Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Muzzleloaders It's official: Idaho announced ML season restored to Traditional ML's only

Inlines may only be used during the regular firearms seasons.
I suspect if anybody is looking for a good price on a used inline, they'll probably be showing up by the truck load in the Idaho newspaper for sale ads.

They also clarified the wording to exclude modern smokeless powder from the traditional season...definitely not allowed.
Be interesting to see what other states start lining up and following suit.

Just curious, but could you find/post the regs and definitions of "traditional"?

I really don't see the difference between a traditional muzzleloader and a inline that has a open ignition. I've owned both and have yet to see a advantage on using either one, other than the look is different. I really feel for the folks who have put a lot of time and money into there inline and now have to change, especially the folks in Idaho.

the regs have will not be out in print for a month or so .
the Idaho commission just made the ruling Thursday morning . it has been printed in the Idaho statesman but their information is not completely correct as the reporter left before the close of the meeting . hence the bullet weight requirement was changed to read ,

no less then .010 of bore diameter and no more then 11/2 times the width of the bore .
as of yet i have not receive minutes of the final meeting , i would imagine those will be out in the next couple weeks

here is the The link to the report from the Idaho statesman .

Modification of traditional muzzleloader madethem too effective, Idaho commissioners decide

i would also say this . the management and research section of the Idaho fish and game after evaluation of harvest numbers before the acceptance of modern weapons in this state and then comparing those numbers over the last 15+ years of acceptance , submitted those numbers to the commission along with the recommendation to a more traditional stance .

as to time and money ? how many of us own more then one muzzleloader , for that mater more then one centerfire , bow , fishing pole ?

According to another thread, it sounds like the Idaho wolves are next to go after this muzzleloader deal. The question is, who's "in line" after the wolves; bowhunters who use compound bows? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

actually the bow hunter and rifle hunter also had a big push during this this change . so there are changes for them as well however i cant tell you what actually happened or what they were . the push was to make the regulations for them archery more lenient.
however most all those speaking to the commission were fighting to keep them the same or become stricter concerning technologies
i do recall the commission was looking at allowing shorter arrows and higher let offs as I recall . As to what they ruled though I cant say .
On the general season side the discussions seemed to be based on the issues of lighted scopes ?

This really is a management issue on most every front. In many areas of this state our game numbers are in trouble .
Combined that with the advent of greater technologies, higher harvest numbers and the open push for scopes and smokless powder .
combined with the fact that many of our muzzleloading hunts are in short range weapons areas . it all added up very quickly.
i do know they have been looking and researching this for almost a year now . there has been if i recall some 5 or 6 meetings on the over all managment issue and at lest 4 concerning weapons " IE artchery and muzzleloading "

wolves are a much bigger issue that i think even the governor and most all state hunting groups are working on .

I hunt with an in-line by convenience since it offers me the opportunity to put more time in the field. I'm not by any means a traditionalist; I simply use a muzzleloader by necessity and an in-line by choice. I'll muzz hunt where I can legally and stay away from where I can't, so Idaho has nothing to worry about from me. If other states follow suit in order to protect and maintain the sport FOR THE GOOD OF THE MANY, then so be it. I just don't want to see regulations dictated by a minority core of die-hard's simply because they happen to have an loud-enough voice.

I think that given the choice, ANY frontiersman or indian would have used an in-line or compound bow without hesitation. The irony is that if that technology had been available 200 years ago, current generations most likely would only see live game in zoo's...

I hope Michigan goes back to the patched round ball also!!

Here is the write-up now posted on the Idaho F&G website.

Made me think suddenly that I need one of Doc Whites Sportsmans Rifles! (That is an inline action that actually has a stylish pivoting side hammer attached.)

I hope all you patched round ball guys can fit your patches into that .001" space allowed. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

jim
---------------------------------------------------------
commissioners clarify muzzleloader rules


The Idaho Fish and Game Commissioners Thursday, January 11, approved rules that change the definition of muzzleloaders in an effort to maintain muzzleloader hunt opportunities.

The commissioners adopted the new muzzleloader rules during their annual meeting in Boise January 10-12.

Idaho hunters are losing muzzleloader opportunities in part because of a decline in the mule deer population and more efficient muzzleloaders mean fewer opportunities, Idaho Department of Fish and Game's big game manager Brad Compton told commissioners.

The new rules require that muzzleloaders must:
- Use all-lead bullets at least within 10/1,000 of the bore diameter.
- Have open sights, and use only loose black powder or synthetic black powder.
- Have an exposed, pivoting hammer and an exposed ignition using only flint, musket caps or percussion caps.

Muzzleloading weapons also must be at least .45 caliber for deer, antelope or mountain lion; and at least .50 caliber for elk, moose, bighorn sheep, mountain goat or black bear.

All muzzleloader hunts are limited to weapons meeting these restrictions. Other muzzleloader weapons still can be used in short-range weapons and any-weapons hunts.

Commissioner Wayne Wright recommended the commission adopt the stricter definitions to maintain muzzleloader hunting opportunities. Some technology advances have improved the effectiveness and range of muzzleloader rifles.

Commissioners also adopted new restrictions on archery equipment that allow let-off up to 85 percent and arrow weights down to 300 grains and increased arrow lengths from 12 to 24 inches.

They also adopted baiting rules to make rules the same for furbearers and black bears. The changed rule bans the use of any domestic or wild game species as bait.

The commissioners did not adopt a proposed restriction on the use of .50-caliber or larger ammunition.

"If you want to take on long distance shooting, this is not the way to do it," Commission Chairman Cameron Wheeler said.

During Thursday afternoon the commissioners approved proposed rules for moose that add 50 bull permits and 10 antlerless permits, and that modify the moose hunting season framework in a portion of the Panhandle region.

The rules also add three new bighorn sheep hunts, reduce permits in Unit 27-1 from 15 to 8 permits, ultimately resulting in two additional bighorn sheep permits statewide. The adopted rules also cut nine mountain goat permits, closed hunts in Units 27-3 and 30 and added two permits in Unit 67 and two in a new hunt in Unit 27-5.

The commission in an effort to protect wild elk from the risks of disease and genetic impurities adopted a formal policy on domestic elk.

Under that policy the commission:
- Encourages the state of Idaho to enact legislation and establish and fund appropriate policies to protect wild cervids from disease and genetic risks posed by domestic elk.
- Does not recognize the shooting of domestic elk for recreational purposes within confined facilities as "hunting."
- Advocates the principles of fair chase and ethics in the harvest of wild game.
- Is opposed to spending sportsmen's dollars on the management or control of domestic elk.

The commissioners also heard an update on the planning for a hunting and species management plan for wolves in anticipation of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's intention of removing federal protection for the grey wolf under the endangered species act.

Large carnivore coordinator Steve Nadeau has assembled a planning team that includes the Fish and Game wildlife bureau, the agency's wolf biologists and regional wildlife biologists, Nadeau told commissioners.

The process would include public surveys and meetings with public groups. Nadeau anticipates a first draft of the plan to be ready for commission approval in May. The plan would also be submitted for public comments.
He expects to have a final plan for hunting delisted wolves in Idaho ready in November.

Before wrapping up the three-day meeting, the commissioners recognized that the department and the commission needed to come up with a proposal for a wolf tag and fee structure, which must be set by the Legislature. Department officials agreed to come up with some numbers, and Chairman Wheeler said he would look for someone to sponsor legislation.

Actually the irony that I see in all this is that the weapons are all more capable than most think. Its what folks take the time to put into them. Read the old accounts of Fred Bear and 40-60 yard shots with recurves. I've practiced a bit with mine and find that if I had time, those would be workable also.
Muzzleloaders were and are capable at hundreds of yards. With iron sights and being sidelocks if you practice and become proficient.
Centerfire rifles have been long range weapons for many years. Our troops have trained with iron sights to 500-600 yards for many years and are very capable. With scopes even more can be done.
Handguns are much the same, read Keith a bit....

What regulations do here though, is not limit the range as much as get the folks to pick and choose what they really want, and make them apply themselves to the sport like they should. Its attempting to limit the armchair cowboys and i agree with most of it most of the time.

I'm also much in favor of basic limited proof of shooting capabilities. And of limiting certain projectiles on certain game.

It wont' change that much, the folks it does run off, IMHO, Have no business out there anyway. Just want to up and shoot with no respect to the game, then there are paper target games all over.

Now if Idaho will get rid of wolves, I've got a deadly accurate Renegade in 54 thats a real live 1.5 inch gun at 100 yards with irons and very easily capable to 200 yards if need be.... May have to migrate

Jeff

Edited to add I hate roundballs and have had some really bad instances shooting them so I won't anymore. Not due to the ballistics but due to the lethality. Wondering out loud now too, what about my .020 patches...... if I had to shoot round balls....Lethality should be factored in.

if your speaking of the pauly design ? the hammer is non functional and relies on the internal hammer design .

but you have a point . i also know of a couple rifles folks have made that are still inline ignitions and use a side lock .

i heard no one speak out against the inline to include myself . what folks spoke out against were the technologies that came along with the new weapons .
My advice to you is if you have to purchase then do so as it fit�s the law but remember CO�s in the field can interpret the laws and issue citations based on that interpretation.
This allows the court to decide the true intent of the law .
In which case you have to then deal with the word of the law and the intent of the law .
Is the gamble worth taking ?

as to the round ball ? in 20 + years of muzzleloading i can honestly say 98% of the big game i have taken , were taken with the RB .
get close , place your shot and they do the job very well .
try to extend their range or place a poor shot and they are not forgiving but really neither is anything else

Most states look for innovative economic boosts in these times of troubling state economies and increasing unemployment. Whoever governs Idaho is going against the grain with this decision. How many states would vote to curb consumer spending?... but Idaho? 3.5 million of the last 4 million muzzleloaders sold in the USA have been inlines.... as per mention by Randy Wakeman that I'm passing along.

i doubt T7 the CS will change very much . those people who wish to participate in the muzzleloading season here will have to have or purchase a weapon that complies with the law . so no real change there .

however what you may find interesting is the poll results . now if as has been stated that the majority of muzzleloading weapons are modern in design . then i submit that a majority of those vote are also modern muzzleloading hunters . so what does this say ?
well to me it says that even among a majority of modern shooters , the feeling may very well be that things have been carried to far .
So now I question if those are accurate numbers here , what are those numbers in other states

anyway
yes its true , yes the topic of this thread is what idaho has done .
be safe guys

It is my hope that 250,000 hunters in Idaho buy sidelocks and take to the woods in mass.

Captchee,
Is it truly limited to PRB or could a fella still use bore size conicals? If so, my desire/lust for a 1"-24" sidelock may become overwhelming <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

yep as i understand it ,bore size conical are legal as long as they are not more then 1 and 1/2 time the width of the bore and are made of lead or lead alloy

now i would tell folks this. if you have questions , i would contact the Idaho fish and game department directly.

Be educated , know the law for yourself . Never , I mean Never trust 100% what someone tells you over the net .
for if they are wrong , your the one to pay

Jim, it's actually .010" and that's normal.
For example, in a .50cal (.500) ML, .490 and .495 balls are normally used with .015" or .018" patches...the material compresses against the lands and the excess is forced into the grooves which is where the ball rotation comes from.

Well, I'm not trying to start anything here at all...I am simply going to share a slightly different viewpoint.

The 6 eastern whitetails I just killed with PRBs in November & December put me well over the 100 mark...never lost a deer I've shot with a PRB...and they all either dropped in their tracks or fell within sight of me.

Round balls have been perfectly lethal for several hundred years now...the most common issues surrounding lost game using PRBs (and most projectiles) are insufficient caliber, excessive distance, poor shot placement, and a powder charge that's too weak.

I've never taken a shot past 100 yards;
I don't shoot at moving deer, whistle stop them if I have to;
I wait for a perfectly clear heart shot;
I use at least 90-100grns Goex in all calibers;

Everyone has different luck. I'm not a poor shooter. I've more than a few iron sight range records at further than normal distances... Placement is not an issue.
I started years ago with a 45 Renegade and PRB. Shot 4 deer, 2 hogs, 1 javelina. Lost 1 of those deer and had the other 3 went way past what I thought they would and were found the next morning. All good placement in the lungs. The one that was lost was lung shot, walked off and lay down. At dark when I got out to go get him he was gone. 2 pools of coagulated blood size of paper plates one on either side of the bed. No trail. I'm a bowhunter with over 100 bowkills and tracking is not an issue. The other deer went up to 500 yards... One hog went over 300 yards, lunged. The other normal at about 50 yards. Javelina ran about 10. Shot a lot of rabbits and they were DRT of course.

A few years after that I'd had it with PRB and swapped to buffalo conicals. Wife and I dug out the gun again, shot 4 deer one weekend, none made it past 30 yards. Lots of difference there.

ALL above shots were from appx 4 feet to 60 yards max.....

You see why I'm shy. But I'm really convinced of my 54 with 535 no excuses. Nothing none historical about conicals either.

I hear that my 50 or 54 would be better than the 45 with PRB, BUT I'm still shy of trying them so far. And my barrels are conical twisted as a result. Though I thnk there is a 54 flinter in slow twist in the future just to see...

Jeff

Jeff;

A .45 PRB is not optimal, IMHO. A .54 PRB, on the other hand, is quite a different story. Try one... or two... and see.