NE RAC

This just doesn’t surprise me at all they rejected the proposal on scopes. There’s a few people that have Levi Reeds Muzzleloaders out there in the basin.

Harvest data!
Shows that south slope vernal is the top 5 on harvest success with a muzzleloader. There is a few years they lead the way.

I’m thinking Scopes must be pretty popular out there.

Enough talking about deer!

Let’s talk about elk for a minute!.Levi the one trying to justify scopes in that RAC meeting.

Built the muzzleloader that his wife shot her bull with at 420 plus yards so don’t tell me it’s not a rifle.

I know another Elk was shot by one of his guns at 545 yards the first shot was a miss second shot was a hit.
Then the bull ran to 498 where he got a 3 rd shot and dropped him. Yes 3 shots he had time to reload and follow up with another shot.
This is an elk where talking about not a deer. So don’t tell us it doesn’t have enough energy to kill a deer at that range when they are shooting elk at that range. Come on.


Slam make sure the wildlife board see’s this.

We need to be proactive on this. When this goes mandatory harvest I will bet the harvest success is higher than the DWR have down.
 
Elkrunning-Scared said:
This just doesn’t surprise me at all they rejected the proposal on scopes. There’s a few people that have Levi Reeds Muzzleloaders out there in the basin.

Harvest data!
Shows that south slope vernal is the top 5 on harvest success with a muzzleloader. There is a few years they lead the way.

I’m thinking Scopes must be pretty popular out there.

Enough talking about deer!

Let’s talk about elk for a minute!.Levi the one trying to justify scopes in that RAC meeting.

Built the muzzleloader that his wife shot her bull with at 420 plus yards so don’t tell me it’s not a rifle.

I know another Elk was shot by one of his guns at 545 yards the first shot was a miss second shot was a hit.
Then the bull ran to 498 where he got a 3 rd shot and dropped him. Yes 3 shots he had time to reload and follow up with another shot.
This is an elk where talking about not a deer. So don’t tell us it doesn’t have enough energy to kill a deer at that range when they are shooting elk at that range. Come on.


Slam make sure the wildlife board see’s this.

We need to be proactive on this. When this goes mandatory harvest I will bet the harvest success is higher than the DWR have down.
Click to expand...
How ironic is this......Levi told me in a private conversation that I (me) am the problem with muzzleloaders today because MY 1st generation Knight disc extreme is "capable" of 400 yard shots and that I am unethical!!

I have lost all respect for that guy now......he is a lying hypocrite and I've got all his messages to prove it if anyone wants to call me out.

Levi took screenshots of our "private" conversation and posted them all over is Facebook page, so I do not feel an ounce of guilt for posting this on here for all to see, including him.


HE, is what is wrong with muzzleloader technology today, period!

Screenshot_20231118_191933_Chrome.jpg

Screenshot_20231118_192101_Chrome.jpg
 
Last edited:
I had a hard time listening to that Levi guy. I know of three bucks that are dead this year from off the shelf muzzleloaders. One 390 yards CVA Accura V2 and two at 440 CVA Paramount. With the old regulations those guns would have had 1x scopes and none of those deer would have died at those ranges. I have played around plenty with my CVA Accura V2 out to 400 yards so I know full well it does not take a special gun to make that shot with the right scope on top of it. My bullet I use still has the velocity and kinetic energy to perform properly and kill. That Levi guy was trying to down play muzzleloader capabilities to meet his agenda. They are not making these guns and newer bullets for a 200 yard shot. Just YouTube it and you will see that they are not trying to show the world how capable these guns are at 100 and 200 yards. I hope the WB goes back to the old regulations and ends this mess that has been created. Everyone that has a gun that they can’t mount open sights on can still have a scope on their gun with the old regulations, no need for COR’s for vision because you can’t see open sights, no notable advantages of having a 1x scope over open sights, etc. November 28th will be interesting. Have fun.
 
twopointdn said:
That Levi guy was trying to down play muzzleloader capabilities to meet his agenda. They are not making these guns and newer bullets for a 200 yard shot.
Click to expand...
I was handed a muzzleloader and was shooting the bullseye at 300 yards immediately. I shot just outside of center at 500 yards as well. Well within the kill zone on a deer, and even an antelope. And I’m no marksman. It wasn’t hard with the proper equipment.

The paramount topped with a custom turret for the load on a magnifying scope I used this year is exponentially closer in comparison to my 7mm topped with a 4x16 scope than it is to my open sights 54 cal muzzy. It doesn’t mean I want those muzzleloaders banned or any further restrictions, but let’s at least be honest what the capabilities are with modern muzzy tech. 300 yard shots would be a total chip shot with the Paramount setup I used this year. 300 yard shots wouldn’t even be an option with the muzzleloader setup I hunted with for over a decade and still own.
 
Vanilla said:
I was handed a muzzleloader and was shooting the bullseye at 300 yards immediately. I shot just outside of center at 500 yards as well. Well within the kill zone on a deer, and even an antelope. And I’m no marksman. It wasn’t hard with the proper equipment.

The paramount topped with a custom turret for the load on a magnifying scope I used this year is exponentially closer in comparison to my 7mm topped with a 4x16 scope than it is to my open sights 54 cal muzzy. It doesn’t mean I want those muzzleloaders banned or any further restrictions, but let’s at least be honest what the capabilities are with modern muzzy tech. 300 yard shots would be a total chip shot with the Paramount setup I used this year. 300 yard shots wouldn’t even be an option with the muzzleloader setup I hunted with for over a decade and still own.
Click to expand...
"Honesty" was thrown out the window when this entire thing hit the GP's ear.

Thank you Vanilla for being honest, regardless of your stance.
I (we, the committee) have far more respect and a willingness to listen to "honesty" in opposition for scope restrictions than the glass window types trying to downplay these rifles.
I'm not stupid, I know what my old school Knight is capable of when topped with a 12x turreted scope.
 
Last edited:
ya it goes against what the majority of hunters want what’s the purpose of having RAC meeting when they’re not listening?
 
quest said:
ya it goes against what the majority of hunters want what’s the purpose of having RAC meeting when they’re not listening?
Click to expand...
Do you feel the GP should be the deciding factor with our wildlife?

And do you realize the rallying by hunters demanding to keep high power scopes on their rifles points at the very reason the change in imminent?
If scopes aren't helping with success, why are so many fighting so hard to keep them?
 
I didn’t get that out of the meetings? If they came out and said we need to do this because our deer herds our that bad we need to do everything to help our deer herds. I’d be 100% for it or whatever changes they’d want to make.
 
slamdunk said:
Do you feel the GP should be the deciding factor with our wildlife?

And do you realize the rallying by hunters demanding to keep high power scopes on their rifles points at the very reason the change in imminent?
If scopes aren't helping with success, why are so many fighting so hard to keep them?
Click to expand...
Well the data does not support your argument.

And man, I got to say. Your first sentence comes off really entitled, especially considering your position on the tech committee.
Screenshot_20231119_173045_Chrome.jpg
 
JakeH said:
Well the data does not support your argument.

And man, I got to say. Your first sentence comes off really entitled, especially considering your position on the tech committee.
View attachment 126748
Click to expand...
No Jake, it was a reaction comment based off the point he made about the RAC not listening to the GP.
If the laws were implemented by the GP's wants and desires, we would have a lot bigger problems and issues than a muzzleloader definition argument.

You'll soon learn and understand both sides as a new RAC member.
I would hope you didn't want that position solely for one side.

Exactly why I voted against totally removing scopes and proposed a less invasive and GP friendly middle ground.....I understand both sides.
 
Last edited:
The fact you want to ignore the GP speaks volumes.
How did that 2 way communication proposal go over?

The problem has always been salesmanship. And not to take anything away from you, the committee or the RAC and WB for the work you do. But it has been a failure to define what it is that you all hope to accomplish.

There were some recently posted pictures of some nice bucks from 1949 with guys holding rifles with some pretty impressive scopes.

So far the majority of hunters seem to think taking scopes away is a bad idea. It's pretty obvious. I'm not sure why the minority is all high and mighty. What will it solve?
 
Hunter21 said:
Because they don’t want a philosophical change. Maybe they enjoy hunting with a scope on their muzzleloader. Remember this has “nothing to do with success or helping the herds”!
Click to expand...
Yes, you are correct.
I've really felt a lot more confident with mine sine I upgraded from a 1x red dot to a 4x12 tactical 🤷‍♂️
 
slamdunk said:
Do you feel the GP should be the deciding factor with our wildlife?

And do you realize the rallying by hunters demanding to keep high power scopes on their rifles points at the very reason the change in imminent?
If scopes aren't helping with success, why are so many fighting so hard to keep them?
Click to expand...
I guess the lesson here is don’t speak up or rally for a cause or the committee will show us whose boss!! That’s a pretty pathetic way to go about it in my opinion.
 
middlefork said:
The fact you want to ignore the GP speaks volumes.
How did that 2 way communication proposal go over?

The problem has always been salesmanship. And not to take anything away from you, the committee or the RAC and WB for the work you do. But it has been a failure to define what it is that you all hope to accomplish.

There were some recently posted pictures of some nice bucks from 1949 with guys holding rifles with some pretty impressive scopes.

So far the majority of hunters seem to think taking scopes away is a bad idea. It's pretty obvious. I'm not sure why the minority is all high and mighty. What will it solve?
Click to expand...
No, the RAC's job isn't to "ignore" the GP, nor is it to completely side with them either.
What I am implying is for instance the constant hypothetical argument that removing scopes will result in more wound loss.
That drum has been beat to death and holds absolutely zero merit as the same weak argument is being made that shooting longer ranges causes more wound losses. It's all about the personal agendas, not biological factors.
 
Last edited:
Hunter21 said:
I guess the lesson here is don’t speak up or rally for a cause or the committee will show us whose boss!! That’s a pretty pathetic way to go about it in my opinion.
Click to expand...
You're either missing the point or not comprehending the DNR's stance.

They keep telling everyone they will accept a reduction in power if the board approves it, but they will not continue the current path this particular hunt is on.

The hypothetical result if no restrictions are made is we'll end up losing the muzzleloader season all together in the future.

Is that a better alternative and outcome in your eyes?

Personally I'd rather hunt scopeless than lose that opportunity for hundreds of people.
 
slamdunk said:
It's all about the personal agendas, not biological factors.
Click to expand...

This could be conceived as the problem.

Like I said above this has been sold to the GP very very poorly. Otherwise you would not have the pushback that has been received.
slamdunk said:
You're either missing the point or not comprehending the DNR's stance.

They keep telling everyone they will accept a reduction in power if the board approves it, but they will not continue the current path this particular hunt is on.

The hypothetical result if no restrictions are made is we'll end up losing the muzzleloader season all together in the future.

Is that a better alternative and outcome in your eyes?

Personally I'd rather hunt scopeless than lose that opportunity for hundreds of people.
Click to expand...
Is it really the DWR's stance? Why can't they continue the current path? And why would we lose the muzzle loader hunt?
If the success rates get too high they certainly have no problem reducing tags. That's apparent

Reducing harvest on the muzzle loader hunt has nothing to do with reducing harvest overall. It just transfers up stream.
 
slamdunk said:
No Jake, it was a reaction comment based off the point he made about the RAC not listening to the GP.
If the laws were implemented by the GP's wants and desires, we would have a lot bigger problems and issues than a muzzleloader definition argument.

You'll soon learn and understand both sides as a new RAC member.
I would hope you didn't want that position solely for one side.

Exactly why I voted against totally removing scopes and proposed a less invasive and GP friendly middle ground.....I understand both sides.
Click to expand...
I do see both sides, and I applaud you for sticking to your word on voting for a compromise in the committee. My problem with the proposal is there was nothing that made it necessary, from the data that they provided, to the public opinion from the surveys they did, it felt like they had just decided that this is what needed to happen and then tasked you guys with coming to that conclusion.

You can question the data all you want as you have eluded to, but this is the data coming from your side of this.

When all this got put in motion around the time you guys started your committee I was leaning towards going back to the old rules, but as I looked through the data I realized there wasn't a reason too. If I saw a biological reason for this change I would support it.
 
middlefork said:
This could be conceived as the problem.

Like I said above this has been sold to the GP very very poorly. Otherwise you would not have the pushback that has been received.

Is it really the DWR's stance? Why can't they continue the current path? And why would we lose the muzzle loader hunt?
If the success rates get too high they certainly have no problem reducing tags. That's apparent

Reducing harvest on the muzzle loader hunt has nothing to do with reducing harvest overall. It just transfers up stream.
Click to expand...
We keep failing to understand that the TC, RAC, DNR and the WB are looking into the future of where this weapon will be in a handful of years if we don't tame it now.

The current path won't stay where it is today, this is why the term "Emerging Technology" is used.
Where do you think your particular weapon will be on 10 years?
I know my 1st Gen Knight is completely outdated and out shot by today's rifles that can be purchased at Cal-Ranch for half of what I paid for my Knight 20 years ago.

We've already cut tags by 130k since the 90's, cutting more is never a good thing for anybody, including the DNR.
 
JakeH said:
I do see both sides, and I applaud you for sticking to your word on voting for a compromise in the committee. My problem with the proposal is there was nothing that made it necessary, from the data that they provided, to the public opinion from the surveys they did, it felt like they had just decided that this is what needed to happen and then tasked you guys with coming to that conclusion.

You can question the data all you want as you have eluded to, but this is the data coming from your side of this.

When all this got put in motion around the time you guys started your committee I was leaning towards going back to the old rules, but as I looked through the data I realized there wasn't a reason too. If I saw a biological reason for this change I would support it.
Click to expand...
Thank you Jake and I appreciate and respect your political position and stance as well.

As mentioned many times and at every RAC meeting, Blair Stringham has been very clear that this isn't all about data, it's more of a social issue to keep the muzzleloader hunt a more challenging and lower success rate to provide additional opportunities for a specific group of hunters.
What the variable scope implementation did was birthed an entirely new group of hunters that weren't there before because of the longer range abilities the high power scope brought to that weapon.
I personally know several of these guys myself.

It has been recommended by GP at almost every RAC meeting to keep our scopes but add on another "primitive" season so we have the best of both worlds.
Can our deer handle yet another season right now when we are at the lowest population we've ever seen in our lifetimes?
Absolutely not.

I have no doubt that mandatory reporting will tell a different story about muzzleloader success rates.
 
Last edited:
I’ve gone through quite the rollercoaster of opinions on this topic over the last year, but I’m now settled squarely against the proposed restriction.

I won’t bore you with my flip flopping and the reasons why, but ultimately it comes down to this: the DWR keeps selling restrictions in the name of giving more opportunity while maintaining a certain level of quality. Yet the only thing that happens after the restrictions come is more opportunity is taken away.

It was said at the central RAC that this year was the lowest number of deer tags issued in Utah since the 1930s. Yet we keep being told that restrictions will allow increased opportunity. I think we’re being sold a bill of goods. And the tag cut crowd can pizz off as far as I’m concerned. I’m no longer going to accept more restrictions with promises for increased opportunity when they turn around and take away opportunities at every turn.
 
Last edited:
Vanilla said:
I’ve gone through quite the rollover coast of opinions on this topic over the last year, but I’m now settled squarely against the proposed restriction.

I won’t bore you with my flip flopping and the reasons why, but ultimately it comes down to this: the DWR keeps selling restrictions in the name of giving more opportunity while maintaining a certain level of quality. Yet the only thing that happens after the restrictions come is more opportunity is taken away.

It was said at the central RAC that this year was the lowest number of deer tags issued in Utah since the 1930s. Yet we keep being told that restrictions will allow increased opportunity. I think we’re being sold a bill of goods. And the tag cut crowd can pizz off as far as I’m concerned. I’m no longer going to accept more restrictions with promises for increased opportunity when they turn around and take away opportunities at every turn.
Click to expand...
I respect your decision
 
Two weeks ago I was 80/20 in favor, then I had this epiphany of how bad Utah hunters continued to get screwed by vet small minority interests.

I’m tired of it. I’m not going to stand for it anymore.

That’s nothing against you Slam, or even the tech committee. You all did exactly what you were created to do. I just am more cognizant of the driving forces on these things well outside of your control, and if we don’t start standing up to them, those minority interests will eventually get exactly what they want. And that’s for you and I to not be hunting, but they’ll still get to and make a ton of money in the process.
 
slamdunk said:
You're either missing the point or not comprehending the DNR's stance.

They keep telling everyone they will accept a reduction in power if the board approves it, but they will not continue the current path this particular hunt is on.

The hypothetical result if no restrictions are made is we'll end up losing the muzzleloader season all together in the future.

Is that a better alternative and outcome in your eyes?

Personally I'd rather hunt scopeless than lose that opportunity for hundreds of people.
Click to expand...
I believe I do comprehend you saying “do you realize the rallying by hunters demanding to keep high power scopes on their rifles points at the very reason the change is imminent “ and that is what I commented on as pathetic reason.

I probably am missing the point on this whole scope ordeal. First you try and sell it as success rates are too high, that basically got debunked. Then you go to well all the older age class deer are getting shot off the limited entry units. Next you say it has nothing to do with success or helping herds it’s simply a philosophical change. Now it’s the DNR will not continue on the current path or we will lose the muzzleloader hunt all together. I’m sure there’s other you’ve tried to conjure up so excuse me for missing the point 🤔
 
They could split the muzzleloader hunt like they have done with some of the rifle deer units. They do a early and late general rifle deer hunt on some units with the same total tag quotas per unit with allocated percentages for each hunt. It was an effort to reduce crowding on the units during the hunt. They could do a similar model for the muzzleloader hunts but instead of a focus on reducing over crowding they would be focusing on social issues of pleasing both groups. It would look like this. The current general muzzleloader deer tag allocation are 20%. The season dates stay the same time of year, starting at the end of September. 10% of the tags go to the open sight muzzleloader season and that season would start on Wednesday and end on Sunday. 10% of the tags go to the scoped muzzleloader hunt and their season starts on Monday and ends on Thursday. The DWR could make it equal day for day and add the Friday on to the scoped muzzleloader hunt since there are no hunts on that Friday. Best of both worlds for both groups and the DWR losses nothing and likely lowers success rate slight over the 20% of tag holders. Muzzleloader hunters enter the drew as they please and hunt the way they like. Trying to get a November hunt back will never fly for the open sight muzzleloader hunters with 10% of the general deer tag allocations. Keeping it at the end of September is the only chance this idea works. If not this, I am hoping the WB goes back to the pre 2015 regulations so people that have guns that can’t put open sights on them can still have a scope and use their muzzleloaders. Law enforcement was able to check for compliance before with the old regulations and they can do it again. The “it’s to hard to enforce and verify” argument is a weak argument at best. I am definitely not in support of leaving it as is with regard to the long range muzzleloader model we are trending towards. Just my thoughts.
 
Last edited:
Maybe I don’t want to see that report could be worse than what they’re saying about our deer herds…No I’m good ….it's a good idea 👍🏼
 
JakeH said:
Well the data does not support your argument.

And man, I got to say. Your first sentence comes off really entitled, especially considering your position on the tech committee.
View attachment 126748
Click to expand...
Hold the phone jake..

Don’t get to carried away. Your right harvest data doesn’t support the argument or does it?

Why don’t you tell all of us on here! if you could have shot your 180” buck this year without a scope?

I pulled my muzzleloader out yesterday evening right at the end of shooting light. Me and my son went over to a farm field with burnt yellow grass. we couldn’t have shot.

There is absolutely no way we could see threw the sights period! That buck would have walked.
hell there is know way you could of shot at it with a bow either.
Is this the wound loss we are talking about?

You couldn’t have harvested your buck without a scope. Looks like the tech committee nailed that one.
 
Last edited:
slamdunk said:
How ironic is this......Levi told me in a private conversation that I (me) am the problem with muzzleloaders today because MY 1st generation Knight disc extreme is "capable" of 400 yard shots and that I am unethical!!

I have lost all respect for that guy now......he is a lying hypocrite and I've got all his messages to prove it if anyone wants to call me out.

Levi took screenshots of our "private" conversation and posted them all over is Facebook page, so I do not feel an ounce of guilt for posting this on here for all to see, including him.


HE, is what is wrong with muzzleloader technology today, period!

View attachment 126595
View attachment 126596
Click to expand...
Holly crap slam.
I have been told by numerous people that has his muzzleloader when you pick up your gun he will tell you what your gun is capable and most of them are told 400 yards no problem.
But is he the problem? I don’t think so he builds great guns. But he shouldn’t of showed up at the RAC meeting especially knowing what his muzzleloader are capable of.
I think allowing scopes is the problem you can still have a great gun without a scope.
 
For you posters that keep referring to a muzzleloader as a rifle - here’s the definition.

A rifle is defined, in part, as a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of the explosive in a fixed cartridge to fire only a single projectile through a rifled bore for each single pull of the trigger.

And slam and commitee has been tasked by the WB to find the “whys” for eliminating scopes on muzzleloaders.

There really isn’t any middle ground when a muzzleloader is being “sold” by a sales team (tech committee) as a rifle.

A muzzleloader will never be a rifle -never.

The lube to ease the pain is to allow the use of your muzzleloader (with scope) on the any legal weapon hunt.
Well that just makes me feel all warm and fuzzy.
Who wants to use a scoped muzzy an an any legal hunt -when they can use a rifle by definition? Of course -tech committee member says (muzzleloader) it’s a rifle now.

Also the propaganda/sale of removing scopes today to prevent future emerging technology?
That’s like removing a 7mm bullet because 7mm might be too lethal someday……..

Jerry
Jerry
Jerry
 
@Ballistic
Screenshot_20231120_104502_Chrome.jpg


It's all relative....

Both are rifles due to "rifling" inside the shouldered device.

One is centerfire loaded from breech, one is loaded from muzzle.

Are they ballistically equal?
Depends on what we are comparing them to.
7mm, no.....45/70....extremely close in customs.

Will they evolve ballisticly equal?
Only if we allow them to.
 
Last edited:
Elkrunning-Scared said:
Hold the phone jake..

Don’t get to carried away. Your right harvest data doesn’t support the argument or does it?

Why don’t you tell all of us on here! if you could have shot your 180” buck this year without a scope?

I pulled my muzzleloader out yesterday evening right at the end of shooting light. Me and my son went over to a farm field with burnt yellow grass. we couldn’t have shot.

There is absolutely no way we could see threw the sights period! That buck would have walked.
hell there is know way you could of shot at it with a bow either.
Is this the wound loss we are talking about?

You couldn’t have harvested your buck without a scope. Looks like the tech committee nailed that one.
Click to expand...
Your implying that if I hadn't of killed my buck that night that I wouldn't have killed a deer at all.

My case is probably not the norm, as a dedicated hunter I still had the whole rifle season to fill my tag, so my harvest most likely still would have happened most likely, if not on that deer then another one. I only had 2 days of the muzzleloader hunt this year, but if a muzzleloader tag was all I had you can bet I would have the whole season off.

Also you are forgetting one other part of my story, I full on missed that buck the night before with plenty of light, and felt absolutely confident in the shot. Still not sure what happened, but just because you have a scope on your gun doesn't make it a guaranteed kill. I got extremely lucky and found the buck in a different spot the next night on my way out of the area, but if that hadn't happened I would have been an unsuccessful statistic for the muzzy hunt.

So like I said the data does not support the proposal, there are a million different scenarios that could play out for each individual hunter to increase or decrease the harvest % from year to year, you pointing out one instance where the scope helped does not change the statistics of the entire hunt. So no harvest data still does not support the argument.

Can a scope help? Hell yeah it can help, is it the main reason for a person's success? I don't think so. My argument is the tool is only as good as the person using it. Some people are killers, and some people are hunters, lots of people to varying degrees along that scale. You give a strait up "hunter" the best top of the line weapon system built, their success % will likely change very little. You give a strait up killer an open sighted inline good shooting gun, they will make sure they are ready for their hunt with that weapon, and their success % likely will not change.

The weapon does not make the hunter successful, the person does.
 
JakeH said:
Your implying that if I hadn't of killed my buck that night that I wouldn't have killed a deer at all.

My case is probably not the norm, as a dedicated hunter I still had the whole rifle season to fill my tag, so my harvest most likely still would have happened most likely, if not on that deer then another one. I only had 2 days of the muzzleloader hunt this year, but if a muzzleloader tag was all I had you can bet I would have the whole season off.

Also you are forgetting one other part of my story, I full on missed that buck the night before with plenty of light, and felt absolutely confident in the shot. Still not sure what happened, but just because you have a scope on your gun doesn't make it a guaranteed kill. I got extremely lucky and found the buck in a different spot the next night on my way out of the area, but if that hadn't happened I would have been an unsuccessful statistic for the muzzy hunt.

So like I said the data does not support the proposal, there are a million different scenarios that could play out for each individual hunter to increase or decrease the harvest % from year to year, you pointing out one instance where the scope helped does not change the statistics of the entire hunt. So no harvest data still does not support the argument.

Can a scope help? Hell yeah it can help, is it the main reason for a person's success? I don't think so. My argument is the tool is only as good as the person using it. Some people are killers, and some people are hunters, lots of people to varying degrees along that scale. You give a strait up "hunter" the best top of the line weapon system built, their success % will likely change very little. You give a strait up killer an open sighted inline good shooting gun, they will make sure they are ready for their hunt with that weapon, and their success % likely will not change.

The weapon does not make the hunter successful, the person does.
Click to expand...
Statistically speaking.
What are the odds of the equipment failing on a muzzleloader vs a centerfire rifle ?

Not to argue but in support of your miss on your deer…..

My 30 plus years of shooting muzzleloaders have taught me a lot. And I mean a lot of failures. Humidity/ignition sources/powders/temps of equipment/ loading forces. I have shot in almost every environment I can think of and take super detailed notes. Even with that knowledge - with the best equipment money can buy -crap happens. Misfires /hang fires/ slow muzzle velocities and fast. If it’s easy to load it will be slower - hard to load -faster.
Even with great notes and knowledge it still misses its target.
There’s a reason I’ve called BS on all the posters that “know” someone that kills animals at 500 yards easily. And a board member on the tech committee that claims a member made an 1100 yard chip shot.

For myself
I’m a killer, a shooter and a hunter. I simply can’t make the shots that are claimed by these posters. I’m also a former PRS competitor and took my share of awards. I’ll continue to call BS on the muzzleloader scope propaganda.

Give me a centerfire rifle and the odds of making those shots increases 1000 times.

Good post on your part.
 
JakeH said:
Your implying that if I hadn't of killed my buck that night that I wouldn't have killed a deer at all.
Click to expand...
No I’m not saying that at all.
JakeH said:
Also you are forgetting one other part of my story, I full on missed that buck the night before with plenty of light, and felt absolutely confident in the shot. Still not sure what happened, but just because you have a scope on your gun doesn't make it a guaranteed kill. I got extremely lucky and found the buck in a different spot the next night on my way out of the area, but if that hadn't happened I would have been an unsuccessful statistic for the muzzy hunt.
Click to expand...
I missed this year with a rifle as well at 160 yards
So does a lot of other hunters. so what is your point?That doesn’t justify it.

Scope help you harvest a big mature buck. You couldn’t have harvested that particular animal that is my point.

As far as data goes will see where the numbers are at when it’s mandatory.
 
Ballistic said:
Statistically speaking.
What are the odds of the equipment failing on a muzzleloader vs a centerfire rifle ?

Not to argue but in support of your miss on your deer…..

My 30 plus years of shooting muzzleloaders have taught me a lot. And I mean a lot of failures. Humidity/ignition sources/powders/temps of equipment/ loading forces. I have shot in almost every environment I can think of and take super detailed notes. Even with that knowledge - with the best equipment money can buy -crap happens. Misfires /hang fires/ slow muzzle velocities and fast. If it’s easy to load it will be slower - hard to load -faster.
Even with great notes and knowledge it still misses its target.
There’s a reason I’ve called BS on all the posters that “know” someone that kills animals at 500 yards easily. And a board member on the tech committee that claims a member made an 1100 yard chip shot.

For myself
I’m a killer, a shooter and a hunter. I simply can’t make the shots that are claimed by these posters. I’m also a former PRS competitor and took my share of awards. I’ll continue to call BS on the muzzleloader scope propaganda.

Give me a centerfire rifle and the odds of making those shots increases 1000 times.

Good post on your part.
Click to expand...
You must not be watching the RACS.
Kevin Norman/SFW/Tech Committee member stands in front of the microphone describing multiple kills over 500 and one at 1100 with his custom MZ rifle.
These are not second hand stories, these are straight from the source himself.
Don't believe me, message him yourself.

Ask yourself this.
Would these shots be possible pre 2016?
Let's stop lying to ourselves here.
 
Jake.
Just because you’re in dedicated Hunter doesn’t mean you were going to harvest one.

I know for a fact in the same conditions you couldn’t have shot that buck with your bow or any other buck.
It’s a great buck, Jake I’m not taking that away from you. I hope I can get one like that one of these days.

I’m just trying to prove a point here..
Low light long range it all plays hand-in-hand here.We all know what makes a long range rifle. Scopes have a really big part in it.

ballistic has been hunting with muzzleloaders for 30 years, he knows how fast this has evolved. but he chooses to put the blind fold Over his eyes and not see it.

We have to start somewheres before this really gets out of hand.
 
I have a couple questions for the muzzy hunters:

1. Why do you want a scope on your muzzle loader?

2. What in your opinion is the agenda, or true reason, of the DWR to take the scopes off?

I’m not being a smart ass here. I genuinely would love to hear honest answers to these questions. I see a lot of mud throwing in this discussion, but not a lot of answers to these particular questions.
 
Ballistic said:
Statistically speaking.
What are the odds of the equipment failing on a muzzleloader vs a centerfire rifle ?

Not to argue but in support of your miss on your deer…..

My 30 plus years of shooting muzzleloaders have taught me a lot. And I mean a lot of failures. Humidity/ignition sources/powders/temps of equipment/ loading forces. I have shot in almost every environment I can think of and take super detailed notes. Even with that knowledge - with the best equipment money can buy -crap happens. Misfires /hang fires/ slow muzzle velocities and fast. If it’s easy to load it will be slower - hard to load -faster.
Even with great notes and knowledge it still misses its target.
There’s a reason I’ve called BS on all the posters that “know” someone that kills animals at 500 yards easily. And a board member on the tech committee that claims a member made an 1100 yard chip shot.

For myself
I’m a killer, a shooter and a hunter. I simply can’t make the shots that are claimed by these posters. I’m also a former PRS competitor and took my share of awards. I’ll continue to call BS on the muzzleloader scope propaganda.

Give me a centerfire rifle and the odds of making those shots increases 1000 times.

Good post on your part.
Click to expand...

How about I give you my son's CVA optima with no scope, and my Accura with one. Shooting exact same loads
 
Elkrunning-Scared said:
This just doesn’t surprise me at all they rejected the proposal on scopes. There’s a few people that have Levi Reeds Muzzleloaders out there in the basin.

Harvest data!
Shows that south slope vernal is the top 5 on harvest success with a muzzleloader. There is a few years they lead the way.

I’m thinking Scopes must be pretty popular out there.

Enough talking about deer!

Let’s talk about elk for a minute!.Levi the one trying to justify scopes in that RAC meeting.

Built the muzzleloader that his wife shot her bull with at 420 plus yards so don’t tell me it’s not a rifle.

I know another Elk was shot by one of his guns at 545 yards the first shot was a miss second shot was a hit.
Then the bull ran to 498 where he got a 3 rd shot and dropped him. Yes 3 shots he had time to reload and follow up with another shot.
This is an elk where talking about not a deer. So don’t tell us it doesn’t have enough energy to kill a deer at that range when they are shooting elk at that range. Come on.


Slam make sure the wildlife board see’s this.

We need to be proactive on this. When this goes mandatory harvest I will bet the harvest success is higher than the DWR have down.
Click to expand...
I think actual success rates are way higher than the DWR estimates. It will be great to have accurate data for once.
 
lif said:
I have a couple questions for the muzzy hunters:

1. Why do you want a scope on your muzzle loader?

2. What in your opinion is the agenda, or true reason, of the DWR to take the scopes off?

I’m not being a smart ass here. I genuinely would love to hear honest answers to these questions. I see a lot of mud throwing in this discussion, but not a lot of answers to these particular questions.
Click to expand...


1. I didn't care, it came as part of the kit, including a case and cleaning stuff. As most do, optics companies increasing market share by combining with muzzies.


2. Drawing a line in the sand tto stop continued tech explosion that is easily enforced by simply looking.
 
I put scopes on my muzzleloaders when it became legal because it increases my effective range and makes it much easier to aim in low light conditions. However, I support the proposal to restrict technology on muzzleloaders for the same reason I support restrictions on trail cams. The general MZ hunt is supposed to be a primitive weapon hunt and I presume that is the reason for the proposed restrictions. Proposals to add another “primitive muzzleloader” hunt are redundant. It should not have ever been allowed in imo. You know it is a big advantage because of all the whining now. There is just way too much new technology coming at these animals. Is it really fair chase when we have technology to make reliable shots at distances that are well beyond the animal’s ability to sense the hunter while he or she is taking to a camera?
 
lif said:
1. Why do you want a scope on your muzzle loader?
Click to expand...
I never switched from 1x. Which was dumb on my part, a lot of animals got away be cause it was to far and it made the animal look like an ant in my scope.
lif said:
2. What in your opinion is the agenda, or true reason, of the DWR to take the scopes off?
Click to expand...
I feel it's because it has exploded since 2015. We already have one weapon(rifle) That I really don't think we will never be able to touch with technology. It always has been a long range weapon.

But I feel we can slow the flow with Muzzleloader because this is all relatively new. We don't need another long range weapon.
 
lif said:
I have a couple questions for the muzzy hunters:

1. Why do you want a scope on your muzzle loader?

2. What in your opinion is the agenda, or true reason, of the DWR to take the scopes off?

I’m not being a smart ass here. I genuinely would love to hear honest answers to these questions. I see a lot of mud throwing in this discussion, but not a lot of answers to these particular questions.
Click to expand...
1. It's obviously a better experience with the scope, it extends your range, better shooting ability in low light, as ERS pointed out above. All around it makes for a better hunt.

2. I think they was pushed into it by outside sources, look at what has come out about the "new" research proposals, they are being pushed into a lot of these positions by outside sources.

Muzzleloader already only gets 20% of tags, while rifle season gets 60% it is already an extremely limited hunting method just on those numbers alone. Even if the muzzleloader hunt had the same success % as the rifle it is still limited to only 20% of tags.

To me this does nothing to help the herds, not even a little bit, is all this does is divide hunters and pit them against each other.

I fully reject the notion that the muzzleloader hunt is similar to the rifle hunt, even if they can hunt at extended range, there is a lot more work that goes into getting one to shoot well at those ranges. Plus all the extra steps to load/reload. They say they want to keep it as a "unique" experience. And it 100% already is. And anyone that wants to restrict themselves further with a muzzleloader is fully capable of doing so now, nobody is stopping them from hunting how they want to hunt.

To me the divisiveness alone on this issue is enough to seriously consider whether it's a good idea, throw in the fact there is no biological reason for it only cements it.
 
If the true General Public (non hunters) knew all of the killing technology that we hunters can take to the field their heads would freakin spin. Remember that it was the Utah Legislature that put restrictions on trail cams. They did it because hunters (wildlife board) would not.

If we don't police ourselves and our techy toys get out of hand the Legislature will step in. The nonhunting public thinks that hunting should be 'fair' and the animals should have some advantage. We keep down this path and there will be restrictions, but it won't have your RAC input or the wildlife board making the call. We reasonably regulate ourselves or they will.
 
Airborne said:
We reasonably regulate ourselves or they will.
Click to expand...

For better or for worse, right or wrong, I think Airborn is likely correct. I’m not sure if the legislature cares about muzzy scopes, but in general, they’ve heard the cries about how biased and in some cases, how the wildlife board at least appeared to be corrupt. The legislature knows these narratives, because I’ve talked to people in the legislature that have stated these very things. There is a real concern there with a growing number of lawmakers.

And a growing willingness to step in, as we’ve seen.
 
I started hunting with a scope to maximize the potential of my Remington Ultimate Muzzleloader. I have since taken 3 bucks that would have otherwise lived it weren’t for my scope. I lived in Colorado for years and hunted with open sites there and it is a totally different game. I wouldn’t dare shoot over 150 yards with open sites but can now shoot comfortably to 400. The DWR understands that the muzzy hunt was never intended to be another long range hunt so they are restricting the tech that had allowed the extended ranges we are now seeing. I personally have my doubts about the increased success rates and suspect that they are actually much higher than what’s been show. I know my success rate has increased because of scopes
 
JakeH said:
Muzzleloader already only gets 20% of tags, while rifle season gets 60% it is already an extremely limited hunting method just on those numbers alone. Even if the muzzleloader hunt had the same success % as the rifle it is still limited to only 20% of tags.
Click to expand...
Who gets the other 20%. I'm confused I thought youth gets 20% Muzzleloaders Get 20% and Rifle gets 60% where does archery fall? Sorry I have never researched that.
 
JakeH said:
1. It's obviously a better experience with the scope, it extends your range, better shooting ability in low light, as ERS pointed out above. All around it makes for a better hunt.

2. I think they was pushed into it by outside sources, look at what has come out about the "new" research proposals, they are being pushed into a lot of these positions by outside sources.

Muzzleloader already only gets 20% of tags, while rifle season gets 60% it is already an extremely limited hunting method just on those numbers alone. Even if the muzzleloader hunt had the same success % as the rifle it is still limited to only 20% of tags.

To me this does nothing to help the herds, not even a little bit, is all this does is divide hunters and pit them against each other.

I fully reject the notion that the muzzleloader hunt is similar to the rifle hunt, even if they can hunt at extended range, there is a lot more work that goes into getting one to shoot well at those ranges. Plus all the extra steps to load/reload. They say they want to keep it as a "unique" experience. And it 100% already is. And anyone that wants to restrict themselves further with a muzzleloader is fully capable of doing so now, nobody is stopping them from hunting how they want to hunt.

To me the divisiveness alone on this issue is enough to seriously consider whether it's a good idea, throw in the fact there is no biological reason for it only cements it.
Click to expand...

$fw has been dog walking the DWR for 30 years and NOW you're worried about outside sources?
 
gundog2 said:
I put scopes on my muzzleloaders when it became legal because it increases my effective range and makes it much easier to aim in low light conditions. However, I support the proposal to restrict technology on muzzleloaders for the same reason I support restrictions on trail cams. The general MZ hunt is supposed to be a primitive weapon hunt and I presume that is the reason for the proposed restrictions. Proposals to add another “primitive muzzleloader” hunt are redundant. It should not have ever been allowed in imo. You know it is a big advantage because of all the whining now. There is just way too much new technology coming at these animals. Is it really fair chase when we have technology to make reliable shots at distances that are well beyond the animal’s ability to sense the hunter while he or she is taking to a camera?
Click to expand...

Who said so?

And what does primitive even mean? show me that definition in a Proclamation. It sure as heII isn't an open sighted inline shooting sabots with BH209 powder.
 
Elkslayer2015 said:
Who gets the other 20%. I'm confused I thought youth gets 20% Muzzleloaders Get 20% and Rifle gets 60% where does archery fall? Sorry I have never researched that.
Click to expand...
Rifle gets 60
Muzzleloader gets 20
Archery gets 20.

Youth get a chunk of those allotted tags from each group, or maybe just rifle I'm not 100% on that.
 
twopointdn said:
They could split the muzzleloader hunt like they have done with some of the rifle deer units. They do a early and late general rifle deer hunt on some units with the same total tag quotas per unit with allocated percentages for each hunt. It was an effort to reduce crowding on the units during the hunt. They could do a similar model for the muzzleloader hunts but instead of a focus on reducing over crowding they would be focusing on social issues of pleasing both groups. It would look like this. The current general muzzleloader deer tag allocation are 20%. The season dates stay the same time of year, starting at the end of September. 10% of the tags go to the open sight muzzleloader season and that season would start on Wednesday and end on Sunday. 10% of the tags go to the scoped muzzleloader hunt and their season starts on Monday and ends on Thursday. The DWR could make it equal day for day and add the Friday on to the scoped muzzleloader hunt since there are no hunts on that Friday. Best of both worlds for both groups and the DWR losses nothing and likely lowers success rate slight over the 20% of tag holders. Muzzleloader hunters enter the drew as they please and hunt the way they like. Trying to get a November hunt back will never fly for the open sight muzzleloader hunters with 10% of the general deer tag allocations. Keeping it at the end of September is the only chance this idea works. If not this, I am hoping the WB goes back to the pre 2015 regulations so people that have guns that can’t put open sights on them can still have a scope and use their muzzleloaders. Law enforcement was able to check for compliance before with the old regulations and they can do it again. The “it’s to hard to enforce and verify” argument is a weak argument at best. I am definitely not in support of leaving it as is with regard to the long range muzzleloader model we are trending towards. Just my thoughts.
Click to expand...
A perfect solution!!! Fair and equitable to all.
 
slamdunk said:
You must not be watching the RACS.
Kevin Norman/SFW/Tech Committee member stands in front of the microphone describing multiple kills over 500 and one at 1100 with his custom MZ rifle.
These are not second hand stories, these are straight from the source himself.
Don't believe me, message him yourself.

Ask yourself this.
Would these shots be possible pre 2016?
Let's stop lying to ourselves here.
Click to expand...
Is this the same Kevin Norman that has competed and won several sponsored long range shooting matches ?
 
Elkrunning-Scared said:
Jake.
Just because you’re in dedicated Hunter doesn’t mean you were going to harvest one.

I know for a fact in the same conditions you couldn’t have shot that buck with your bow or any other buck.
It’s a great buck, Jake I’m not taking that away from you. I hope I can get one like that one of these days.

I’m just trying to prove a point here..
Low light long range it all plays hand-in-hand here.We all know what makes a long range rifle. Scopes have a really big part in it.

ballistic has been hunting with muzzleloaders for 30 years, he knows how fast this has evolved. but he chooses to put the blind fold Over his eyes and not see it.

We have to start somewheres before this really gets out of hand.
Click to expand...
I can tell you, if I didn't harvest one, it would not have been because I couldn't have.

I will agree with you, no scope on my muzzleloader I probably wouldn't have killed him that night, but 9 days with a rifle in hand I like my odds of finding him again, or at least another buck that would have met my requirements, he wasn't the only buck running around in there.


I still just take issue with this because all the focus has been about scopes on a muzzleloader, when it's not the main buck killer in the state.

Until there is a legitimate effort to reign in rifles I don't see how the muzzleloader hunt should even be touched. This is 100% a social issue that will do nothing to benefit hunting in this state.
 
Burg said:
I started hunting with a scope to maximize the potential of my Remington Ultimate Muzzleloader. I have since taken 3 bucks that would have otherwise lived it weren’t for my scope. I lived in Colorado for years and hunted with open sites there and it is a totally different game. I wouldn’t dare shoot over 150 yards with open sites but can now shoot comfortably to 400. The DWR understands that the muzzy hunt was never intended to be another long range hunt so they are restricting the tech that had allowed the extended ranges we are now seeing. I personally have my doubts about the increased success rates and suspect that they are actually much higher than what’s been show. I know my success rate has increased because of scopes
Click to expand...
Thanks for your honesty.
 
JakeH said:
Until there is a legitimate effort to reign in rifles I don't see how the muzzleloader hunt should even be touched. This is 100% a social issue that will do nothing to benefit hunting in this state.
Click to expand...
Okay. Rifle hunting has always been the killer here .
will agree! do you think we can honestly do something about it?
I say no because it is the money maker here in this state or any other state.

Rifles have been around along time. That said the real improvement on rifles have been scopes.
Which in turn has pushed them to the limits on range. I know not everyone shoots long range. but it is becoming more popular every year.

Muzzleloader have just started this long range bull crap. It will get worse mark my words.
This is the opportunity to slow it down before it gets too far out of control and makes it harder to regulate in the future.

What’s the difference on waiting to see what happens. When we know what will happen in the foreseen future. Like you said rifle hunters do more damage.

I’m sorry Jake I stand behind removing them. There was only 367 public comments too the board
It looks like to me it’s almost a 50/50 split. It will be interesting to see what happens. Especially when there is over 13,000 muzzy hunters in this state.
 
Last edited:
Elkrunning-Scared said:
Okay. Rifle hunting has always been the killer here .
will agree! do you think we can honestly do something about it?
I say no because it is the Main money maker here in this state to be honest in every state.
Rifles have been around along time. That said the real improvement on rifles have been scopes. Which in turn has pushed them to the limits on range. I know not everyone shoots long range but it is becoming more popular every year.

Muzzleloader have just started this long range bull crap. It will get worse mark my words.
This is the opportunity to slow it down before it gets too far out of control and makes it harder to regulate in the future.
What’s the difference on waiting to see what happens. When we know what will happen in the foreseen future. Like you said rifle hunters do more damage.

I’m sorry Jake I stand behind removing them. There was only 367 public comments too the board
It looks like to me it’s almost a 50/50 split. It will be interesting to see what happens. Especially when there is over 13,000 muzzy hunters in this state.
Click to expand...
Jake, the goal isn't to reign in rifles and save deer, we've had this argument beyond dozens of times.
The goal is to keep the muzzleloader what it was intended to be, period.
We're lucky we get to keep inlines.

If this was about equalization of weapons, you be allowed to use smokeless powders, not removing scopes.
 
Last edited:
slamdunk said:
Jake, the goal isn't to reign in rifles and save deer, we've had this argument beyond dozens of times.
The goal is to keep the muzzleloader what it was intended to be, period.
We're lucky we get to keep inlines.

If this was about equalization of weapons, you be allowed to use smokeless powders, not removing scopes.
Click to expand...
No they said in the presentation and at the meetings it's about keeping the muzzleloader hunt it's own unique hunt. To me how far you are shooting is not what makes it a unique hunt. It's all that goes into getting one to do what you want it to do that makes it unique, a lot more effort goes into getting a muzzleloader shooting good, even if you are only shooting 100 yards.

For me personally muzzleloader has always kicked my ass, something always seems to go wrong for me, I don't even consider myself a muzzleloader hunter, but I will use one when I need to. But of the 3, it's 3rd on the list.
 
JakeH said:
No they said in the presentation and at the meetings it's about keeping the muzzleloader hunt it's own unique hunt. To me how far you are shooting is not what makes it a unique hunt. It's all that goes into getting one to do what you want it to do that makes it unique, a lot more effort goes into getting a muzzleloader shooting good, even if you are only shooting 100 yards.

For me personally muzzleloader has always kicked my ass, something always seems to go wrong for me, I don't even consider myself a muzzleloader hunter, but I will use one when I need to. But of the 3, it's 3rd on the list.
Click to expand...
They definitely are unique and can be stubborn, I'll give you that.

Having said that, today's are far more reliable than 10 years ago.....where will they be in 10 more?
 
Burg said:
I started hunting with a scope to maximize the potential of my Remington Ultimate Muzzleloader. I have since taken 3 bucks that would have otherwise lived it weren’t for my scope. I lived in Colorado for years and hunted with open sites there and it is a totally different game. I wouldn’t dare shoot over 150 yards with open sites but can now shoot comfortably to 400. The DWR understands that the muzzy hunt was never intended to be another long range hunt so they are restricting the tech that had allowed the extended ranges we are now seeing. I personally have my doubts about the increased success rates and suspect that they are actually much higher than what’s been show. I know my success rate has increased because of scopes
Click to expand...
The people who don’t want scopes removed know damn well it’s an advantage, that’s why they want them left on.
Also, I don’t want to hear the success rate argument since most every unit has held steady or increased in success, despite the deer population dropping like a rock.
 
Shadow said:
The people who don’t want scopes removed know damn well it’s an advantage, that’s why they want them left on.
Also, I don’t want to hear the success rate argument since most every unit has held steady or increased in success, despite the deer population dropping like a rock.
Click to expand...
Another one that understands 👌
 
Elkrunning-Scared said:
I’m sorry Jake I stand behind removing them. There was only 367 public comments too the board
It looks like to me it’s almost a 50/50 split. It will be interesting to see what happens. Especially when there is over 13,000 muzzy hunters in this state.
Click to expand...
Here Are the numbers for the public comments to the board on this issue. You are a little off in your 50/50 split. I just received these today from the DWR.

  • Strongly agree: 51 (22%)
  • Somewhat agree: 22 (9.5%)
  • Neither agree nor disagree: 8 (3.4%)
  • Somewhat disagree: 13 (5.6%)
  • Strongly disagree: 138 (59%)
  • Total votes: 232
Looks to me like 65% disagree with the proposal, so 2/3rds want to keep scopes.

My hope is the board at least comes up with a compromise, my preference if that happens would be a max 4x scope. Hell even put a 20mm cap on it as well.

But at the very least they should go back to the old rules and allow red dots to be allowed.

I can't tell you how many times I have herd from people that the powers at be do not listen to the public at all, they have already made up their minds and all this is just for show. If they don't at the very least come up with a compromise this will only entrench more people into that mind set.
 
slamdunk said:
Jake, the goal isn't to reign in rifles and save deer, we've had this argument beyond dozens of times.
The goal is to keep the muzzleloader what it was intended to be, period.
We're lucky we get to keep inlines.

If this was about equalization of weapons, you be allowed to use smokeless powders, not removing scopes.
Click to expand...
Slam, I'm not even talking about to save deer, it's about reigning in technology, that's what you guys are all about isn't it? I know, I know, "rifles has always been a long range weapon" well B.S. if it's a problem then it's a problem, let's address it.

Here's the kicker, anything you do to the rifles, will automatically kick down and apply to the muzzleloader as well. Just like the rules you guys put in place last year did with the electronics on scopes, and flir camera's and what not. All that stuff applied to all weapon types, right now you guys are just picking on muzzleloaders because it's the easy target. It really has a bad look to it in my eyes.

You guys want to reign in technology, do it across the board.
 
I appreciate the few of you muzzy hunters that answered my first two questions honestly.

Follow up to my first two questions:

If the DWR never allowed scopes on muzzle loaders 7 years ago, would those of you that want to keep scopes be fighting right now to get the DWR to allow scopes on muzzle loaders?

Again, not being a smart ass, just looking for honest answers to the real pertinent questions around this topic.
 
JakeH said:
Slam, I'm not even talking about to save deer, it's about reigning in technology, that's what you guys are all about isn't it? I know, I know, "rifles has always been a long range weapon" well B.S. if it's a problem then it's a problem, let's address it.

Here's the kicker, anything you do to the rifles, will automatically kick down and apply to the muzzleloader as well. Just like the rules you guys put in place last year did with the electronics on scopes, and flir camera's and what not. All that stuff applied to all weapon types, right now you guys are just picking on muzzleloaders because it's the easy target. It really has a bad look to it in my eyes.

You guys want to reign in technology, do it across the board.
Click to expand...
You are missing the entire point Jake.
I can't figure out if you're not "really" understanding or just in complete denial that muzzleloader technology has completely changed the dynamics of that hunt.

It's been asked a dozen times but I will ask you again.
Do you feel your scoped inline makes you a more effective "killer" than open sights or even 1x?
I can say without a five second thought that my scoped inline makes me a better killer, absolutely without question.
Your reply better be "yes" for obvious reasons.

Your argument today that you would have killed a deer regardless because of the type of tag and time you had?
That wasn't the point at all, it was a smoke screen.

The perfect example I believe @hossblur mentioned was that they moved the muzzleloader hunt out of November.
Why?
Effectiveness of the modern day inlines, and that was decades ago.

Can we even fathom success rates right now in 2023 on a November rut hunt?
You would be lucky to even be able to draw a tag every 5+ years even on a poor unit like Wasatch West.
 
twopointdn said:
They could split the muzzleloader hunt like they have done with some of the rifle deer units. They do a early and late general rifle deer hunt on some units with the same total tag quotas per unit with allocated percentages for each hunt. It was an effort to reduce crowding on the units during the hunt. They could do a similar model for the muzzleloader hunts but instead of a focus on reducing over crowding they would be focusing on social issues of pleasing both groups. It would look like this. The current general muzzleloader deer tag allocation are 20%. The season dates stay the same time of year, starting at the end of September. 10% of the tags go to the open sight muzzleloader season and that season would start on Wednesday and end on Sunday. 10% of the tags go to the scoped muzzleloader hunt and their season starts on Monday and ends on Thursday. The DWR could make it equal day for day and add the Friday on to the scoped muzzleloader hunt since there are no hunts on that Friday. Best of both worlds for both groups and the DWR losses nothing and likely lowers success rate slight over the 20% of tag holders. Muzzleloader hunters enter the drew as they please and hunt the way they like. Trying to get a November hunt back will never fly for the open sight muzzleloader hunters with 10% of the general deer tag allocations. Keeping it at the end of September is the only chance this idea works. If not this, I am hoping the WB goes back to the pre 2015 regulations so people that have guns that can’t put open sights on them can still have a scope and use their muzzleloaders. Law enforcement was able to check for compliance before with the old regulations and they can do it again. The “it’s to hard to enforce and verify” argument is a weak argument at best. I am definitely not in support of leaving it as is with regard to the long range muzzleloader model we are trending towards. Just my thoughts.
Click to expand...
What about the general season muzzle elk hunt?
 
slamdunk said:
Not that I am aware of
Click to expand...
Slam
Kevin Norman is in fact a former sponsored long range competitor and shooter. I have shot against him and he is hard to beat and usually a top 3 if not number 1. Ask him. I’m not sure if had competed in several years as I stopped.

He has competed and beat most anyone that has shot against him.
Kevin could probably make an 1100 yard shot with a muzzy but he is one of a kind.
More like 1 in a million…..
He’s a shooter that beat the gunsite instructors in a match that went close to 1 mile.
I didn’t watch his presentation.
I seriously have to ask what his motivation is and was to present that to the RAC and I will contact him through friends to find out.

Kevin isn’t your average Joe when it comes to shooting. Did he present or fail to mention his competition long range shooting background?
Just seems a little dishonest if this was presented and his background was left out.

I’m not a fan of SFW and their history so maybe the 2 are meant for each other.

But not disclosing your status (even to the tech commitee) as one of the top shooters in the west - to promote scope removal…..

Hi
I’m Kevin Norman.
Just an old country boy. Muzzleloaders can kill deer at 1100 yards. It’s easy.

It’s all in the presentation right ?
 
JakeH said:
Here Are the numbers for the public comments to the board on this issue. You are a little off in your 50/50 split. I just received these today from the DWR.

  • Strongly agree: 51 (22%)
  • Somewhat agree: 22 (9.5%)
  • Neither agree nor disagree: 8 (3.4%)
  • Somewhat disagree: 13 (5.6%)
  • Strongly disagree: 138 (59%)
  • Total votes: 232
Looks to me like 65% disagree with the proposal, so 2/3rds want to keep scopes.

My hope is the board at least comes up with a compromise, my preference if that happens would be a max 4x scope. Hell even put a 20mm cap on it as well.

But at the very least they should go back to the old rules and allow red dots to be allowed.

I can't tell you how many times I have herd from people that the powers at be do not listen to the public at all, they have already made up their minds and all this is just for show. If they don't at the very least come up with a compromise this will only entrench more people into that mind set.
Click to expand...
What does the other 13,000 muzzy hunters want?
They don’t listen because where divided.

I would definitely stand by a 4 x scope. With no drop compensating.
 
JakeH said:
Here Are the numbers for the public comments to the board on this issue. You are a little off in your 50/50 split. I just received these today from the DWR.

  • Strongly agree: 51 (22%)
  • Somewhat agree: 22 (9.5%)
  • Neither agree nor disagree: 8 (3.4%)
  • Somewhat disagree: 13 (5.6%)
  • Strongly disagree: 138 (59%)
  • Total votes: 232
Looks to me like 65% disagree with the proposal, so 2/3rds want to keep scopes.

My hope is the board at least comes up with a compromise, my preference if that happens would be a max 4x scope. Hell even put a 20mm cap on it as well.

But at the very least they should go back to the old rules and allow red dots to be allowed.

I can't tell you how many times I have herd from people that the powers at be do not listen to the public at all, they have already made up their minds and all this is just for show. If they don't at the very least come up with a compromise this will only entrench more people into that mind set.
Click to expand...
To be fair I can still shoot 400 yards with the four power
 
Ballistic said:
Slam
Kevin Norman is in fact a former sponsored long range competitor and shooter. I have shot against him and he is hard to beat and usually a top 3 if not number 1. Ask him. I’m not sure if had competed in several years as I stopped.

He has competed and beat most anyone that has shot against him.
Kevin could probably make an 1100 yard shot with a muzzy but he is one of a kind.
More like 1 in a million…..
He’s a shooter that beat the gunsite instructors in a match that went close to 1 mile.
I didn’t watch his presentation.
I seriously have to ask what his motivation is and was to present that to the RAC and I will contact him through friends to find out.

Kevin isn’t your average Joe when it comes to shooting. Did he present or fail to mention his competition long range shooting background?
Just seems a little dishonest if this was presented and his background was left out.

I’m not a fan of SFW and their history so maybe the 2 are meant for each other.

But not disclosing your status (even to the tech commitee) as one of the top shooters in the west - to promote scope removal…..

Hi
I’m Kevin Norman.
Just an old country boy. Muzzleloaders can kill deer at 1100 yards. It’s easy.

It’s all in the presentation right ?
Click to expand...
This is great information, thank you.
If he did mention his advanced shooting abilities to the committee at some point, I definitely missed it.
Does it change my mind about the proposal or even my proposal of 4x maximum?
No, because I am open minded enough and educated in my own shooting abilities to know that anyone can learn to shoot LR if they apply themselves.
Our technology today makes it easier than even 5 years ago.

A simple hand held affordable Sig rangefinder can tell anyone with a click of a button how many MOA to twist a turret if your dope is uploaded.

Do we really "want" this relatively simple technology in a weapon that originally wasn't reliable after 200 yards?
That same technology can be applied to a muzzleloader BECAUSE of the scope.

It literally blows my mind that people are arguing that scopes haven't improved their own personal abilities and success.

My MarkV 300 Weatherby that was developed during WW2 in 1944 hasn't changed.
It could shoot LR clear back then, but my 100 yard open sight Hawkin muzzleloader evolved into an inline topped with a scope easily capable of 400 yards.

But we are only "picking on muzzleloaders" for some strange reason"?
SMH.......
 
2142 have viewed the RAC videos' along with the ones who attended and those that submitted comments.
Let us give it 3000 total out of some ones 13000 total hunters equals 23%
What do the other really want? Again nobody knows. Are they good with what ever comes down the pipe?
After the change roughly 3000 more people applied for muzzleloader tags. Is it that 3000 raising havoc on the hunt?
 
The issue with the "doesn't do anything" crowd is that we all use them, so we all know better.

It was the same as with cams. And bait.

It's just a silly, stupid argument to try to convince shooters that optics don't matter.
 
middlefork said:
2142 have viewed the RAC videos' along with the ones who attended and those that submitted comments.
Let us give it 3000 total out of some ones 13000 total hunters equals 23%
What do the other really want? Again nobody knows. Are they good with what ever comes down the pipe?
After the change roughly 3000 more people applied for muzzleloader tags. Is it that 3000 raising havoc on the hunt?
Click to expand...
That was my point. Thank you

It’s definitely raising havoc on the LE draw.
 
middlefork said:
2142 have viewed the RAC videos' along with the ones who attended and those that submitted comments.
Let us give it 3000 total out of some ones 13000 total hunters equals 23%
What do the other really want? Again nobody knows. Are they good with what ever comes down the pipe?
After the change roughly 3000 more people applied for muzzleloader tags. Is it that 3000 raising havoc on the hunt?
Click to expand...
Excellent information!

You just validated the many comments that a lot of rifle hunters switched over to the MZ.
Why did they?
Better weather.
Fresh bucks that haven't been shot at with a firearm.
And........their ability to shoot farther than they could have with open or 1x sight.
 
JakeH said:
Slam, I'm not even talking about to save deer, it's about reigning in technology, that's what you guys are all about isn't it? I know, I know, "rifles has always been a long range weapon" well B.S. if it's a problem then it's a problem, let's address it.

Here's the kicker, anything you do to the rifles, will automatically kick down and apply to the muzzleloader as well. Just like the rules you guys put in place last year did with the electronics on scopes, and flir camera's and what not. All that stuff applied to all weapon types, right now you guys are just picking on muzzleloaders because it's the easy target. It really has a bad look to it in my eyes.

You guys want to reign in technology, do it across the board.
Click to expand...
Ok, so you obviously support banning rangefinders! Thank you for seconding my proposal.
 
hossblur said:
The issue with the "doesn't do anything" crowd is that we all use them, so we all know better.

It was the same as with cams. And bait.

It's just a silly, stupid argument to try to convince shooters that optics don't matter.
Click to expand...
Right. Exactly the same as trail cams and bait.
How did that turn out for them just saying
 
hossblur said:
How about I give you my son's CVA optima with no scope, and my Accura with one. Shooting exact same loads
Click to expand...
Tell ya what Hossy
I’ll take the CVA with no scope and modify it with my choice of open sights. I need it for about a month.
You can keep the scoped accura and practice to get ready.
You and I will meet up for a fun shoot and see what happens.

Damnit Hossy !
I can’t see through the peeps anymore. Ya think I’ll get a scope exception ?
 
JakeH said:
Slam, I'm not even talking about to save deer, it's about reigning in technology, that's what you guys are all about isn't it? I know, I know, "rifles has always been a long range weapon" well B.S. if it's a problem then it's a problem, let's address it.

Here's the kicker, anything you do to the rifles, will automatically kick down and apply to the muzzleloader as well. Just like the rules you guys put in place last year did with the electronics on scopes, and flir camera's and what not. All that stuff applied to all weapon types, right now you guys are just picking on muzzleloaders because it's the easy target. It really has a bad look to it in my eyes.

You guys want to reign in technology, do it across the board.
Click to expand...


Not gonna be that easy and you know it.

And yes, you start with low hanging fruit. FLIR was the easiest. Then bait. Cams were harder. Now this. Rifles will absolutely have to be addressed. But that will be harder. More hunters. Lots more lobby $$. More companies.

We can do this. It's not kindergarten. We don't have to have fair and equal.
 
Ballistic said:
Tell ya what Hossy
I’ll take the CVA with no scope and modify it with my choice of open sights. I need it for about a month.
You can keep the scoped accura and practice to get ready.
You and I will meet up for a fun shoot and see what happens.

Damnit Hossy !
I can’t see through the peeps anymore. Ya think I’ll get a scope exception ?
Click to expand...



Na. Let's do what 99% of dudes will do. Buy a gun off the shelf and use it. We don't make public policy based off exceptions.

I'm 6'5. We don't build cars, planes, or amusement rides for 6'5 dudes. We make them for the avg.
 

Similar threads

H
Significant restrictions are being proposed in 2024 Novembers RAC's
5 6 7
Replies
625
Views
7k
quest
quest
C
Feeling salty
Replies
78
Views
2k
Packout
P
Servehim
Best value for 12x binocular
Replies
18
Views
1k
Servehim
Servehim

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

91E6D0A8-B3AB-4072-AC4C-97D030B7A7AE.jpeg
Buck 4.mov
IMG_4681.jpg
Fantastic Archery Buck
IMG_20241023_205303.jpg
IMG_0858.jpg
3E047CC2-F7C6-4FAC-916F-568ED4AE6968.jpeg
D9669332-0D50-4711-B2DD-3DB6F51F7F02.jpeg
12zz.jpg
Beautiful Archery Buck for BOWUNTR
Elk 3.jpg
20240309_160830.jpg
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