Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Muzzleloaders Toby Bridges latest blog

When it comes to opinions and anecdotes smokepole...you should know...you've backed nothing with nothing.

You are absolutely what's wrong with muzzleloading...and nothing what makes it right.

Toby

Toby;

You're being asked to back up your position with verifiable evidence.

And, your response, instead of providing such and being a professional about it, is to becoming condescending, insulting, and rude. It's a play right out of the Obama handbook, and I do have to wonder whether or not you act the same way when asked for actual evidence at F&G meetings. If so, do us all a favor, and stop representing "us".

I'd also wonder what your sponsors (you know, the ones that pay you to push your agenda, though you won't admit such) would think if they read threads like this with your oh so professional attitude when dealing with other hunters. I sincerely doubt that they'd see it as you bringing more hunters to their products through your actions and affiliation with them; likely the counter. Which, again, begs the point that if this is how you act otherwise, you'd do us and them a bigger favor by not representing our interests.

Contrasting your actions, as you're "someone who has worked in the industry for 35 years", with those of John Barsness, John Haviland, Ken Howell, several of the other writers who frequent this board and others, as well as the well known and well respected gunsmiths here and elsewhere, shows much. To a man, each one of them has gone out of there way to provide evidence to support their positions, has done so in a well spoken, professional manner, and even when they might have thought that the other person was being a complete DF, maintained courtesy and decorum throughout, or simply left the conversation.

Your responses, your actions, and indeed your attitude, is the polar opposite of theirs. Again, it goes further to provide proof that perhaps we'd be better off without your representation of "us". And, if their actions and attitudes as what is right about hunting and shooting sports are compared with yours, the what's wrong with the sport might certainly take on a far different cast than the one you're trying hard to make.

You never have a second chance to make a first impression, and yours here, has sucked. As a "professional" who has "been in the industry for 35 years", you may want to sit back and consider that, and what you do in relations with other sportsman, especially in light of what it is you say you want to accomplish and what you get paid to do. If you can see how your actions, attitude, and responses here line up with your agenda in the best manner possible, God help you, because as a professional in another field, I can assure you that if my actions, attitude, and responses were similar to yours, when speaking with peers and potential clients, I'd be out of business quickly.

Just a little food for though, and the questions posed previously still stand.

I would like to know who Mr Bridge's sponsors are so I can avoid buying any of their products in future.

I would have to respectfully degree, not that where these changes have already happened has not affected opportunity, but that big game in western states IS different.

Take elk hunting for example. We are talking about a relatively small number of tags for the people who what to hunt them. A very finite pie so to speak. Then we have a lot of competing interests (bowhunting, muzzle, rifle). Increased harvest in a special season in Colorado IMO WILL result in lower tag numbers because you are esentially putting a rifle season in the middle of the elk rut and more elk will be killed. You may have more people calling for more muzzleloading tags, but there WILL be a BIG push by the bowhunters not to increase these tags. And there are defitately lots of people who are happy with their rifle tags.

In Colorado, they have cut the number of muzzleloader statewide bull tags by aprox. 1000 in the last two years. I can virtually guarantee you that if the success rate went up in this season, the numbers would go down more.

Sure, in Texas allowing anything goes with muzzleloaders does not affect the harvest that much because we have millions of deer and a 2 month long season anyway. Can you name any elk hunting state that has made these changes and actually increased the number of muzzy tags from historic levels?

And if that is not enough, let's talk money. Higher hunter success means that SOMEONE will have to give up tags. With elk, you can't just keep printing tags, when hunter success goes up, you have to figure out where to cut tags elsewhere. Cutting tags would mean lost revenue. When is the last time you remember game departments doing that? It is either that or increasing prices. Since they are already very high for us nonresidents, I don't vote for that.

I enjoy hunting with all weapons. While I probably enjoy hunting with a muzzleloader the most, I also enjoy bowhuting and rifle hunting. Respectfully, I think I am the one seeing the "big picture" here.

I have never heard it made clear what "scopes" you are pushing to be allowed to use. As I stated earlier, I would personally have no problem with a 1X scope (no magnification, just a clear and focused sight picture). It would certainly accomplish your wish to help those of us with reduced eyesight, without doubling the range of our muzzeloaders. I think that would only minimually increase hunter success and would not affect the numbers that much, if at all.

So is your real push to help those with reduced eyesight shoot better, or to extend the range of our muzzleloaders? Extending the range is where most of us would have a problem.

http://www.hpmuzzleloading.com/

It would appear that the list starts with Green Mountain Rifle Barrel, Co., Thompson/Center Arms, Harvester Muzzleloading, Leatherwood/HiLux Optics, and Western Powders/Blackhorn 209.

Of course, these are the same companies that he won't simply say "yes, I'm paid by them to support their products and the expanded use of their products".

You know I was thinking on this last night some fellas .
Im beginning to wonder if toby here isn�t just fell for Today societies down grade . � IE basically I want it , if I cant get it and you have it , then I will get the government to take it from you and give it to me .
Im thinking his stance on states discriminating on age and disability is just this .
Kinda like standing on the breaks of the salmon and snake river canyon in a place called the narrows . Then taking a step of f into the hells canyon side .. it�s a near strait down . Should not someone considering taking such a step , think about that one step leading to a mile ???

Toby seems to be trying to convince all of us here that as people get older them must be aloud to have given considerations . It seems to me its not enough to has a system in place like the permit system . No , no , no , that just will not do .
This leads me to the question of when this will all stop and if it could stop .
If we say that as folks get older , the need scopes because on an average their eyesight gets worse which mind you I don�t always find that to be the case as a whole lot of those cleaning my clock at shoots and defiantly long distance shoots are 10 to 20 + years older then me for the most part . � IE
IE 60 - 70 + .
However lets for a minute step back and say just for the hell of it , that what toby says is true .
So this got me thinking , what nest ?? Well how about Arthritis for one .



now the report is to long to post here but you can find many such reports with just a simple google for arthritis in older adults.

So now this leads me to ask . If toby here can get the BoI to try and force this issue on state laws � mind you again typical federal government involvement in states right and the very thing that�s causing many states to Include Montana , to sign sovereignty proclamations �
Then what happens when he gets arthritis . What about other hunters both young and old with arthritis .

Could it not be said that when these folks start having problems with loading . Right now I have arthritis in my left had . The cause is from many years of hard work and holding tools in my left hand . Some days if the weather is right I cant hold a wood chisel . I can no longer hole a chase graver at all .
So what happens when the day comes that I cannot load my muzzle loader . It just hurts to much to use a short starter or go forbid I get palsy of some type � also an effect of age



I ask you then what ???
Should I be aloud under toby�s line of thinking to use a breech loader even though the rules say muzzleloader ? after all whats the difference if I use 80 grains of 3F in a brass case ???.
If I shake so bad I cant hold a rifle any more . Maybe I cant walk anymore . Should I not be aloud to use the Video hunting that most states have now outlawed ?
Forget proving any need to anyone so as to get a disability waver , oHHHHH no everyone should decide on their own . IMO just as is the base of toby�s opinion here . So you see this doesn�t just effect muzzleloading . It effects all hunting .

It seems to me we have lost common sense in this country . The common sense to older people had a few generations ago . Where they on their own simply realized that . ; you know , I just cant do what I used to do .
See we are not talking about making a building in assessable to someone in a wheel chair .
We are talking about people having the understanding that with age comes issues . Issues that we all WILL experience . Maybe its just a reasoning of HA you know my eyesight isn�t what it once was . So I cant shoot those longer distances that I once did . I simply must get closer .
Maybe its as simple as , you know because may hands hurt and hitting a short started causes me great pain .
Or maybe it�s as simple as saying you know , ill hunt here around camp OR as my father taught me from an early age . Hunting isn�t just about killing . Its about learning to track , honing ones skills and challenging oneself against other animals on a 1 on 1 base . don�t get me wrong here fellas I still fill my tags . But I also have come to the realization that , you know , filling that tag isn�t that important to me . it�s the challenge and experience . it�s the maturity to realize ; HA that there nice buck is within 25 yards . But I have no way to get him out by myself . If I shot him then where would I be . By the time I get back to camp , get help and get back , he would either be spoiling or wolves or some loin would be into him .

Now if being concerned by these type of questions and thoughts says I have my head in the sand , then so be it .
I have hunted ALL my life . The vast majority of it with a muzzleloader . I have taken my share of elk , bear , a couple moose and many ,many mule deer and antelope . If all goes right , this fall I hope to and mountain lion and western whitetail to that list
I have yet to find any of the above that with little patients I could not get to within 100 yards of �My chosen maximum range � in fact but for a couple instances I would say the average shot is probably more like in the ball park of 50 yards . That mind you is for the most part done at the very same time as center fire rifle hunters are also in the field ..
It simply disgusts me to say any hunter setting on one ridge and taking 3, 4 or 500 yard shots across to the other .
While I do find such shots impressive IMO they are better left to paper .

I would like to say one other thing here to smoke pole . Now im sure this isn�t the case but I think it needs said .. Sir, Do NOT ever let someone be little you because of what they say their rifles can do . With experience you rifles will do everything toby�s says his will do . Yet now days debunks in support of modern high performance muzzleloading . I been a gunsmith for fast approaching 30 years now . I build entry level and high end custom Traditional muzzleloaders. I shoot A LOT some 30 lbs of powder a year . As such I have a wall of medals an plagues that I have received through the years . More then a few are for long distance off hand RB shoots . While my rifle is a flintlock that was built by Hershel House in 1970 and accurate well beyond my ability . � farthest 5 ot of 5 at 335 yards � I can tell you its not uncommon to have someone shooting an old CVA or traditions rifle , leave me standing on the sidelines .
To claim that because I have a more authentic rifle is arrogance just as much as claiming I or any other older person NEEDS a scope to be proficient and compete , takes away from those who have spent the time to become proficient with their weapon .

So head in the sand , maybe . But I would gladly stand next to you , VA or any other modern shooter here on this board or any other one for that mater who has the fortitude to become proficient , accept their skill and limitations , over someone like Toby here who feels the need to apply modern technologies to make up for their own short comings be that in muzzleloading or ANY of the other shooting disciplines .

While toby says his rifle are capable , and they should be . He it seems is not capable , thus in his hands those rifles are no longer capable of what he states , unless he has a scope to aid him

AND VA , VERY WELL SAID I 100% AGREE .

Well, this is a forum where we all express our opinions, that's part of what it's for. But you've got me mixed up with someone who's trying to change regulations or say what "the majority" of muzzleloaders want. That would be you, not me. I'm not the one making claims about what the majority want, you are, and you were asked for your data. Saying "I've conducted seminars and 70-80 % of people in my seminars...." is not evidence or supporting data, it's anecdotal and 100% impossible to verify.

All I've said on the subject of what "the majority" want is that I don't think it means much--witness the recent presidential election. Once again, since you seem to think what "the majority" wants is paramount, that must mean you agree that Obama is the best choice for president, do you agree with that?

You're also the one who claims to represent muzzleloading hunters, not me. Just so you know, I'm 100% with VA on this (and from the appearances of the responses here, many others as well) in saying that you don't represent me.

The only factual claim I've made here is that any muzzleloading hunter who wants to put a scope on his muzzleloader and hunt with it in Colorado can do so. He can use sabots and smokeless powder too.

I've asked for your response to that, but you have none.

But back to your point, if you want to verify that factual claim, it's easily verified. Call the DOW. Look it up in the regulations booklet. It's in black and white, unlike the data you've been asked to supply.

I agree with you 100% on the common sense thing cap, and LOL, I already asked Toby about the arthritis issue and his response was to say I was "crying about being decrepit" (the whole time he's saying his eyes are bad and he needs a scope, can you spell h-y-p-o-c-r-i-t-e?) which goes to VA's point on professionalism, he hit that one on the head.

As far as the capability of traditional rifles, I'm with you there too. I own two and I've taken several deer with one of them. My favorite is a .32 caliber Hawken for small game though. About 6 years ago I interviewed a couple people in the CO DOW about muzzleloader regulations, as well as the wildlife director for the Colorado State Muzzle Loading Association and the executive director of the NMLRA. This was for an article I wrote on the subject. The CSMLA and NMLRA guys echoed what you said, and that is, the accuracy is in the barrel, not the type of ignition system. They felt that not much had been done to improve barrel technology since the late 1800's and furthermore, a lot of the modern rifles were over-engineered with little or no gain in performance.

It's interesting though, the CSMLA guy said something along the lines of what BigBlock said earlier, (and I'm paraphrasing), that scopes and sabots have just allowed people who look to technology for their advantage the dubious ability to gut-shoot deer at much longer ranges. The point being that people need to spend more time on practice and marksmanship, and less time ogling the catalogs for the latest and greatest "advances" in muzzleloaders that really don't amount to a whole lot.

The DOW people I spoke with reiterated what was behind the original Colorado ML season and the processes used to develop the regulations. The DOW conducted opinion surveys among muzzleloading hunters and solicited public input in formulating the regulations, by the way. Real, black and white data with numbers and everything. LOL. The season was instituted at the request of traditionalists, and the idea of allowing muzzleloading hunters to hunt the early season during the elk rut (during archery season) was to provide expanded recreational opportunities for hunters using weapons that put them at a disadvantage compared to modern centerfire rifles. In-line ignitions were not seen as a real advantage over traditional rifles. Scopes and sabots were.

The thought being, muzzleloading hunters can't have their cake and eat it too, i.e., they can't be allowed the huge advantage of hunting the early season along with the advantage of modern centerfire-like performance.

Now, Mr. Bridges will tell you it's not about all that, it's about allowing older guys who can't see iron sights the ability to use a scope on their muzzleloaders.

But it's easy to disprove his contention by pointing out (once again) that older guys who want to hunt with scoped muzzleloaders can already do so, they just have to do it in the later general firearms seasons along with the majority of hunters in Colorado.

I guess what's good enough for "the majority" of hunters in Colorado ain't quite good enough for Mr. Bridges.

agree smoke pole
maybe all of us , modern an traditional should get something like this for our rigs
now im not one for such things as stickers on my truck or car . but i did just by 2 of these today . but saddly not becouse of TB

I've to similar on the back glass of the truck, and the proper flag flying outside the house. In this neighborhood, it gets noticed.................

Sean,

Is that flag flying under the "Stars and Bars" flag?

Doc

Thanks for the list Sean. I do have a T/C but bought it several years ago the rest I don't use and won't buy.

After reading all twelve pages of this post one thing is clear to me:

Any businessperson who argues with his/her customers and tries to force his/her opionons and ideas on them will surely see those customers disappear.

I'm wondering what Mr. Bridges' "sponsors" think about his tirades?

Negative. Stars and Bars in this neighborhood gets you arrested and your house burned down.

For a guy that's seemingly attempting to get people to rally for support of the sport you're certainly not endearing yourself to anyone. You might consider uniting rather than driving a wedge.

FWIW, I'd not recommend politics as your next career.

He'd make a great Democrat................................

HA!!!!!! NOW!!!!:D , no need to get nasty
I would disagree with that though

Alright . First im sorry this took so long for me to post .
It took a little longer for me to dig through my files and find it

Now a couple things to remember here before you read these scans

Idaho has its wildlife management alittle different then other states .
This was alluded to earlier when I mentioned that the commission is not a law making body .
The way our system is set up is that we have a Department of Fish and game . That department has sectons that cover everything from hunting to fish .
Within the department is many, many sections ranging from fisheries to big game then you have management and enforcement, each with their own directors and administrative sections .
These are all paid state employee�s .

Now above that we have the Idaho fish and game commission .
On this commission sets one person from each from each region .
These people are not elected officials but appointees . They get no pay only re-imbursements for cost accumulated . They serve for a 4 year term and serve by the will of the governor. At the time of every gubernatorial election . The commission members all resign . The governor then either accepts their resignation or rejects it . In wich case they stay on the commission tell such time their term is fulfilled OR the governor asks for their resignation

Above that is the congress and senate natural resource committee .
This committee is made of of elected officials from the congress and senate
Above them we have the full congress � both houses �

Then we have the governor as the final say .

Now how this works is lets say you want to make a rules change in anything . You approach the fish and game department through a suggestion process .
That goes to the appropriate section within the department .

If that management section feels its feasible , then it goes to their director who recommends it to management . Then the management takes a look . If they feel its feasible then they incorporate it into a recommendation to the Idaho fish and game commission � again made up of NON elected officials and non paid state employee�s �

Now the commission takes a vote . If the commission agrees then its applied as a rule for the next years season . Its interesting to not here that a commissioner can disagree and if they disagree strong enough , they can step above the rule of the commission and disallow that rule within their region .
The same also can be true . If a commissioner agrees with the proposal BUT the total commission does not , , then that commissioner has the power to implement that rule within his region , without the full approval of the commission . This is what Tony McDermott �Panhandle Region commissioner �
did in in the 2007 rules change . in that he converted his regions muzzleloading areas to short range weapons areas so as to Circumvent vent the commissions misapplication of the side lock only rule . which did not apply to short range weapons hunts.

But it cause consequences . that move he also inadvertently aloud muzzleloaders to used everything because those short range weapons rules are not confined by the muzzleloading rules , but are regulated by the any weapon general season rules . as such , completely closed ignitions , variable powered scopes, sabots , sub caliber projectiles , jacked bullet and core lock designs, electronic ignitions , basically any and everything one can think of .
However doing so DID NOT INCREASE the numbers of muzzleloading hunters in those areas . What it did to was raise the sales of shotguns and slug ammunition in the surrounding areas and BOST the numbers of hunters taking part in those hunts .
Which resulted in the next year those hunts again becoming MUZZLELOADING ONLY

Now once a rule is made , by the commission it get implemented for �1� year . In which time the natural resource committee looks it over . IF they accept it , it then goes to a vote of congress as a proposed law . If congress accepts it , then it goes on to the governor for his signature

At any time though that rule can be struck down or changes . again this is what happened with the side lock/ pivoting hammer which was proposed for TRADITIONAL ONLY HUNTS here in Idaho .

During the process of the commission voting , the wording got change to incorporate all muzzleloading hunts . Not just Traditional Only hunts

Now here is the scans I did of the Idaho fish and Game Managements 2007 proposals to the Idaho fish and game commission .,. This is The Fish and Games proposals and their wordings to the commission itself .
Now when you go to ANY meeting where the department is making recommendations . Every person within that meeting is given a copy of the recommendations . The very same on that given to each commissioner .

Now you will notice that under some of the polling box numbers is a section that states RECOMMENDATION : what this is a management clarification or appendix of the above numbered recommendation

After the department reads those recommendations . Then the floor is normally opened for public comment . Such comment is then recorded in the minutes of the meetings and added to any written comment . The reason for the written comment at meetings is that often folks do not want or like to speak in public as such , the process allows for ANYONE who choses to , too write their opinion on a provided card and drop that card into the comment box. All of which will later be read to the commission as a whole .

Now some of this doesn�t pertain to muzzleloading . But I have includes the complete recommendations so as to avoid anyone stating that I purposely left something out .

This report also contains polling of ONLY the internet surveys. It does not include hard copy polling from the regional offices, phone in or written comments

So for those of you from out of state , take close notice of the effect of out of state opinions on those polls
They are listed in each bracket under NONRESIDENT

Now I call your attention to page #1 this page covers all hunting to include center fire .
recommendation rule : 13.01.08. Unlawful methods of take as well as recommendation rule : 13.01.08.410

NOW page 2 is on archery . take a look there folks and you will find the very same push for technoligies as is being pushed in muzzleloading . this is resulting in very much the same fight brewing here in their sport and season

Page 3 is strictly muzzleloading .
Now again I must apologize because I scribbled some notes at the top of the page during the meeting .
What these notes tell me is that the documentations on this page were read verbatim to the commission by Brad Compton Big game manager








Now I call you attention to the wording of rule recommendation :
And the wording of rule #13.01.08.410

Some info to clarify for some of you on the wording of recommendation : 13.01.08.410
We established muzzleloading hunts in in the mid 1970�s . the rules for these hunts excluded modern muzzleloading designed inline rifles . basicly becouse the modern designs were not an issue or even a consideration at that time.

In the early 1990's ,those of us working to get hunts were confronted with the issue that the management department was not willing to establish more hunts do to a relatively low number , �when compared to archery and general season numbers� to provide muzzleloaders with additional hunts . At that time modern muzzleloading basically consisted of older versions of the inline ignitions and the want for conical applications .
A proposal was brought forth to alow modern muzzleloading into the hunts as a way to boost muzzleloader numbers , so as to get additional hunts . But as many of you know , modern muzzleloader boomed in the following years , with all kinds of advancements in powder, bullets and designs ..
So as a way to try and preserve the original intent of the allowance of muzzleloading , some areas were designated in 2001 as Traditional ONLY hunts .
The number of areas was about 50% and nostly in the greater southern area of the state .

Now on to rule #13.01.08.410
Notice the 10 thousand reference in this recommendation . Today the state says we are down to roughly 5000 , even with the allowance of modern muzzleloading .
Now understand that 5000 is done by the number of actual people who say they hunt in a muzzleloading area during a muzzleloading only hunt its not a hard number , just an avarage . It does not include those of us that hunt in the general season , becouse you dont have to by a stamp . NOR the number of stamps sold . The reason they don�t go by stamps is that with our sportsman package � combination license and tags � you also get a muzzleloading stamp.
So judging actual numbers by stamp numbers give a false account of the actual numbers of folks in the field participating in muzzleloading

Now after toby here got involved in this process and stirred up some 2000 resident and NON resident hunters to circumvent the commission and play main stream politics by going to the governor with complaints .
Which is extremely distasteful considering the fact that our system was set up so as to try an d keep politicians out of the process as much as possible .
Which is by the way failing more and more all the time . Thus becoming management based on public opinion more the science

The result was the rule was changed for 2008 by politicans NOT the Fish and Game .
But he and those who supported his views , did not read the wording of recommendation rule : 13.01.08.410 ..
The result was and is that the state held true to what they were saying and basically reduce opportunity .
They did this by removing ALL the traditional only hunts state wide . They closed some hunts completely and converted other hunts to the permit draw only system . Which to remind you all , then ties you in to ONLY that hunt and weapon , when it comes to that species .THUS effectively locking a person who gets that Permit from all other hunts for that species regardless of time or weapons application .

Now there are a few exceptions in that some hunts were left open . The largest % of those areas are in the panhandle . Once again those in the north can thank Tony McDermott for doing that as he foresaw a need concerning whitetail numbers in those areas . But understand that there was a push to shut many of those hunts down as well .


Now many of us Traditional and modern alike requested that the management dept provide the documentation to support the application of this side lock , pivoting hammer rule to ALL muzzleloading areas against what was recommended .
That I know of , NO such supporting evidence was ever sent out to anyone . Most certainly not me .
However the management section has not changed their stance on the issues . Thus what we are running into is that even when a recommendation is ask for for even a new permit only hunt , a closed door is ran into

So now as Txhunter stated in his post / opinion. We now have less available tags . While some folks may say its not true , I have to disagree . For the base reason that when ever you go from an open hunt system to a permit only system , you force a reduction in the number of folks who will buy such a tag or recieve such a tag .As well as most times also apply a limit to the number of tags available in the permit hunt . Thus you have reduce the number of hunters. Basicly a CYA situation. where on one hand it can be said no reduction has been made . But at at the same time its clear it has .

now since this is already long and im getting really miffed here im going to finish this with a scan of the Idaho fish and game news paper Artical that was on news stands at the same time . this is what residents have a lot of access to , that NON RESIDENTS don�t , unless they subscribe or stay up on the situations within a state , ANY STATE .Im not sugesting all states put out this news paper . but what im am saying is that alot if information goes around inside a state that out of state people for the most part never see

So if you are a NON resident and want input on a states issues , its best that you do your research and understand what the issues are . IF you don�t then what happens is you can effect something within the state based on your opinion and dislike for any given state rule , when in fact there very well be more to it then just what you see or think .

Which also can be said to include RESIDENTS who do not take the time to get involved and make knee jerk reactions based on surface opinions on any given subject .






[img]http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y242/captchee/TMA/idahofishandgamenews004-1.jpg[/img]