Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Muzzleloaders What is the difference between these special seasons & equipment allowed?

Smokepole - Your State does "infringe", for the lack of a better word.

Has to do with the preference point system, and the ever constantly changing of rule and regulations, and changing of units as to where, why, and how. In some cases after the draw deadline, and I remember some months or even weeks before the season open date.

Now, as to the outlook here, (non-resident), after years of preference point money "spent", time, effort, WITHOUT EVER BEING ABLE TO USE, WHY WOULD I WANT TO SUPPORT ANY HUNTING IN COLORADO, especially when it comes to "public" areas.

I don't know the situation there of recent, haven't bothered to research, Colorado has been on my ignore list for years. Shame too, beautiful country, great folks (the natives, not the wannabes)! Of course, I'm sure that pleases a lot of local or resident hunters. I don't even know if you still have preference system, could care less. I'll find another way to hunt. I only have a given amount of time on this planet, and I intend to use it as much as is possible for my choices.

Lost any access to public lands lately? Elk herds still migrating from the mountins and in numbers they used too, or is development interfering with that? Private land still accessible as it used to be, or do you need to buy "landowner tag" and access to hunt where you used too? Getting any competition for those tags/access from the licensed guide operations? Having any problems with licensed guide operations sitting up in your former public areas?

I could care less (I really do care, but enough is enough), cause I'm going to invest my time, effort and money where I think it will help the most, for my hunting opportunity and to continue the "tradition" of public hunting.

So when you need the cry for UNITY, don't waste too much breath. I'm busy with problems elsewhere!

And, that is not B.S.!!!

I have read the harvest data and the mule deer initiative. Unless you can provide me with a link, I cannot find any data that support the hypothesis that the change in regulations will have any measurable effect on mule deer populations I don't care if the folks in fish and game have more degrees than a thermometer. Science is science. Regulatory decisions made on good science should be peer reviewed and replicable. In other words, I should be able to take the data set and test the hypothesis independently. I can't do this with Idaho, because the data does not exist. There was no analysis about the projected reduction in deer harvest due to the regulatory change.

The plain and hard facts are that muzzleloading hunters only kill a tiny fraction of the deer in Idaho every year. Some of the hunters in Idaho are already using primitive weapons. A given percentage of hunters using inlines will simply pick up a primitive weapon. At the end of the day, I doubt the regulation changes will reduce the muzzleloading harvest by more than 100 deer out of a population of 300,000.

The change in regulations is about politics, guys, not wildlife biology. I don't give a rat's ass about dressing in skins, carrying a powderhorn and pretending I'm Buckskin Bill. What I care about is my children and grandchildren having the opportunity to hunt. To do this, as hunters, we have to care more about the managing the species than the weapon. If we lose hunting, it won't be because the anti-hunters won; it will be because we lost.

well then good , you should care .
but if you understood the reports you would see that 100 deer from a unit or area within a unit of 200 sustainable numbers is a whole lot of deer .
that number can mean that herd holding its own or going in the dumper .

as to what you believe or understand ? well i can accept you word . i dont have to believe them . however again a person will see what they want to see . if you want this to be a political issue ?? then in your eyes it will always be a political issue , nothings going to change that .
not studies not reports not first hand knowledge .

however the difference with the state is that we can disagree with their finding all we wont , we can question their intentions and methods .
However that doesn�t change the fact that we have to trust them to do as they feel needs done .
We may not like it but we are going to abide by it .

I remember when my father started the hatchery at redfish lake . At that time in the late 1960 the F&G had him up their trapping salmon in the creek . Spawning them at decker and flying the eggs to Hagerman .
There were so many sockeye in redfish during spawning season that a person could just about walk across the lake on their backs .
Same with the spring fall and summer runs of Chinook in river like the Clearwater , snake , salmon .
Yet when the state started saying the numbers were in trouble , folks whined.
Outfitters and guides are wanting to close out the public . Indians are taking to many fish .
it�s the same old BLA BLA all over again . They didn�t want to see that a change was needed . That the state was asking for just alittle regulation, a cut back that would only result in a few hundred fish in different areas .
Well fella you know what happened . 3 fish in 2004 cam back to red fish lake . The salmon are all pretty much gone there now .
The returns on the salmon river have just in the last few years been brought back to the point where occasionally they state gives a short season .

Will our deer herds suffer the same ? I don�t know but I remember the issues with the salmon . My father was a salmon and steelhead biologist for this state as well as working with Oregon and Washington on programs . Budy I lived it , grew up in it .
Frankly im not willing to take a chance of seeing it again . So if some hunters have to do without .
If those hunters in a year or two include myself then by all means do what needs to be done . Because frankly the general public have proved in more ways then one that they are incapable of clearly making the decisions that need to be made . Frankly I want the kids to be able to enjoy hunting but I also want them to have something to hunt .
I want them to see the salmon as I have seen them , see the big bucks and bulls late in the winter as many of us have seen them .
Soo 100 deer ? Will it mater ? Maybe ,maybe not , you don�t know and I don�t know but the state seems to think it maters and frankly its mattered on other issues in the past

C'mon, Cap. The regulations limiting inlines is not about a herd in one wildlife management unit. Either you are being obtuse here or you just don't understand the situation. Over 99 percent of the Idaho deer harvest comes from modern firearms and archery. This means ANY regulations on muzzleloaders is only influencing less than one percent of the overall harvest. No one here is arguing against particular limit in a particular area. If a particular mule deer herd in a particular area is distressed, eliminate ALL hunting for a few seasons. No argument here. I'm all for doing what it takes to maintain healthy herds... but THE GENERAL REGULATIONS AGAINST INLINES HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE MAINTENANCE OF MULE DEER POPULATIONS.

If you want to do something about the mule deer population, you make specific regulations that restrict tags, sex, points, seasons, etc. in areas where the population is down. You manage for herd balance, habitat, carrying capacity, age distribution and other factors. The difference between a #11 percussion cap and a 209 shotgun primer is inconsequential in the management of mule deer.

well hampstead the state disagrees and as such i disagree .
i do agree that the general seasons take the most out of the herds . however when changes and corrections have to be made , the little fella is going to lose first . That seems to be the way of it in all things doesn�t it .
Simply because the state in the past is not going to change where their money base lies until things get drastic . Prior to that they are going to make little changes to try and correct the problem as best they can . Basically that�s what this is all about .
As to politics ? Well that stick doesn�t float either simply based on money .
You can talk tell your blue in the face but if what you are proposing is going to cost a politician money. anything suggested is going from one ear to another and right on out the other side . They will IMO always take the road that costs them the least . So tell me if this is true then we have to understand that there is something that is going to cost the state more then the ramifications /cost of changing the rules . So tell me Hampstead what is that ?

As to education ? Ya I agree with you education alone doesn�t mean much ., experience does but then we can also say experience is education .
We also have to add in the resources that experience/ education provide .
How many of us here that are not attorneys can read a legal paper and understand it completely .
How about fully understand what the wording implies or what the consequences or possible consequences of those wordings are ?
I would say very few unless its spelled out in a basic persons way of understanding.
So if the game department managers say that there is a problem and ITO the best way to fix it is by doing X then by golly X is what im going to support doing .



well in general yes you change the way you manage that herd . however what you have left out is the ways tou cull the herds to properly manage them . the way we cull deer herds is with hunting . hunting means weapons .
hence changing the weapons aloud , the way those weapons can be use or where they can be used is very much part of the overall managment

Why did any of you decide to take up muzzle loaders? Or archery?
Was it because it became to easy with a rifle?
was it because you were tired of all the other general season hunters?
Was it because you wanted to hunt the special season; like does or bucks in the rut or areas with huge bulls but couldnt draw a tag for?
It seems the reasoning behind SELF limitation of equipment was spurred by individuals who wished to extend there time in the woods hunting, thru challanging themselves with low tech equipment. I beleive the departments call them recreation days.
Which are provided thru public hunting, groomed snow mobile trails , horse camps etc....
The wilds ARE a LIMITED resource. The primitive hunting methods did provide more "recreation days" for hunters willing to challange themselves thru SELF limitations.
Then along comes industry and creates the new wizz bang_______. You can fill in range finder, scent lock suit, 90 % let off compound bow, Inline scoped muzzleloader.etcc..... All to make the primitive weapon , easier ,more effective.????
So now the primitive seasons are getting to crowded, to proficient in harvesting game, so limits are to be made.
Should they be equipment limits, like which the seasons were started? Or should they be tags, or sex limits? Or should they just be done away with and everyone hunt together with what ever they choose?
Just some thoughts. I really dont care. I gave up my longbow, to many hunters and seasons shortened and bag limits reduced to bucks only etc.... Dont like muzzleload hunting much. Maybe for pronghorn, easier to draw a tag. I'll use my flintlock. Deer and elk populations are in the toilet, so didnt even put in for tags last year. To many hunters anyways.
Just about ready to quit hunting all together.
Good luck

If you had a sinking boat, Cap, and over 99 percent of your leaks were in the stern... how much time would you spend patching the bow? Once again, I don't care that Idaho changed its regs. I just want the state and supporters like you to be honest. General restrictions on muzzleloaders don't have a damn thing to do with mule deer populations. For my money, the restrictions were imposed to satsify a vocal group of traditional hunters.

The situation with deer and elk varies from state to state. In some places, we have too many deer. In the U.S., we have a declining population of hunters. The numbers of hunters decreased by about 1 million between 1991 and 2001 according to U.S. Fish & Wildlife and the U.S. Census. This decline occured during a period of strong population growth, particularly in the west. Seven in 10 hunters are over 35. In 1980, only 4 in 10 hunters were over 35. Face it, gents, the problem is not that we have too many hunters. We have too few and we're getting grayer all the time.

So then If hunter numbers are dropping , Why not just have one season, You can use what ever you wish.
Is it because you as a "muzzleloader" do not wish to compete with a rifle?
Dont know where you been , but in the west, Herds are down!!!! They really have plumetted.
One factor is habitat loss. Winter range in particular.

You are coming to this discussion late, Safari, so I respectfully suggest you start by reading the thread. I don't have a problem with separate seasons for muzzleloaders or one season for both blackpowder and modern rifle (like Montana). My point in this thread has been that we should establish hunting regulations based on the best interest of the species we hunt. Period. Idaho has the right to restrict or prohibit inlines. I just want folks to be honest and not pretend its about the best interest of mule deer... it's about the interests of primitive shooters.

As for your blanket claim about "herds," it makes no sense. Deer and elk herds are at record highs in some areas of the west and down in others. Every western state publishes data on deer and elk herds. If you doubt me, just start going from state to state and look at the data.

I appoligize for not reading the whole thead, I do not know where you live, but In Oregon, The deer and elk herds are in the toilet! Just ask anyone who lives here. I am also hearing the same from people who live in Idaho. I cannot speak for other states. But I beleive the restrictions you are talking about are in these western states.
It does no good to argue on behalf of the herd management when you are speaking of regulating special seasons. Which is what muzzleload seasons are. They tend to offer liberal bag limits and choice"trophy" hunts.
When the success goes up and hunter numbers increase limits must be made, either in hunter numbers or equipment. And I ask which limit allows more hunters more recreation hours?

One more point. In Oregon the ODFW reports hunter tag and license sales are down. They report it is due to the aging baby boomers. I live here and know first hand this is bull. Many hunters are quiting due to quality of the hunts and due to increased cost of tag and licenses.

Well put...and it's the same thing with the whole notion of "fair chase" in general...many states allow baiting and around here where I live & hunt, every bow hunter and modern muzzleloader shooter I know baits deer...many of them year round.

They sit in a tree stand 20 yards from a few hundred pounds of shelled corn, or worse, an automated timer driven feeder hopper thing, and simply shoot a deer 20 yards away when it's standing knee deep in a corn pile...then high five and slap each other on the back with the illusion that they're hunters !!

A serious related problem is that what few kids there are that do get started in hunting have no idea what real hunting is all about...they're put in a tree stand over a corn pile...they don't even know the type of tree they're sitting in much less being shown how to scout an area and recognize deer sign, etc.

The attitude of: "if it's legal I'll do it" in that context misses the whole point of hunting...it's not hunting at all...just shooting.

Hamp...why this kind of uncalled for sarcasam?

I don't know anybody who does these things...I sure don't...I wear the finest hunting clothes money can buy...thinsulate, gore-tex, fleece, etc, etc...but I do all my hunting with a Flintlock and PRB.

Those kinds of sarcastic statements, obviously intended to be demeaning and inflamatory to traditional oriented hunters, say everything about the person who makes them and nothing about the person they're aimed at.....

And they are classic, symtomatic examples of why mature objective discussions on these subjects are practically impossible.

As I said...thinsulate, gore-tex, fleece, Flintlocks, and PRBs.

When you can afford it you pull the boat and fix them all . Until that time you fix what you can and keep going. if those 99% are being taken care of by the pumps but the one in one up in the bow is causing the boat to go down you do what you have to with that hole untell you can get safly to a place to fix the other.

Hampstead, you're dead wrong here. First, as I've stated before, I prefer to hunt with an in-line. Haven't hunted with my sidelock for years. Second, I don't hunt in Idaho and have no plans to. So, I have no preference as to Idaho's regs., and if I did, my preference would be that they allow in-lines.

And last but not least, where does it say anywhere that a state is obligated to promulgate regulations that are based solely on scientific analysis? Do you believe that regulators are not routinely influenced by other factors? To use an example cited earlier, why is Sunday hunting prohibited in several states, is that based on analysis of the deer herds?

Remseven: "Lost any access to public lands lately? Elk herds still migrating from the mountins and in numbers they used too, or is development interfering with that? Private land still accessible as it used to be, or do you need to buy "landowner tag" and access to hunt where you used too? Getting any competition for those tags/access from the licensed guide operations? Having any problems with licensed guide operations sitting up in your former public areas?"

I would agree with you that these are all things we should be working on. My point was and is, it doesn't matter whether you and I agree on muzzleloader regulations, we should be able to debate the finer points without taking our eyes off the big picture, and we should both do whatever we can to conserve habitat and save hunting from all the forces lined up against it.

If we don't shame on both of us and our disagreement on muzzleloaders should have nothing to do with it.

Gotta go now, I'm headed to the volunteers meeting for the local chapter of RMEF.

And that's no bullshit.

Now why in heck would a group of bureaucrats, who are not even elected officials, go out on a limb and make such controversial changes, simply to satisfy a small group of people? I'm sorry, that's just not how things get done in state government. I think you lost "your money".

Regards, sse

Well, SSE, I have spent my share of time working with local, state and federal officials. If you don't think small but vocal minorities move bureacracies, then, my friend, you don't know government.

And Smoke, I think we should manage wildlife using good science. I fully expect that any process as political as fish and game regs will be influenced by political agendas. Once again slowly, what I object to is the specious argument that Idaho changed muzzleloader regs in response to declining mule deer populations. The data do not support the hypothesis. Period.

And Roundball, I apologize if you were offended. I have written a couple of thousand words on this thread. So far, I am the only one citing actual harvest data. I have patiently try to wade through the many nonarguments to make my points. I note with some interest that you jump in front of my one "bullet" and quickly claim injury. Hey, I think there primitive hunters who want to play Buckskin Bill. I know a few. I don't bear them any ill will. I know many Civil War reenactors. I know actors in the community theatres, artists and people who collect toy tractors. Frankly, I don't give a rat's ass what people do for a hobby as long as they obey the law and don't frighten the horses. You may find this sarcastic. I prefer to call it "libertarian." What I dislike is dishonesty in the public policy process. I think some primitive hunters don't like inlines because they don't like sharing the woods. You can disagree. Fine. Just don't try to sell me that Idaho changed its regs to protect mule deer.

nooo , i submit what you dislike is when that policy goes against what you yourself want or feel is true

You seem to be ok with the law the way it was written before ?
Did you care if others didn�t agree ?, doesn�t seem so
Now you�re the one disagreeing
you say .
==============================
I don't give a rat's ass what people do for a hobby as long as they obey the law
==================================

well good the law has change obey it and follow it .
I get the feeling that if the law had been changed the other way you to would be happier then a pig in mud

Nope, Cap. I'll probably never hunt blackpowder in Idaho so the law doesn't make a nickel's worth of difference to me. What is important to me is using the best available science to manage wildlife populations and regulate hunting. I have a personal distaste of situation where I feel like people are covering their tracks by hiding behind bad or nonexistent science. Frankly, I would have less of a problem if the Idaho Fish and Game outlawed inlines because they received a hidden message in a bowl of alphabet soup. I'm far more tolerant of insanity than of dishonesty.

If the science said the best thing to do for mule deer was to eliminate modern rifle season, I'd applaud the fish and game professionals with the backbone to do the right thing and eliminate the season. Science, Cap, is not about a conflict of opinions. It is about comparative analysis of data. Good regulations should be supported by sound evidence, facts, solid information. I may not enjoy a decision that limits my hunting but if it is based on science... I will certainly respect it. And as a person who is responsible for enforcing the law, I'll obey all of the laws... even those I don't particularly respect.

Let me say this one more time... because I am a patient man. The general regulations prohibiting inlines don't have anything to do with mule deer populations, deer populations or anything involved with game management. They can't because there is no scientific, factual or evidentiary basis. Now, I'm the first to admit that I don't know exactly why these regulations were changed. The best I can do is speculate. But after all this going back and forth, no one has made even the barest shadow of a reasonable argument to support a change based on game management.

What is important to me is the species. Hunting is a secondary consideration because hunting is only possible if we properly manage the species. I don't like the politics of game regulations and I have been around the process for years. I have seen the Pennsylvania fight over quality deer management (QDM). I have seen hunters reject science in favor of personal agendas. The damn shame of Idaho is that the fighting is over 209 primers versus #11 percussion caps, inline versus sidelocks, pellets versus loose powder. We should be talking about the real problem with mule deer in Idaho and other western states... not the red herring of inlines.

and you know this how ?
are you a game biologist ?
If so have your read all the state reports or just a few on the web site ?
you say you will probably never hunt here so how do you know ?
were you at the meetings ?
did you hear what the fish and game explained ?
did you hear their proposal.
I would submit that the answer to all the above is NO .
So you are just stating an opinion.
Your pointing fingers at traditionalist because it goes against your grain .
did I submit a proposal ,, ya you dam skippy i did . Did it get followed ? Nope . we got one item and that was a clarification in wording .
Imo your as guilty of making an assumption as anyone .

Will this law go even farher in the next few years ? Lets hope so .