811.jpg
Unit 9 2005 060.jpg
25B92D35-4704-4271-A79A-FB388D143167.jpeg
CD372EA2-AC03-48A2-88E4-7FBDBFEF15CB.jpeg
521BC780-EAF0-4994-91AF-154C6DECF60E.jpeg
IMG_2327.jpeg
2016 archery bull for Hrnhunter
Bearpaw Outfitters

Experience world class hunting for mule deer, elk, cougar, bear, turkey, moose, sheep and more.

Wild West Outfitters

Hunt the big bulls, bucks, bear and cats in southern Utah. Your hunt of a lifetime awaits.

J & J Outfitters

Offering quality fair-chase hunts for trophy mule deer, elk, shiras moose and mountain lions.

Shane Scott Outfitting

Quality trophy hunting in Utah. Offering FREE Utah drawing consultation. Great local guides.

Utah Big Game Outfitters

Specializing in bighorn sheep, mule deer, elk, mountain goat, lions, bears & antelope.

Apex Outfitters

We offer experienced guides who hunt Elk, Mule Deer, Antelope, Sheep, Bison, Goats, Cougar, and Bear.

Urge 2 Hunt

We offer high quality hunts on large private ranches around the state, with landowner vouchers.

Allout Guiding & Outfitting

Offering high quality mule deer, elk, bear, cougar and bison hunts in the Book Cliffs and Henry Mtns.

Lickity Split Outfitters

General season and LE fully guided hunts for mule deer, elk, moose, antelope, lion, turkey, bear and coyotes.

Back
Top Bottom