Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Muzzleloaders Toby Bridges latest blog

The muzzleloader rules certainly matter for the traveling hunter such as myself, especially since the rules don't have any science-based or safety-related justification. Right now I have a rifle I know is legal for Colorado and loads for it, and other rifles for other jurisdictions.

Older hunters like me also generally can do better with optical sights as well. I am amused to hear younger hunters say it doesn't matter to them, because I know that time marches on.

jim

Some serious thinking does go into setting regulations for ML hunting, how well it works is debatable.

If optical sights were required to be allowed in South Dakota there was, and probably still is, a real chance that the muzzle loader season would be canceled. Hard to say what kind of a chance as the powers that be understandably won't speculate. I wasn't there but those who were tell me that lower success rate and fewer ML hunters were important in getting the ML season in the first place. Statewide, the general season success rate runs roughly 55 percent with a 16 day season and 79,700 tags issued. For muzzle loader it's about 35 percent over a 51 day season with not quite 6,000 tags.

We don't have an unlimited number of deer in this state: the biologists estimate deer population by county and determine desirable harvest limits. That's the basis for determining seasons and tag numbers. Obviously success rates and hunters participating in a particular season figure into it.

As an aside, 24,600 archery tags issued with a success rate of roughly 30 percent over a 4 month season.

I would have to say that as my eyes get older, I would probably vote for allowing a 1X scope if it was on a ballot. However, I am for keeping ML seasons fairly primative for the reasons nighthawk relates.

If pellets, sabots and 3X12 scopes were allowed in Colorado, I firmly believe two things would happen:

1) A lot more people would apply

2) The success rates would be higher, thereby causing them to reduce the number of tags issued.

These two things would lower my dismal odds even more.

Like they say, be careful what you wish for, you may get it.

Well, I would have to respectfully disagree with this, on a couple different levels. Restricting things like scopes, sabots, and smokeless powder most certainly and you could say scientifically limits the range at which most hunters are effective with their rifles. No two ways about that. And if you limit the effective range of weapons that can be used, that makes it harder for the average hunter to kill an animal, no two ways about that either.

As far as Colorado goes, I've spoken with Colorado DOW staff who were involved in drafting the regulations. The ML season in Colorado falls during the elk rut and also before the general firearms season. So the bulls are bugling and can be called in (or at a minimum easily located)and the cows are relatively undisturbed, and all of this is a huge advantage to the hunter.

So Colorado decided that the ML regulations would serve to put the ML hunter at a disadvantage compared to a hunter using a modern centerfire rifle, because hunting during the rut and before the general firearms season was such an advantage. The best way to do that was limit the effective range of the weapons allowed. Things like scopes, sabots, and smokeless powder allow the average hunter to shoot more accurately at longer ranges so they were banned; things like in-line ignitions and BP substitutes don't so they weren't banned. I don't see how you can get any more scientific than that.

And I don't buy the "ethical" argument, that is, a more accurate rifle is a more ethical hunting tool (I know you didn't make this argument but if the thread goes any distance it's bound to pop up). Because ethics don't reside in the weapon, they reside in the hunter and any ethical hunter both practices enough to know his effective range and limits himself to shots within that range.

Lastly, on your comment about age, I'm getting older myself and personally I don't agree with that argument. I have some pretty bad arthritis in one ankle and I know that one of these years (soon) it's going to prevent me from getting very far from the truck in the roadless areas I like to hunt. But that's just something I'll have to live with. I'm not going to try to make the case that old guys with arthritis should be able to ride four wheelers. Likewise when I can't pull a 70-lb. bow, I won't ask to use a crossbow. And when I can't see the fiber optic sights any more, I won't be asking to use a scope. Maybe I'll just hang out in camp, do the cooking, and rib the young guys. That wouldn't be half bad.

Some interesting opinions folks .
There most certainly is a lot of opinions around all the rules .
To many times those opinions � In my opinion LOL � are based on politics .
This country is a republic not a democracy and as such each state is an individual in and of itself , in that it has its own laws . Those laws differ from simply highway laws , to gun laws to civil laws to hunting laws .
If you travel from state to state it s your responsibility to know those different laws and follow them .
When it comes to muzzleloading season and rules . The big issue that I see is that to often folks state things that simply are not true . Basicly they show a lack of knowledge of the state law . Which agin if they are going to hunt in the state , be it muzzleloader or other . You better know the law .
Lets take the scope issue here .
How many of you knew that until just recently here in Idaho it was illegal to use a scope that was lighted in any way or for that mater any type of sight that was lighted other then by natural means . thats not just for muzzleloading but for ALL hunting

Now some I have read have stated that scopes are now aloud here in Idaho for muzzleloading . This is not completely true . Just as when these very same folks stated that they were not aloud . that�s was also not true .
What has changes is a printing of the law , we have had for a very long time. its the VERY SAME law that was in effect during the 2006-2008 issues with scopes and muzzleloading ..

IE a person can go in and under a handicap application get a waver to use a scope . However this requires a doctors statement saying you are to a degree of visually impaired .
=========================
Equipped with only open or peep sights. Scopes and any
electronics are prohibited. Except hunters with a visual
disability may apply for a permit to use nonmagnifying
scopes. (Applications are available at Fish and Game
=============================

These same rules also apply for archery. We don�t alow cross bows in archery . But if you are handicapt in some way , you can get a waver .
This even goes for general season hunters . We have rules against shooting from public roads and motor vehicles. But if you need to do that , you can get a waver so you can .

Now some folks are on to the sabot issue . Ahhhhh they say , Idaho doesn�t alow sabots .
Well again not completely true . On one hand for the muzzleloading hunts , the answer is true .
BUT if you hunt in the general weapons season or short range weapons areas , its not true . See we don�t have a general state wide muzzleloading season. What is called general muzzleloading season is really just some given areas . Not all of the state
But when the general any weapons season comes around . For the most part with some acceptations its state wide . In that hunt or short range weapons hunts , you can use what you like . Scopes WITH magnification , sabots 209, closed ignitions , even smokeless powder . In fact last weekend there are areas that opened to the above , just last weekend for elk and deer . Yet the general archery season has not even opened yet .
See with sabots , here in this state when it comes to muzzleloading hunts .we run into a couple issues
One issue is the muzzleloading rules . One in specifically is our caliber restrictions . Basicly no smaller then 45 for deer and no smaller then 50 for elk .
Yet with a sabot a person hunting elk with a legal rifle would be using a sub 50 cal projectile for elk ?????? Now how does that work . Why cant I then use my 45 cal for elk ???
I approached the commission about this many years back , well before the modern rifles came about .
I ask , why is it that we designate the 45 only for deer . Yet for center fire we have no such designations . It makes no since . I can build a load for a 45 that will give better velocities and more more energy at 100 yards then a 30.30 . Yet that 30.30 is legal for deer and elk , but my 45 is not ????
The management answer was that their field studies concerning wound loss rates were higher when the 45 was considered . i was also told that most people were not me and thus even if i could produce such a load , the state had to plan for a vast amount of people who would not .
This was brought up again as part of the 2007 issues �BUY THE MANAGEMENT DEPT�

So now we have a law that states a projectile can be no more then .010 under bore size .
The out cry was again AHHHH!!! Those traditionalists . Well guess what folks . My most accurate load for my 62 caliber is now illegal here .
My 62 cal shoots best with a Patched round ball of .600 . It misses that rule by .010 as the ball is .020 under bore size . does this mean i dont suport the rule ,,, NOPE i do becouse it effectivly forces people to comply with the writing of the caliber law .

I brought up the very same issue again at the 2007 meeting . If we are allowing sabots , smokeless and every other whistle and bang improvement in our short range areas , then why do we not alow center fires like the 30.30 in those areas ?? The answer was range . The state does not want what they consider to be longer range capabilities used in areas that have high levels of human populations . Now that�s understandable but again it�s a contradiction
So what is one to do ? You either support restrictions to the seasons OR you open the season up . But when you open that season up what you end up with is General any weapon hunts . Not an issue here with Me as those type of hunts still give the largest % of hunting opportunity for me and my flintlock .
But if I support muzzleloading hunting opportunity , then do I not then need to support and follow such rules as this .010 rule . You bet I do because if I don�t . then one day there will be no reason to have the seasons at all .


So see even as a traditionalist , I would also agree that sometimes rules make no since . Heck even those of us that work closely with the fish and game and the commissioners many . MANY, times after those commissioners come out from behind closed doors, we are left standing there wondering just where the rule came from or what they were thinking as the end result is many times nothing like what was propsed .

Case in point the side lock rule that we had here two years ago that block most modern ignitions .. What a complete debacle and mess . People though that this rule was based on traditionalists push . Well I can tell you it wasn�t . I was there for all the meetings . I heard the recommendations from the management department and I know what was requested by the traditional groups .
Yes , we recommended a side lock only rule . But that rule was to be applied to areas the state had set aside for Traditional muzzleloading ONLY ,, not for any and all muzzleloading areas ..
But this was in open conflict with brad Compton the game management supervisor who then solicited our support based on the supposed information they had compiled showing an increase in take . Based on that , many of the groups backed his proposal . However within 3 months of requesting said information and not getting it . People began to go back to the original request . IE side lock only in traditional ONLY .designated hunts .
Yet when the commission finished, what we got wasn�t what was being ask for . Now if you want PROOF of that , you can go back staring in 2006 and read the commission minutes . Its all there and it�s a part of public record.

But people didn�t bother to really look at the issues and immediately drew lines and pointed blame. Instead of following the proper channels , many went strait to the governor, who then put pressure on the commission to change the rule despite what they were getting from their own polling data .
So now we have less opportunity in that a couple years back you could actually hunt more .
If I wanted to hunt with a modern rifle , I could . If there was an area that I wanted to hunt and it was designated Traditional only . I simply used that type of system and I could hunt that unit the next day or week if I wanted to .
Then when the general any weapon season came around if I had not filled a tag , I could go out with my center fire, muzzleloading rifle , traditional muzzleloader , bow , sling shot , sspear , rock or what have you and hunt some more . Then if I didn�t fill my tag in that season I had an option to hunt any of the later season hunts .
But not now . Now a lot of these muzzleloader hunts are permit or draw only . If you apply and get one of those tags , it cuts you out of hunting in any other area or any other season for that species .

The end result is still all the same even after this long post . Each state is different . You want to hunt that state , then you follow their rules or don�t hunt that state .
We all may be US citizens . But we are all not citizens of anymore then ones state .
So IMO one should not tell another states citizens what they should or shouldn�t do untell such time as you become a citizen of that state .
Tell then such a person nothing but an out of state lobbyist and should be hung from the nearest pine untell such time as the wolves . Which thier like also forced upon us , have picked every last piece of them and the rope rots away .

Sorry this is so long but I had to say it

"We all may be US citizens . But we are all not citizens of anymore then ones state .
So IMO one should not tell another states citizens what they should or shouldn�t do untell such time as you become a citizen of that state ."

Lots of good info in your post, but can't fully agree with you on this one. For instance, in Colorado nonresidents provide 70% of license revenue. To say that we should have no input in shaping the rules would not be fair IMO. I believe when you pay to play with that kind of money, you should have some input. So I tell them what I think every chance I get. In fact, I have been on an online opinion committee when they were trying to develop rules/seasons for the future. We don't have much clout, but I hope our ideas has some impact.

ahhh yes the license revenue thing .IE I pay 800 to 1000 for a hunt in state X so therefore I should have a say in state X �s management and regulation

have you looked at idahos out of state fee's lately .
Now I ask you , what brings an out of state hunter into another state to hunt . Now obviously if they are willing to pay that high cost , there must be a reason right .
What would that be based on ?? Hunting with other family members living in that state , sometimes is the case . As would be high harvest numbers .
But for the most part those big bucks go to states with not only high harvest numbers but also high chance of taking trophy game . Would you pay Idaho or Colorado�s out of state fee�s if say they only aloud you to take a forked horn mule or a doe ???
Probably not
But as you say , a vary large% of the income from license comes from out of state sales . However the numbers of license sold , does not lean that way .
Now its also easy to say ; well since the greatest amount of money generated from tags an license is from out of state hunter , then those from out of state should have a say .
But we forget that for the largest % of folks , the reason they pay the cost is because of the way the state has managed things . Its because of the way the local people , land owners , ranchers and hunters have maintained their wildlife so as to provide that opportunity .
Who is it that in the off season , maintains the herds . Ie donates and supplies feed for the winter feeding stations when the state runs out of money from out of state tag sales .
Who is it that pays for crop damage to ranchers . Who is it that pays a tax on all outdoor items hunting fishing and camping through the year so as to help maintain the herds .
Now some of that money comes from the fed level . That much is true . But remember fedrial money also comes from the very people who are also living in state X and who also pay at a state level in tax .
Stating a base of allowing out of state consideration because of this is really hypocritical.
Do we alow out of state people to vote in state elections?? Why not . The feds fund the highways , indigent care and a whole lot of funding that states use . So why should one not then under the same ruse of federal funding , not be able to also vote and force changes to other states governments .
Personally I think folks in NY were crazy for voting Hillary into office. Should I be able to sue or force NY to get rid of her because I go there once every few years . Spend a week or so and spend money ?
I don�t think that would ever fly would it .

Now lest say that I want to hunt state X . I pay ??? Oh lets say 1500 for an elk tag .
Then lets say while in that state I pay ??? Oh another 2000 in gas , food , lodging .
Maybe I harvest , maybe I don�t . can state X count on me to buy that license every year ???? Nope.
So who is it that is responsible and is task with maintaining things tell such time as I decide to come back . Basically the people of that state .

We live in a country made up smaller countries that we call states . States are individuals . They have their own laws , their own governments and their own constitutions . They are initiates in and of themselves . People should be proud that they can travel and enjoy all that each state provided. I live where I do because I like it here . People come here because the like the way the people here have made it and kept it . If they didn�t , they wouldn�t come. They know where the boarders are and are free at any time to keep right on going .
Really this whole issue is like the ne resident standing up in a public hearing and exclaiming ; this is how we did it in state X and the laws here are backwards and I think they should be changed to be like state X ..

Some one will enviably stand ask why it is that they now live here instead of state X
IMO out of state hunters have way to much influence now . . Tag costs are way to high for them . But they have to be high in order for the state to justify managing the herds for trophy animals over managing the herds for the well being of the herd .
In the main time the residents are left sucking pond water .
So when it comes to push and shove . What the residents want should always out weight what out of state�s want .
Statse fish and game departments work and answer to the citizens of that state not citizens from other states . .
If people don�t like that , they are more then welcome not to come IMO . Because we residents are the ones who will live with those decisions 12 months a year and year after year over just a week to few weeks now and then


LMAO another long post lol ok so i need to do something about that before i get told to stop writing books LOL
be safe

I'd agree with TX that out of staters should have some input, just as state residents should have some input. Personally, I'd say state residents should have more input than out of staters, but that's beside the point because as long as we're talking about how things "should be," most of the decisions should be made by professional game managers and should be based on what's in the best interests of the resource, as far as maintaining healthy populations, and "should be" as free as possible from politics and commercial influences.

agrreed smoke pole .
all i know is that i can remeber as a boy , our rivers full of salmon and stealhead . then canyon was once one of the best areas to hunt . one had just as good a chance to take a big buck or bull as you did a doe of forkie .
i remeber a time when during the rutt , we bugled bulls by blowing un shell casings or stims of grass .

not so today . i truely believ that the future holds even less . if changing that means we have to cut back . if it means that out of state money takes second seat . if it means some bloke doesnt get that comission on the sale of scopes or such . if it means that hunting has to get harder . then so be it .

myself i sure remeber times when this seemed alot better and the state spent less money .
to me , hunting has change . not only how i think of it but it seems how other hunters and people see it .
thing s anymore just seem to be more based on success and touphies, distances how big a gun someone shoots or how fast it shoots instead of the base quality of the hunt . dont know ?? sad really but i remeber things sooo much more diffrent then what they are today .
just about every managment sections says hunter numbers are dropping . but anymore it sure seems there is more and more folks out there , no mater what season one hunts in ?????
just remeberences i guess

" Would you pay Idaho or Colorado�s out of state fee�s if say they only aloud you to take a forked horn mule or a doe ???"

Well last year I hunted for a cow with a muzzleloader and this year will have the same tag, and loving every minute of it. And when I do have a bull tag, trophies are not very likely in Colorado. I certainly have never killed one.

I guess what I am trying to say is that we have some good ideas too and should not be excluded from the process:

For instance I have long lobbied anyone who would listen that they should increase the age that "youth" tags could be bought in Colorado. Maybe they listened to me, maybe some residents lobbied for the same thing. But they did raise the youth tags age and allowed more people to take their sons and daughters on a great Colorado hunt without breaking the bank.

And I fight for keeping the muzlleloader season primative. Sure I use an inline, but they are no more inherrantely accurate than my sidelock. I bet you can shoot rings around me and my inline with your sidelocks.

So I think we have ALL have some good ideas and willingness to preserve the resource that we all love. Just a blanket statement that we should be excluded and only people that live in the state should have input is just wrong in my book.

Bottom line is that I wouldn't worry too much about nonresidents changing much because we don't have the votes. Just give us some consideration in the process. Besides, TB is now a resident of Montana, and people will continue to say he shouldn't have any say in that state! I say, whoever you are make your case and see who listens.

Been gone a few days, up in the Bob Marshall doing a little back country trout fishing, and doing some photography. Good to see this discussion going where it needs to go...and that is the differences in opinion when it comes to hunting muzzleloaders...hunting loads...and sights that should or should not be allowed.

Here are some things to keep in mind...

1. There are now between 3 1/2- to 4-million muzzleloading hunters in the U.S. today.

2. 90-plus-percent of ALL muzzleloaders sold today are of the in-line persuasion.

3. Polls have repeatedly shown that, where scopes are legal, 80-plus percent of muzzleloading hunters have one on their rifle.

4. Today, the largest age class of hunters are those who are 40 to 65 years of age (roughly 45 to 47 percent nationwide).

5. By age 50, approximately 70-percent of all Americans will suffer some age-related sight loss - mostly the inability of the eye to change focus rapidly enough to allow things at three different focal planes to appear "somewhat" in focus simultaneously. Or, when it comes to muzzleloader hunting, to allow a rear sight, front sight and a deer at 50 or 75 yards to appear in focus well enough for a precise placement of the shot to insure a clean, quick harvest.

Whether you agree, or not, with the use of riflescopes on muzzleloaders during the muzzleloader seasons, it is ILLEGAL for game departments to prohibit those who need a scope in order to participate in the muzzleloader seasons from using an optical sight. It's that simple.

The sky is not falling, and legalizing scopes will not cause game departments to eliminate the muzzleloader seasons. In all, 38 states now allow scopes on muzzleloaders during the muzzlelaoder seasons (in the 49 states that hold such hunts/seasons)...and not one of those states' game departments have recorded and/or documented that the use of scopes caused hunters to commonly take longer range shots. The typical shot with a muzzleloader, scoped or not, is still under 100 yards.

Rest assured, thanks to the more modern rifles and the added knockdown power of today's loads...with a scope...there are a lot more one-shot kills, and considerably fewer lost animals. Also, not one of the wildlife agencies in the 11 states which still enforce "no scopes" muzzleloader hunting regulations has ever conducted a wound loss survey to determine how much game is being lost, being wasted, due to the use of open sights and loads that cannot retain 800 foot pound of energy past 75 yards.

Toby Bridges

So what? Polls have shown that the most popular television show is American Idol. I don't see what polls or popularity contests prove.



You can't have it both ways. You want to say on the one hand that none of the 11 wildlife agencies have ever conducted a wound loss survey, but on the other hand, "Rest assured, thanks to the more modern rifles....there are a lot more one-shot kills." Rest assured?? Where's your wound loss survey to prove your point, the same one you think the state game agencies need to conduct?



So, when hunters get too old to pull a bow back, should they be allowed to use crossbows? When they get too old to walk long distances on their own two feet, should they be allowed to ride motorbikes in the backcountry?

I don't think so.

And the whole argument about scoped rifles being more ethical ("more one-shot kills") is off kilter--it's up to the hunter to know his effective range and keep his shots within it. If that argument is valid and therefore all hunters should use the most effective weapon to hunt with, then bow hunting should be outlawed, especially traditional bows. Those things are really hard to shoot accurately.

One last point--anyone who wants to hunt with a muzzleloader equipped with scope, sabots, and smokeless powder in Colorado is free to do so. In the general firearms season. They just can't use those modern accoutrements during the early seasons when the animals are more vulnerable. I don't see what's unreasonable about that.

Thanks to these forums, ive seen more photos of gut shot deer with a scoped muzzleloader than i've ever seen.

Colorado doesnt have a muzzleloading season for bighorn sheep. So that is not right in my eyes. They give one to archery and the scoped centerfire shooters. Why not muzzleloaders? Shouldnt that be illegal not offering us the chance to use our muzzleloaders.

The law is the law...and neither game departments nor closed minded hunters are above the law.

The legal technicality is what worked to get scopes recently legalized during the muzzleloader seasons in Georgia, Nebraska, Kansas and now Wisconsin. And they will soon be legal during a muzzleloader season near you.

Take it easy with the old folks remarks...we've got you young whippersnappers out numbered.

And for the record...I think there ought to be a muzzleloader bighorn hunt in Colorado as well. And if you want one bad enough...first you need to ask yourself..."What have I (meaning you) done to make it happen?"

If nothing, then you have no gripe.

Toby Bridges
NORTH AMERICAN
MUZZLELOADER HUNTING

So, when hunters get too old to pull a bow back, should they be allowed to use crossbows?




You Bet!

As for motorbikes in the backcountry...not as long as they are allowed to still ride horses (the first ATVs). What makes you so arrogant that you think hunting is just for younger folks?

Shame on you. Does your daddy know how you feel about him?

Toby Bridges
NORTH AMERICAN
MUZZLELOADER HUNTING

Ain't nothing arrogant about it. Whatever happened to aging gracefully, and doing things within your limitations?

Shame on me? No, shame on you for your thoughtless remarks. My daddy was a decorated WWII vet who passed away in 1976, and how I feel about him is really none of your business. Plus, who's a whippersnapper? I'm on the high side of 50, and as I said before, I have severe arthritis in one ankle, and a bum knee on the other side, and when I'm too old to walk into where I want to hunt, which won't be too many more years (and too old to pull a bow) I won't be asking for special privileges to make it easier on me.

You go ahead and play the age card. The younger generation ain't the only "me first" age group.

Muh daddy is 61 years young and i at the age of 14 introduced him to the sport of muzzleloading. My oldest brother also followed along in our footsteps. This year i'll be taking my brother in law on his first muzzleloader hunt up in northern new mexico.

Whippersnapper would be me as im 25 years young. I always see these old guys on tv telling people how they should introduce the young to the hunting world. Well guess what, sometimes its the young who introduce you older guys to something new.

My dads eyes arent the greatest but every time he sees a hunting show with a scoped inline, he turns up his nose.

Muzzleloading season has been the best thing we've ever done. My brother and dad used to centerfire hunt in the late 80's through the late 90's before i bought my first muzzleloader. After that, its been muzzleloading and filling our tags ever since.

When it comes to muzzleloading...you apparently feel the sport belongs only to the younger crowd.

You must be a quitter...and you're ready to quit.

I'm 60...and spend every possible weekend in the summer and early fall hiking the back country. Just for a day of trout fishing, I'll put in a good 10 miles to hike back into a remote mountain lake...fish for 3-4 hours...and walk back out. And, I'll do the same when hunting season rolls around. My first hunt this year will be a September elk hunt in the Bob Marshall Wilderness Area...which starts with a 9-mile walk to camp...most of it uphill from 5,000 to 7,500 feet to cross the pass.

Physically, I do just about everything I did back when I was 30. But my eyes have gotten older, and glasses don't remedy the problem of focusing on multiple planes quickly. In order to hunt any hunt, I need the use of a scope...and so do most of the hunters in my age class...probably including you. Only real difference between you and I seems to be that I'm willing to admit to that disability.

Maybe you are ready to throw in the towel...but I am not...and neither are the majority of older muzzleloading hunters. If you want to quit...please do. Me, I will fight ridiculous muzzleloader regulations until every muzzleloading hunter in the U.S. can hunt with what it takes to be able to enjoy the muzzleloader seasons. And if it takes filing lawsuits against the b.s. muzzleloader hunting regulations still enforced by a few backward state wildlife agencies (like the CO Division of Wildlife)...so be it. I enjoy the battle...and the victories are so sweet.

Toby Bridges
NORTH AMERICAN
MUZZLELOADER HUNTING

While you're at it, fight for every state to legalize electronic ignition muzzleloaders.

Who's quitting?

I have horrible eye sight without my glasses. So bad in fact that i can not see a 3" black dot at 25 yards. Very very near sighted.

Rather than spending your time calling people online quitters and such, you should be out there fighting for scopes in all states.