PDA

View Full Version : Idaho says no to inlines



waksupi
01-20-2007, 05:02 PM
http://www.spokesmanreview.com/breaking/story.asp?ID=8461

MT Gianni
01-20-2007, 07:17 PM
I don't see the problem, they can still use the in-lines in the regular season if they want to use them. The guns aren't useless they just don't fit in Idaho's idea of a primitive season. I know that there have been talks about compound bows at over 60% let off being outlawed for archery season here in MT. It isn't that they are killing too many animals it is the advantage, percieved or real, over the primitave weapons range and trajectory. I'm putting the asbestos suit on now so flame away. Gianni.

RugerFan
01-20-2007, 09:14 PM
I don't see the problem, they can still use the in-lines in the regular season if they want to use them.
.

Yup exactly. I use my inline ML during the regular rifle season in shotgun areas. I think Idaho made the right move.

7br
01-20-2007, 09:44 PM
Kansas does not allow optical sights during regular season. It cuts my effective range to under 100yards even with an inline. I do use it to hunt in muzzleloader/shotgun only areas. My beef with them is the same as with the ultra wizzen kapower rifles. People seem to think just because the rifle can heave a hunk of lead out that far, they can shoot that far. Heck, the fartherest I have shot a deer has been about 85 yards. I would hate to start looking for a blood trail 400 yards from where I shot from.

Guido4198
01-21-2007, 06:27 AM
As someone who has hunted w/ bow, handgun, modern rifle, and traditional ( iron sighted hawken) muzzleloader....I've given these questions a good bit of thought. Some creative folks saw a loophole in muzzleloader season regulations and exploited it. That's been their privilege to do as the regs. were originally written. It is not uncommon for each state's wildlife management agency to adjust and modify hunting regs. as conditions in their states change. As I see it...the decisions that have been made in several states to restrict the weapon choices during a SPECIAL season are the perogative of those agencies. They write the rules...the rules change from year to year. Hunters have to adjust accordingly. To my knowledge...no agency has banned the use of "modern muzzleloaders"...scopes, etc....they have merely determined that they do not qualify for use in a SPECIAL season. No Big Deal.

omgb
01-21-2007, 10:49 AM
I am in with the group that believes that modern in-line rifles are NOT in keeping with the spirit of primitive hunting. I began using a ML back in 1972. All we had were round balls or minies and open buckhorn sights. You could choose either flint or cap but either way, you had a 100 yard gun and you had to know how to use it in all types of weather.

In-line guns are similar to these MLs the way in which a Porche Carrera is similar to a Model T. They're both cars and have 4 wheels and an engine but the similarity stops there.

In every sport, guys look for an edge over human limitations. Hunting is no different. Use your in-line but do so in the regular hunting season. Special early hunts should be for honestly primitive weapons only. Remember, it's about the tradition, not the bag. It's tradition, not sport. It's tradition, not killing. The words we use in earshot of the non-hunting public are pretty danged important to the long-term survival of the hunting way of life. If we are too focused on bag rather than experience, we will loose this tradition of ours as sure as my name is R J Talley

omgb
01-21-2007, 10:55 AM
The issue here is the additional advantage being granted ML shooters based on an expected mechanical disadvantage that does not really exist in In-Line MLs.

Idaho F&G observations about typical present day hunters seem to agree with what the department of Fish and Game here in the PRK are finding. I teach Hunter Safety for the state and have an inside track to what's being researched. The In-Line rifle controversy exploded when 200yard scoped shots became routine. Suddenly, the handicap that everyone thought ML shooters labored under was gone. Most of us who voted in the early seasons did so with the image of some buck-skinned Jeremiah Johnson wanna be shuffling through the woods armed with a cap-lock that depending on the weather, just might go bang when the trigger is pulled. We had visions of stalkers getting within 50 yards of game and "Daniel Booning" them with a round ball shot to the base of the skull. We felt that putting these guys out with the big boys and the modern "Vunderguns" would be like inviting the kindergärtners out to play in your high school football game, totally mismatched. So, to give them a fair chance at success and to protect these guys from clowns who shoot at sounds or at moving bushes, we created the early ML season.

Well, fast foreword to the present and arm our present day Nimrod with a modern IL ML and things are quite different. The gun almost always goes boom on command, weather is hardly an issue any more, scopes and HV loads in conjunction with sabots make 200 yard chest cavity kills no more difficult than it is with a modern rifle. To preserve the idea of Fair Chase and to keep things equal between hunters, a lot of us are for regulating ILs out of the special seasons.
This whole topic gets pretty emotional. What is important not to lose sight of here is that no serious shooter is saying or implying that there is something unsportsman-like about in-lines. Quite the contrary. What is in question is whether or not an individual armed with such a firearm is sufficiently handicapped as to warrant a special season for its use. Clearly, given the state of development in-lines have presently achieved, there is no handicap other than that experienced by any other single-shot shooter. Honestly, is an in-line shooter equipped any less than a man armed with a Trapdoor or a Highwall in 45-70? Not really. True, a second shot takes a tad more time but honestly, if a deer is going to sit still while you reload a trapdoor, he's not moving just because you've got an in-line. I'm not saying they reload equally fast but the difference in nil under actual field conditions.

So what it comes down to is just plain fair chase sportsmanship. I would love to see in-lines in the field during regular season. I hold no grudge against them or their owners nor do I think they are second-rate firearms. But, I don't believe they deserve to be classed as MLs if the intent of the game commission is to classify MLs as "primitive" weapons deserving of a special season out of regard for their performance limitations. Discussing the in-line owner's character is foolishly divisive and unproductive. No one here has done that but judging by the tone of some of the posts, there is no shortage of in-line users who have been the target of such diatribes elsewhere.

The comparison was made between lever guns and in-lines and I think it's a fair comparison. The lever gun gives you a rapid second shot but realistically, the rounds they are most frequently chambered for are similar in performance to those used by an in-line. There are exceptions to be sure. Winchesters in 303, 3006, 30-40 are far from anything most of us would call handicapped or short=range brush calibers. But for the most part, 38-55, 45-70, 35 Rem, 303 Savage are all in league with a 45 cal saboted in-line load pushed by 120 grains of T7 or Pyrodex.

skullmount
01-21-2007, 02:44 PM
In-line guns are similar to these MLs the way in which a Porche Carrera is similar to a Model T. They're both cars and have 4 wheels and an engine but the similarity stops there.

Use your in-line but do so in the regular hunting season. Special early hunts should be for honestly primitive weapons only.


IMO, .....the engine of a Porche might be put into a Model T.....I think most would agree that the Model T would not be able to use the "horsepower"



.....please define "honestly primitive weapons"



I am not from Idaho, but from what I read, the wording said nothing about "in-line" The words I recall was pivoting hammer.

skullmount
01-21-2007, 02:53 PM
[SIZE=2][COLOR=#191970]

Well, fast foreword to the present and arm our present day Nimrod with a modern IL ML and things are quite different.

The gun almost always goes boom on command, weather is hardly an issue any more,

scopes and HV loads in conjunction with sabots

....... are all in league with a 45 cal saboted in-line load pushed by 120 grains of T7 or Pyrodex.

I hunt with a "modern Nimrod" who, with an "in-line" had a "hang-fire".......I believe because of old powder, moisture etc.

Most ML's will go "boom" if the hunter/shooter knows their gun !


I thought that scopes and sabots were not allowed in the first place ?
(minimum projectile size)

omgb
01-21-2007, 03:39 PM
An honestly primitive firearm, as the term was used when the special seasons were being considered back in the 60s and early 70s, would be a round ball or Minne shooting caplock or flintlock. Some states required that they be flinters, most required a ball of 45 cal or greater. Some even required that they be smoothbore. The concept was that a 19th century design should be able to be used by men and women wishing to recreate, as much as possible, a 19th century hunting experience.

Further, it was believed that stealth was going to be a key part of this experience and that the shooting would be at very close range, say 75 yards or less. I'm not making this stuff up. I read, heard, and participated in debates where these concepts were batted about. In CA the issue was whether or not hunter orange needed to be worn. If, like a bow hunter, non-orange clothing was to be worn, a separate season might be in order to help insure safety. Any way, the whole thing changed as in-lines became more powerful, reliable and more like bolt guns using cartridges.

The recreation of tradition aspect tends to wane as a legitimate argument when in-lines come into play. Whether this was ever a legitimate reason for special seasons or not is really moot. Only the supposed disadvantage shouldered by the ML hunter really needs to be considered. If it exists, and if ML hunting requires special close-range techniques then perhaps a special season is needed. If those disadvantages are not significant or if special hunting techniques are not required, then the argument against special seasons gains strength.

I think there is sufficient evidence to support the idea that in-line shooters are not significantly handicapped as to warrant a special season. That's my opinion, YMMV. I guess it's up to each of us to make our opinions and rational known to our local DF&Gs.

skullmount
01-21-2007, 05:07 PM
An honestly primitive .......................................... The concept was that a 19th century design should be able to be used by men and women wishing to recreate, as much as possible, a 19th century hunting experience.



Any way, the whole thing changed as in-lines became more powerful, reliable and more like bolt guns using cartridges.



Thank You ! Pauley patented the in-line in the 1800's ....are they ok now ?


How have in-lines become more powerful, in a situation where black and similar propellants are used with balls or full bore bullets ?

waksupi
01-21-2007, 07:18 PM
Have you ever seen a Pauley inline design? Quite a bit different than the current crop.

omgb
01-21-2007, 07:33 PM
Once again, it seems to be deteriorating into an emotional discussion. Of course I know when the first in-lines were patented but that is beside the point. Today's in-lines are not in keeping with what the DF&Gs had in mind 30 years ago. I know, I was there. I participated in the discussion at that time. I wrote letters and essays supporting the idea of special BP seasons.

There is little new under the sun in firearms. Rifle or shotgun primers, thumb hole stocks, scope sights all existed in the 19th century but not in the refined configurations and combinations seen today. When you factor in pelletized powders and ballistic tipped saboted slugs it's far from primitive.

I'm not going to change any body's mind nor do I feel compelled to. The historical facts are however, that once upon a time 30 or so years ago, special BP seasons were conceived for the express purpose of assisting ML shooters because it was believed they were at a mechanical disadvantage. Whether the imagined disadvantages of ML guns aren't now and perhaps never were, real disadvantages worthy of a special season is the question.

Clearly you think they need a special season. I no longer think they do. What more is there to discuss?

When they banned lead shot from waterfowl I was pissed. I was using a Parker and a beautiful Mdl 12 I inherited from my grandfather. Suddenly, I couldn't use them any more. Nor could I cheaply load shells either. Shoot, it was what, 4 years before safe steel components became available. I was ticked. It cost me several hundred dollars to get back into the duck shooting game and my two favorite guns became wall hangers. Not fair at all but, it was good for the sport and I learned to suck it up. The Calif DF&G banned rimfire and center fire guns from rabbit shooting. There went my beautiful M92 in 25-20. Once again, I adapted and moved on. And, once again, it was for the good of the sport. The point is, this ban in Idaho is similar. It's for the betterment of the sport as a whole and that's why I support it. Promoting fair chase is the only way we are going to be able to defend this tradition from the anti-gunners. i believe this is just such a situation and that's why I support Idaho's decision.

skullmount
01-21-2007, 07:41 PM
Have you ever seen a Pauley inline design? Quite a bit different than the current crop.

waksupi,

I have not held a Pauley in my hands...but I have seen many pictures of Pauleys and sketches of Pauley in-line actions evey time this topic comes up......just surf a bit and its going on a few of the other boards too.....I guess its too cold for the guys to get out and shoot their guns...................

I will agree that it is different and was improved in very short order, before 1835 if memory serves me right....the coil spring and cylindrical striker are still there.....

KCSO
01-21-2007, 07:51 PM
Hooray for Idaho!

skullmount
01-21-2007, 08:03 PM
Once again, it seems to be deteriorating into an emotional discussion. Of course I know when the first in-lines were patented but that is beside the point. *

There is little new under the sun in firearms. Rifle or shotgun primers, thumb hole stocks, scope sights all existed in the 19th century but not in the refined configurations and combinations seen today. When you factor in pelletized powders and ballistic tipped saboted slugs it's far from primitive. #


Clearly you think they need a special season. I no longer think they do. What more is there to discuss? %

Promoting fair chase is the only way we are going to be able to defend this tradition from the anti-gunners. i believe this is just such a situation and that's why I support Idaho's decision.&

*You stated in a previous post "The concept was that a 19th century design should be able to be used by men and women wishing to recreate, as much as possible, a 19th century hunting experience. "

What is the point ?

# I thought this discussion was about Idaho...no scopes.....full bore bullets...loose powder.....

% Describe "they".

& What does "fair chase" have to do with this discussion ?

*I think you missed this question from my previous post*
How have in-lines become more powerful, in a situation where black and similar propellants are used with balls or full bore bullets ?

Mr Peabody
01-21-2007, 08:55 PM
I don't think they went far enough.
No 4 wheelers in the muzzle loader hunt.
No snowmobiles in the muzzle loader hunt.
Choose your weapon for the entire season.
Set up the most pressured units as primitive weapons only.
Lets get after the Hunt!

skullmount
01-21-2007, 09:16 PM
I don't think they went far enough.
No 4 wheelers in the muzzle loader hunt.
No snowmobiles in the muzzle loader hunt.
Choose your weapon for the entire season.
Set up the most pressured units as primitive weapons only.
Lets get after the Hunt!

We have some riders that have turned me against any machines in the woods during season other than those used by the handicaped!

waksupi
01-21-2007, 10:08 PM
Many years ago, state senator Ethel Harding approached our ML group, to write the state ML laws for Montana. We did, and they still stipulate, that patched round ball is the only legal projectile in a muzzleloading only area. The laws of Idaho were put forth at around the same time, as the western states were having more and more demand for primitive hunting areas.
Thirty years ago, the inline was an unknown entity in the world of muzzleloaders, who were the ones wanting clarification on what could be used. Inlines, with sabots, can be used in regular season, but still restricted away from ML only areas.
I don't mind people shooting them, but they should do a reality check if they believe they are anything like what was intended. The are a product of people, out to make a quick buck off of gullible shooters. It seems to have worked out well for them.
This isn't the only aspect of hunting sports that has been effected by technology. There are now areas for traditional archery equipment only, and I expect to see an increase in these.

Underclocked
01-21-2007, 10:55 PM
Pretty late with this bit of info - it's already been trolled in a major way across the internet by the usual suspects.

The real acid test will be the "what's in your heart" diagnostic test currently being perfected by that great Italian traditional firm of Davide Pedersoli. Only those that hunt believing themselves to be set apart in time from the universe generally and have the proper "romantic attitude" will be allowed to use a muzzleloader of any sort.

It's a tricky test. :roll:

omgb
01-21-2007, 11:51 PM
I've read Pedersoli's position and I fail to find either sarcasm or hubris. I just don't get what's so friggen hard about all of this. No one is saying don't use an in-line and no one is saying in-lines are less than sporting. To believe such a thing is patently ignorant and stupid. What is being said, and I believe it's very valid, is that in-lines pose no significant disadvantage over cartridge weapons worthy of a special season, period.

Pedersoli's position is essentially the same. They make both kinds of weapons and an in-line. So if any one has a clear dog in the fight it's D Pedersoli and Sons. They argue that special seasons for in-lines are unwarranted.

Perhaps all special seasons should be pulled. That may be the only way to satisfy those who feel cheated; we just hold every hunter to the exact same conditions regardless of the method of take. I'd hate to see it go that way. Lord only knows so much of life has already be subjected to field leveling. Can't even have a "Ladies Night" at the club here in the PRK any more. The discrimination laws forbid it. it's pure ridiculousness of course but that was the only way the argument could be put to rest. Unfortunately, I see the same thing happening here. Too bad.

Underclocked
01-22-2007, 12:14 AM
"What is being said, and I believe it's very valid, is that in-lines pose no significant disadvantage over cartridge weapons worthy of a special season, period."

In-lines... naturally all inlines are possessed of the same obvious superiority over the sidelocks. In fact, one would be hard pressed to find a sidelock that was even remotely capable of keeping up with such a superior piece of engineering.

My Idaho friend's open-sighted, plunger action White using loose powder, a cast conical of his own making, and #11 percussion cap is so vastly superior over a "period" rifle of modern manufacture that even a cave man could spot the difference.

Plenty of sarcasm intended. I just don't get it either.

skullmount
01-22-2007, 07:55 AM
Once again, it seems to be deteriorating into an emotional discussion. ...................................



omgb,

No disrespect intended.....but !

Are you ignoring my questions, or are you blind from "emotion" ?

You seem to be throwing in "facts" that don't apply in the discussion here, or was it your intent to derail this thread ?

waksupi
01-22-2007, 08:38 AM
Skullmount, I see you are somewhat new here. Traditionally, topics move all over the place on this board, so don't expect this one to stay strickly on topic. Particularly since the original topic was a newspaper article link posted, with no comment attached.

omgb
01-22-2007, 09:35 AM
I don't believe I derailed the thread. Fair Chase is at the heart of the matter. Special BP seasons are designed to level the palying field so that hunters arrmed with more primative firearms are able to enjoy a fair chase without having game scattered beyond the range of those primative weapons. Presently, modern in-lines exploit the letter of these laws by conforming to the letter of the game rule without conforming to the spirit of the game rule. That's where the argument lies. Do modern in-line need or deserve a special season all to themselves or should they be lumped in with the standard rifles?

As to the rest:

*You stated in a previous post "The concept was that a 19th century design should be able to be used by men and women wishing to recreate, as much as possible, a 19th century hunting experience. "

"What is the point ?

# I thought this discussion was about Idaho...no scopes.....full bore bullets...loose powder.....

% Describe "they".

& What does "fair chase" have to do with this discussion ?

*I think you missed this question from my previous post*
How have in-lines become more powerful, in a situation where black and similar propellants are used with balls or full bore bullets ?"


1. The original thinking behind Idaho and Montana's as well as most of the other states' special ML rules was directly related to the growing popularity of the Mountain Man craze back in the early 70s. Movies such as Jeremiah Johnson helped spark a revival of the whole concept. Add to that the Mother Earth and back to simple times thinking of the period and what you got were laws designed to give some hunters a chance to hunt primitive. That mean using copies of "traditional primitive weapons". In-lines were most definitely NOT part of that thinking. The argument at the time was that flint and percussion guns using patched lead balls were sufficiently inefficient that a special season devoted to their use was warranted.

2. Idaho is only one of several states dealing with the in-line question. In-lines are almost always advertised and sold based on their increased reliability and power over that of more traditional 19th century-styled firearms. That's not opinion, that's observable fact. Surely, no one who is honestly unbiased can deny that they are in fact, more powerful, more certain to function under adverse conditions and that their killing range when used with heavy charges and saboted bullets is greatly extended over that of round ball shooting guns. As to the scopes, they go hand in hand with in-lines. Every manufacturer touts the ease by which scopes can be mounted or used on their in-lines. Consider why one would choose an in-line over shall we say, a Lyman Great Plains or a T/C Hawken or Renegade. Clearly the reason is that they are much closer to conventional single shots or bolt guns and thus are more familiar. Why would anyone want such a gun if they could have the cartridge gun? Well, in the majority of cases one only needs to look to the advertising hype. It's to "extend" one's hunting season by capitalizing on BP seasons. These firearms utilize a loophole in most BP game laws and permit the use of what is essentially a modern single-shot firearm in what was intended as a 'primative" season. I think i already explained what what intended by primitiveprimitive as did a couple of others.

3. Fair Chase is what this is all about. The only reason the special season is being redefined is that the modern in-line is not in keeping with the goals of the special season. Tell me, why do you think so many are getting bent out of shape about this? It's not because they are being told they can never use these guns again. It's because they are being told that they no longer will have their special season. From now on, they will have to compete with the other guns during the standard season. That pisses guys off who feel some sort of entitlement to hunt. Thus the fair chase issue. If one is first and foremost concerned about fair chase as opposed to getting the kill, this whole thing would not be an issue.

4. I think now I've answered all of your questions as directly as possible. I was pretty certain I had done so in the previous posts but evidently I hadn't. As to the emotion issue, just go back and read over some of the posts. The anger is palpable, as is the feeling of entitlement i.e. "who dare they take away MY right to hunt with MY gun".

5. "They" refers either to the F&G authorities or to hunters depending on the context in which I used it.

Underclocked
01-22-2007, 12:07 PM
omgb, would it surprise you much to learn that many of us inline owners DO hunt in every season (regardless of the legal adjectives) with a muzzleloader? Would it surprise you much to learn that many of us now using inlines were once sidelock shooters... or that many that have recently purchased inlines to get started in the sport are now taking a hard look at buying sidelocks? People want to use the word "primitive" in describing the seasons but most state's have general muzzleloader seasons that do not mention the word. Most of those general seasons were established after inlines were introduced and inlines have been legal from the get-go.

But "The anger is palpable, as is the feeling of entitlement i.e. "who dare they take away MY right to hunt with MY gun". " and how dare anyone admit others to hunt with their rifle in MY woods during MY season. It isn't yours. It isn't mine. The arc of your action does not provide additional rights. Some of us see the TRAD objections as selfish whining.

Idaho certainly has the right to regulate as they see fit - however misguided and distorted their decision making process was in making these recent choices, it's their right.

Try to find one shred of evidence that actually links inline usage to the last part of this "Modern in-line muzzleloaders, when used with modern hunting bullets, increase the range, effectiveness and reliability of the weapons. That's one of the reasons commissioners decided to change the rules — too many animals were being killed during muzzleloader seasons. "

"We can't biologically afford some of those success rates," state F&G big-game manager Brad Compton said." would be a futile effort. Seems to me a handy smokescreen excuse for their own poor performance in the past. http://www.muledeernet.org/statusidaho.htm check out the muzzleloader figures. Idaho could look elsewhere if they wanted to help herd numbers.

But there is no altering of opinion to be had on this subject. In my view there are roughly three groups involved in today's muzzleloading - the self-styled "primitives" that can only see themselves as the entitled, righteous victims of a modern world... the majority of folks that just like muzzleloaders and enjoy hunting with them (the live and let live crowd)... and the performance addicts that will go for every fps they can squeeze out of a muzzleloader. I think the future of the sport should be geared to those in the middle.

And I happen to sympathize with the old fellow and his new rifle that was suddenly made illegal based upon nonsense.

omgb
01-22-2007, 12:39 PM
We aren't that far apart in our opinions. I don't care to run around like Daniel Boone nor do I find that style of hunting to be morally superior to any other. The key issue as you note is the harvest rate. Whether or not it's due to the increased killing power of the modern in-line or not, the point is that too many animals are being harvested in too many areas. One way to cut back on that is to limit the number of hunting licenses issued. The other is to shorten the season. Since hunters tend to balk at both of those, eliminating an extended season by forcing certain types of rifles back into the main season seems to be a more workable idea.

In using the "My rifle, My Hunting" argument i was not intending to imply that you, I or anyone I've heard on this blog holds to that view. Far from it. I apologize if my remarks seemed to imply differently. What I am/was referring to is the attitude of a very vocal minority within the hunting community. These folks fail to understand that hunting, like driving, is a privilege and that as such, it's subject to regulation. Clearly, both you and I know this. Unfortunately, in my years as a Hunting Safety Instructor, I've met way too many who don't see it that way.

I feel bad for the guy who has purchased an in-line with the expectations of using it in a special season only to find that season closed to him. That's a major disappointment. However, if that is what is required to ensure a sustainable game population then it's a pretty small price to pay IMO. Very similar to what we all went through with the lead shot ban in waterfoweling.

I know that some states adopted BP seasons after the in-line became common place. Idaho was not one of those however, and neither was Montana. Those states were caught up in the "back to the 1800s" fever and figured that the number of additional hunters and their take would be insignificant. Well, that's now changed and the popularity of the in-line has hastened that. Lots of guys who would never want to mess with BP and MLs have no such issues with ILs. Thus, the number of guys taking part in special BP seasons has increased. Honestly, maybe, and there's no real way to know for sure, it's just more hunters going afield and in-lines have nothing to do with it. Who knows. What does matter though is that annual harvests must stay within the sustainable levels or there will be no game animals to hunt.

For what its worth, in CA, the number of hunting licenses issued now is less than it was in the decade following WWII, this in spite of the increase in population. What this means to the argument is unclear at best and I offer it only as an aside.

Getting back to the main thrust of the thread. The guy with the in-line can still use it, he just doesn't get a longer or unique season. That really shouldn't pose too great a sacrifice, if fair chase is the guiding principle behind his participation in the hunting tradition.

9.3X62AL
01-22-2007, 12:39 PM
Being in CA and not ID--and not being an inline owner--I really don't have a dog in this hunt. Only one of the several deer I've taken could NOT have been harvested with a RB from one of my rifles. In the environment I hunt in, a scope sight and high velocity are actually disadvantageous. It wouldn't trouble me a bit to see my pet area (California's D-14) and other adjacent zones near LA/Orange County go to "sidelock/roundball only" PERIOD in alternating years.

I also know that inliners are just as passionate about their tools and sport as I am, and these folks should not be precluded from the hunt. Frankly, I don't have a good answer to this kind of question--although I hate to see anyone's ox being gored. The fact remains--where I hunt, the environment is a leveling factor--from whiz-bang belted barrel burner to rocklock, we're all pretty much in the same boat. So, it might be best to leave things alone.

piwo
01-22-2007, 12:54 PM
But there is no altering of opinion to be had on this subject. In my view there are roughly three groups involved in today's muzzleloading - the self-styled "primitives" that can only see themselves as the entitled, righteous victims of a modern world...


I would have gone along with much of your post save for the above line. By your count, everyone who hunts with primitive weapons are "the self-styled "primitives" that can only see themselves as the entitled, righteous victims of a modern world"..

The other two groups are all really nice folks though, eh? ... **

I'll chose to give you the benefit of the doubt and surmise this popmous, derogatory caricature of those who don't choose to "go modern" is made out of emotion and not stupidity.

Not all traditional shooters have a "jones" about inlines, not all traditional shooters really give a rats butt what toy another man plays with. Are there those in the group that fit the mould you cast? Of course. And like most traditional practices, do many snub their noses at those who "go modern"? Of course, some do. With the same disdain that Harley riders snub their noses at Honda riders, and Corvette owners do at, well, EVERYBODY else! LOL

Why conservation departments do what they do is complicated. Sometimes it's to serve the interests of the wildlife, sometimes the hunter, and sometimes personal agenda. Missouri Department of Conservation is a case in point. It has had legendary success with deer and wild turkey management, and for an eternity was funded by hunters. Hunting was looked on as an honorable profession and conservation and hunting went hand in hand. About 15 years ago, a new breed of "conservationist" started being employed: the so called "academic" conservationists. These are the "we can keep a balance without hunting" folks, who actually disdain hunting sports. Small in number at first, they are now being employed in conservation departments all over the country in growing numbers. Never fired a weapon, or hunted, or knew anyone who hunted, so why all the fuss for these hunters, who are a minority in the state anyway? With conservation now being funded by some tax money, they no longer feel ANY debt to assist hunters or hunting habitat, since EVERYONE pays now for the state's game herds. There is nearing a 50/50 mix in our conservation department, and things could change radically.

Hunters would well be advised to stop their divisive bickering, stick together, and pay attention what's going on in their own back yards, as well as nationally. You are only one state, local, or national congress from losing all privileges. You want to get inlines back, then go lobby for it. It just didn't get removed becasue somebody woke up one day and decided to change it. If it's worth fighting for, then do so in action. It's your state, go on the offensive.

PS: I shoot traditional cause like the challenge, don't own an in-line, but if one got delivered to my porch, would keep it, shoot it and try to push the envelope to see what it's capable of. So which of your camps do I fall in?

skullmount
01-22-2007, 12:59 PM
Skullmount, I see you are somewhat new here. Traditionally, topics move all over the place on this board, so don't expect this one to stay strickly on topic. Particularly since the original topic was a newspaper article link posted, with no comment attached.

"Traditionally" now that makes me lol.....I agree I am new here ...the turnip wagon is just out of sight now :)

The thread was "Idaho says no to inlines" with the attached article....if you will notice I tried to make my comments and questions clearly related to the press release from the statement released from F&G people, which IMO is what all the law abiding hunters will follow.

Underclocked
01-22-2007, 01:28 PM
piwo, didn't mean to imply the owners of sidelocks all fit in the same mold. Sorry if it seemed so. There are a few very vocal and very active that do fit in that mold and you have reaffirmed they do not speak for all sidelock shooters. I never believed they did. My thoughts were (however poorly conveyed) that most of us fit somewhere in the middle... with two radical groups creating what will surely become a problem for us all.

But you are from St. Peters and therefore very likely drunk on local wine. :mrgreen: (that's a joke sir :p ).

piwo
01-22-2007, 01:39 PM
Thanks for the clarification. :-D Your wording left no wiggle room as I could read.




But you are from St. Peters and therefore very likely drunk on local wine. :mrgreen: (that's a joke sir :p ).

That was Saturday, as we did in fact go to wine country!.... and it's inebriated: that's drunk but with a college education! :drinks:

skullmount
01-22-2007, 01:57 PM
omgb,

Thanks for the pointed answers/comments.

We are on the same page for most of it.....I will admit that I have to hunt and peck while typing. (and can't spell very well either)

I think you are possibly missing my point about the "technology", you called it "a 19th century design"...it just seems to me that someone did not do their homework on this old/new regulation. They should have went further ! If its all about the recreation of the 19th century way of life, seems terms like teepee, horse & wagon, campfire, canvas tent, horseback would have been acceptable, and that modern conviences (sp?) would be prohibited.

You may have hit the nail on the head when you mentioned the # of animals to the # of permits/hunters in a given situation...I think this will be good for the gun companies, (or should guys have to forge their own stuff ?) now guys will add more guns to the safe !


Don't take me the wrong way....where do we/us/them draw the line ?

And FYI, your mindreading skills aren't what they used to be, you wrote.......... "Clearly you think they need a special season. I no longer think they do. What more is there to discuss?"

no need for a special season in my mind, rules are rules, and if here in Michigan the rules change I will still stuff something down the bore of a gun :-D

Willbird
01-22-2007, 10:19 PM
Well whats next on their agenda ?? making any arrows that do not have wood shafts illegal ?? Recurve bow's made of natural materials only ??......hmmmm no non traditional camo......scents..........all that cool stuff ?? How about we give the bowhunters the same time period to get a deer we give the gun guys ?? instead of a 3-4 MONTH season ??


Bill

omgb
01-22-2007, 11:02 PM
Part of the problem was that when answering the posts, I was confusing you and another writer thinking I was responding to just one when it was two. Brother, it's not just my mind reading skills that are slipping.

Interestingly, when these primative BP seasons were proposed out west, the very guys who were asking for the seasons were TP dwellers and Rendevoue types who wouldn't use a match let alone a 4X4 ATV.

So we agree then that the special season issue is what this all boils down to. Good. I never have tried to pass a moral judgement on the fairness of using a modern in-line. I couldn't care less what type of gun a guy uses as long as it's capable of making clean kills.

As to shortening bow season or requiring one typ of license or the other but not both.....that might be the next step I don't know. I do know that making arrows out of carbon fiber or unobtainium is an excellent idea. Anything to increase the bow's killing power short of turning it into a cross bow.

:drinks:

Rattus58
01-23-2007, 09:43 PM
I don't believe I derailed the thread. Fair Chase is at the heart of the matter. Special BP seasons are designed to level the palying field so that hunters arrmed with more primative firearms are able to enjoy a fair chase without having game scattered beyond the range of those primative weapons. Presently, modern in-lines exploit the letter of these laws by conforming to the letter of the game rule without conforming to the spirit of the game rule. That's where the argument lies. Do modern in-line need or deserve a special season all to themselves or should they be lumped in with the standard rifles?

As to the rest:

*You stated in a previous post "The concept was that a 19th century design should be able to be used by men and women wishing to recreate, as much as possible, a 19th century hunting experience. "

"What is the point ?

# I thought this discussion was about Idaho...no scopes.....full bore bullets...loose powder.....

% Describe "they".

& What does "fair chase" have to do with this discussion ?

*I think you missed this question from my previous post*
How have in-lines become more powerful, in a situation where black and similar propellants are used with balls or full bore bullets ?"


1. The original thinking behind Idaho and Montana's as well as most of the other states' special ML rules was directly related to the growing popularity of the Mountain Man craze back in the early 70s. Movies such as Jeremiah Johnson helped spark a revival of the whole concept. Add to that the Mother Earth and back to simple times thinking of the period and what you got were laws designed to give some hunters a chance to hunt primitive. That mean using copies of "traditional primitive weapons". In-lines were most definitely NOT part of that thinking. The argument at the time was that flint and percussion guns using patched lead balls were sufficiently inefficient that a special season devoted to their use was warranted.

2. Idaho is only one of several states dealing with the in-line question. In-lines are almost always advertised and sold based on their increased reliability and power over that of more traditional 19th century-styled firearms. That's not opinion, that's observable fact. Surely, no one who is honestly unbiased can deny that they are in fact, more powerful, more certain to function under adverse conditions and that their killing range when used with heavy charges and saboted bullets is greatly extended over that of round ball shooting guns. As to the scopes, they go hand in hand with in-lines. Every manufacturer touts the ease by which scopes can be mounted or used on their in-lines. Consider why one would choose an in-line over shall we say, a Lyman Great Plains or a T/C Hawken or Renegade. Clearly the reason is that they are much closer to conventional single shots or bolt guns and thus are more familiar. Why would anyone want such a gun if they could have the cartridge gun? Well, in the majority of cases one only needs to look to the advertising hype. It's to "extend" one's hunting season by capitalizing on BP seasons. These firearms utilize a loophole in most BP game laws and permit the use of what is essentially a modern single-shot firearm in what was intended as a 'primative" season. I think i already explained what what intended by primitiveprimitive as did a couple of others.

3. Fair Chase is what this is all about. The only reason the special season is being redefined is that the modern in-line is not in keeping with the goals of the special season. Tell me, why do you think so many are getting bent out of shape about this? It's not because they are being told they can never use these guns again. It's because they are being told that they no longer will have their special season. From now on, they will have to compete with the other guns during the standard season. That pisses guys off who feel some sort of entitlement to hunt. Thus the fair chase issue. If one is first and foremost concerned about fair chase as opposed to getting the kill, this whole thing would not be an issue.

4. I think now I've answered all of your questions as directly as possible. I was pretty certain I had done so in the previous posts but evidently I hadn't. As to the emotion issue, just go back and read over some of the posts. The anger is palpable, as is the feeling of entitlement i.e. "who dare they take away MY right to hunt with MY gun".

5. "They" refers either to the F&G authorities or to hunters depending on the context in which I used it.


I'm new here, don't have any experience here and was just cruising through this thread when I came upon your post. I have to agree with your observation of particular pieces of information, such as "In-lines are almost always advertised and sold based on their increased reliability and power over that of more traditional 19th century-styled firearms" Very true. However you go on to say "That's not opinion, that's observable fact. Surely, no one who is honestly unbiased can deny that they are in fact, more powerful, more certain to function under adverse conditions and that their killing range when used with heavy charges and saboted bullets is greatly extended over that of round ball shooting guns" and this too is an agreeable position. However you conveniently left out the fact that a sidelock shooting heavy charges and saboted bullets is also going to have the similar outcome when compared to the round ball.

The adverse conditions you speak of need claification. Plunger action inlines are just as susceptible to weather and cold as are sidelocks, maybe more so in fact when you consider the trigger mechanism and sear. I've not been subjected to cold, so I'm speaking from conjecture here.

You also go on to say "Consider why one would choose an in-line over shall we say, a Lyman Great Plains or a T/C Hawken or Renegade. Clearly the reason is that they are much closer to conventional single shots or bolt guns and thus are more familiar. Why would anyone want such a gun if they could have the cartridge gun? Well, in the majority of cases one only needs to look to the advertising hype. It's to "extend" one's hunting season by capitalizing on BP seasons

Of course all of this is true. Why wouldn't one be inclined to move towards something that they are familiar with from the stand point of pointing and squeezing the trigger. But this is due in large part to the failure we as shooters of caplocks and flintlocks have been in introducing "primative" arms as you call them to the public, and the success in marketing strategies as used by the inline manufacturers.

As to taking advantage of the seasons, you cannot fault anyone for wanting to extend their seasons by whatever means. The real fault lies with the lack of education and experience shooters who pick up an inline have when presented with the choice of an inline that looks like their familiar remington 700, or a piece of wood channeled out to hold an octagon barrel and a primative hammer or flint that just plain looks too simple to be effective. Again its education and experience.

"These firearms utilize a loophole in most BP game laws and permit the use of what is essentially a modern single-shot firearm in what was intended as a 'primative" season" What loop hole are you referring to? That they load from the muzzle? That is not a loophole. They are muzzleloaders, pure and simple. And most of them take much more time and effort to load in the field than do any of my caplocks save maybe the flinter I now have.

Take away the scope, which can be mounted on most caplocks as well if you so choose, but take that away, take away the sabot, and stick with the #11 cap or musket cap, where does the so called "modern" muzzleloader have a performance edge over a caplock or flintlock? Also, a modern single shot firearm, such as the ruger #1, the NEF, the Encore, and any of the other singleshot lever, break open, or bolt action rifles all can get off multiple shots in the time that it takes me to reload and re-fire my White, and I have that down pretty good. A modern muzzleloader is hardly akin to modern centerfire rifle except that it might look like one.

You go on to say some pretty enlightening things in this next paragraph of your post... "3. Fair Chase is what this is all about. The only reason the special season is being redefined is that the modern in-line is not in keeping with the goals of the special season. Tell me, why do you think so many are getting bent out of shape about this? It's not because they are being told they can never use these guns again. It's because they are being told that they no longer will have their special season. From now on, they will have to compete with the other guns during the standard season. That pisses guys off who feel some sort of entitlement to hunt. Thus the fair chase issue. If one is first and foremost concerned about fair chase as opposed to getting the kill, this whole thing would not be an issue."

First off, fair chase has nothing to do with this. Fair chase has nothing to do with YOUR ability to chase game. It has everything to do with being ethical in your manner of hunting. You say that the inline guys are pissed off because they are being told that they will no longer have "their special season. From now on they will have to compete with the other guns during the standard season. That pisses guys off who feel some sort of entitlement to hunt"

Don't you feel an entitlement to hunt when you use a caplock or flintlock? Isn't this really what its all about, one group feeling that they are "MORE ENTITLED" than someone else? A muzzleloader, no matter what you drive it with, is still a muzzleloader, and if you eliminate the use of a sabot, they all are equal. And yes, I think that inliners who use #11 caps, have pull to cock actions, use bore sized bullets and black powder, have a rightful *****. When you have flintlocks twisted up so as to be able to shoot sabots legal, its disengenuous to relegate the simple inlines to the general season.

Aloha... :cool:

omgb
01-23-2007, 11:31 PM
Honestly, I am opposed to any special season for any firearm. If the hunter is worth his salt and if he knows his equipment, almost any kind of firearm poses no real handicap. I am certain we were wrong when we lobbied for special BP seasons. I was one of them, I believed a special season was required for parity. I haven't held that view in years though. I've hunted with side hammers, flintlocks, bows, center fires, smoothbores and shotguns. If one knows the game he's hunting, knows his firearm and knows how to hunt, none are a real handicap.

I wish that I had avoided what could best be described as "sweeping generalizations". I should have been more specific but unfortunately, I yielded to the easy road and the clarity of my point was diminished accordingly.

My history is dead on as far as the west and the reasons for the BP hunts are concerned. It was romantic nonsense mostly and in the early days, it was pretty harmless as the number of BP shooters was so small as to be negligible. That is clearly no longer the case. The number now while not huge, is growing and the handwriting is on the wall as far as harvest numbers are concerned. Either we get more habitat (an idea with obvious limitations) or we limit the number of permits and or the number of hunting days. Restricting the use of special seasons is the least disruptive to the largest number of sportsmen. Hence, it gets my vote.

As to the efficiency of MLers, you are correct of course. Centerfire firearms are faster, more powerful over longer ranges, flatter shooting and more certain to discharge when required to do so. In the hands of a trained rifleman, the differences between even side locks and in-lines is diminished as well. In the average hunter though, the in-line has a huge advantage over the side lock and the modern cartridge gun has an even bigger advantage over both of the others. I doubt any one would really debate that. It's in that light, that I bring in fair chase. Having a special season before the general season is a big advantage over hunting in the general season when game is pushed and more wary. I can't prove it, but conversations with hunters and listening carefully at the club and in chat rooms leads me to believe that the gripe is the loss of that early advantage, not the loss of the use of the gun. maybe I'm wrong on that but I doubt it. Shoot, it's only natural to feel that way. I love the quiet and laid-back hunting that goes on in pre-season. I especially like the solitude and the feeling that I'm all alone. nothing sucks as much as having some idiot stumble through your stand or come roaring through your stalk with an ATV. ****, that pisses me off as does the rapid fire, shoot the S*&^ out of anything that moves idiot that is so commonly found in the general season. But, all that aside, if it means protecting the harvest and maintaining higher sustainable numbers, I'm for eliminating the special seasons.

That's it in a nutshell. Stick around and post more. I enjoy the discourse and I'll bet others do too. You make intelligent arguments.

piwo
01-23-2007, 11:48 PM
...Don't you feel an entitlement to hunt when you use a caplock or flintlock? Isn't this really what its all about...

Aloha... :cool:

huh??? How about we hunt with flintlocks because we like the personal challenge... I hunt with mine during every possible season, for that reason only. If they let us throw spears at game in my state, I'd probably try that as well, and not because I feel entitled.

Guess I’m just too old to understand generation "entitled".....

Rattus58
01-24-2007, 12:39 AM
Hi Piwo.... :)

I wasn't totally clear of my intended meaning when I posted that. In the previous remarks by omgb, he mentioned "From now on they will have to compete with the other guns during the standard season. That pisses guys off who feel some sort of entitlement to hunt" . In the argument for the primative season, or maybe in this case a special season, it seems to me that there are many who themselves feel "entitled" just because they shoot a flintlock or caplock and wish to exclude the rest from their particular season.

I tend to agree with others, and omgb, when he says that he favors no special seasons, and I agree with him as well when he says that it is the hunter, not his equipment that makes the hunt. Personally I like having a muzzleloader season, though I like many others, hunt exclusively with a muzzleloader regardless of season. Though it may seem like it, I'm not against a primative season. I am against a primative season that is not primative however.

There are others that suggest that if you are going to have a primative season, then you should be hunting in your deer skins and moccasins, pouch and powder horn, and though I don't go quite that far, I do however think that it should be set aside for a period correct firearm, no adjustable fiberoptic sights, and should be restricted to round ball only with black powder only. Now I realize that black powder is hard to get in some places, but it is available to anyone who tries hard enough to get it, even here in Hawaii. This is truly primative, and I'd go for that kind of season, but I'd also incorporate a muzzleloader season to accomodate the rest as well as allow either primative arms or all other muzzleloaders into the general firearms season.

As for you... :) Yes... hunting with your flintlock IS your choice and you are ENTITLED TO IT.... :grin:

9.3X62AL
01-24-2007, 01:12 AM
No special seasons here, but I chose caplock/RB for the 1999 season. I told the story here (Shooters.com) at that time, and because I didn't have the 30-06 along--I was able to spend one of my most memorable days afield with my front-stuffer--stalking close, but not close enough for a good shot--all day, from sunup to sundown, last day of season. This was one of the few times a "long" shot was offered to me in the area I hunt, and the all-day HUNT--even without a shot being taken--was the stuff of fond memory.

Rattus58
01-24-2007, 01:24 AM
Hi Deputy Al..... :)

I love muzzleloaders... all muzzleloaders... caplock, flintlock, inline, smokeless, whatever, it doesn't matter to me... but what does matter to me is the satisfaction I get hunting with any of them.

I believe that a hunt is going to become what we make of it. I'd love to have read your story.

Much Aloha... :cool:

obssd1958
01-24-2007, 04:22 AM
Here is the follow up text from IDFG:



IDAHO FISH AND GAME
HEADQUARTERS NEWS RELEASE
Boise, ID

Date: January 19, 2007
Contact: Ed Mitchell
(208) 334-3700



in-line muzzleloaders still legal


Since the Idaho Fish and Game Commission adopted a new definition of muzzleloader hunts, the Department of Fish and Game has received an unusual number of complaints.

The Fish and Game commissioners recognized the effect of their decision to adopt restrictions on muzzleloader technology and their decision was not taken lightly. Commissioners have been considering the changes for more than a year. Weapons technology was the subject of meetings in all seven Idaho regions and of a hunter survey.

The decision does not outlaw current muzzleloader technology per se, and some in-line models may still fit the new restrictions. But many models featuring recent advances in muzzle-loading weapons technology are no longer allowed in muzzleloader-only hunts. The modern muzzleloaders legal under Idaho rules up to now could still be used in special short-range weapons hunts and in any-weapon hunts.

Muzzleloader hunting offers a unique and traditionally important activity for many Idaho hunters. The commissioners felt they had to draw a well-defined line to restrict rapidly-advancing muzzleloader technology. Otherwise, the opportunity for special muzzleloader hunts would become more restricted.

Fish and Game has offered muzzleloader-only hunts since the early 1970s. Special seasons were set aside for hunters who used primitive weapons that had limited range of up to about 100 yards and relied on black powder sensitive to moisture and prone to misfiring.

The previous rules were adopted by the commission in 1991. At that time, more than 10,000 hunters participated in big game muzzleloader hunts. Since then, however, technology has changed and hunters have asked the department to review muzzleloader weapon restrictions.

In recent years, the number of special muzzleloader hunts and the number of participants have declined.

In 2001, Fish and Game began implementing "traditional" muzzleloader big game seasons to offset improved range and effectiveness of modern muzzleloaders and to maintain the number of muzzleloader opportunities.

Muzzleloader technology improvements have made the rifles more accurate and more efficient. Some manufacturers tout rifles effective up to 250 yards, approaching modern .30-.30 centerfire rifles, which have an effective range of 250 to 300 yards.

The improved weapons mean better hunter success and more game animals killed.

To limit the numbers killed, opportunities were reduced. To allow muzzleloader opportunities to continue, commissioners decided to limit special muzzleloader hunts to weapons that meet tighter restrictions.

The Commission and the Department of Fish and Game spent more than a year reviewing muzzleloader technology and soliciting comments from Idaho muzzleloader hunters. Comment showed those hunters to be about equally split between maintaining existing equipment restrictions and adding further restrictions.

In November the commission conducted a public workshop in Lewiston to learn more about muzzleloader technology. A survey was distributed to hunters at regional open houses and made available on the department website.

Of nearly 4,000 comments, slightly more hunters favored tighter restrictions than opposed such restriction. When asked whether Idaho should restrict all special muzzleloader hunting seasons to "traditional" muzzleloaders, 48 percent said yes, 44 percent said no and 8 percent had no opinion.

Ultimately, the commissioners' decision was based on a shared concern for declining muzzleloader hunting opportunity over the past decade.

The new rules require that muzzleloaders must:
- Use all-lead bullets at least within 10/1,000 (.010) 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.

Muzzle-loading 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.


Ultimately, anyone that wants to change this decision by IDFG, is going to have to work at changing the minds of the decision makers. In this case, the Fish and Game Commission.
I was aware of the changes that they were proposing, in several areas, and put my 2 cents worth in by e-mail 2 or 3 weeks before the meetings.
Next time, I will make sure that I show up in person!!
I would suggest that those of you who would like to have your say in your own home state regulations - do the same.

Don

MT Gianni
01-24-2007, 10:48 AM
For those who have never lived in Idaho a single tag is bought and you choose the opportunity to hunt, rifle, archery or muzzleloader or all three. This was not an opportunity to put an extra deer on the table. Gianni.

piwo
01-24-2007, 02:51 PM
Hi Piwo.... :-D


As for you... :-D Yes... hunting with your flintlock IS your choice and you are ENTITLED TO IT.... :-D


Just another beautiful day in Hawaii nei, and you here stirring up the pot! LOL

Hey, my momma raised ugly boys, not dumb ones! As a primitive shooter, I truly enjoyed the "black powder" portion of the season, when I didn't have to compete with everyone else for someplace to hunt. Missouri is 92% private, 8 % public lands, and if you don't own a farm or know someone who will let you on his, YOU’RE SCREWED. You could scout for months, arrive at your "honey hole" at o'dark thirty, and when the sun rises, count 5 other orange vests in the same chunk of woods... Pressure on public lands it tough, and the pressure on the hunter is even worse! So someone wants to throw me a “bennie’, whether I deserve it or not, I’m not going to argue about it.

Back in '73 when I started hunting deer, the kill for that year was 29,000. The herd was small, the land to hunt on limited, and to see a deer of any sex during the season was an amazing thing. A couple extra days a year to hunt (used to be only 5 days) for muzzle loader hunting was a nice gesture to those who were competing (by choice albeit) with rifles capable of shooting accurately many hundreds of yards. And as others have eluded, back then, you had to pick your poison: Muzzle or center fire. Limited deer, limited land, and I since it was sportsman who were paying the conservation bills for the most part, I think it was a gesture by the state to accommodate.

Today, we kill about 100,000+ opening weekend. Now, we don't kill near enough deer to satisfy the state. It goes back to the public/private deal: on public lands there is great slaughter, but only a small amount of land. VAST acreage goes un-hunted by private landowners, so the kill numbers will never be where they need to be. Now, they have center fire, BP, Doe only, urban hunt, Special hunt, and as long as you have a weapon that qualifies, one tag fits all. In fact, some counties you can buy and unlimited number of doe tags. Its deer management that is front and center here: controlling and keeping a healthy herd. Our state liberalized the regs, Idaho toughened theirs.

Things have a way of turning full circle, so this may be a short-lived inconvenience: for better or otherwise depending upon your stance.

Rattus58
01-24-2007, 03:17 PM
Hi Piwo ... :)

I've gotta run right now, but I understand the issues of private vs public and the ability to hunt. Here in Hawaii, hunting deer on public land for most means if you travel between two islands, Lanai and Kauai, you may get up to 5 days a year to hunt, 6 this year, and at some expense in air travel to boot. For most though, its Lanai, and that is usually just one day a year, airfare and accomodation and vehicle are all added expense, throw in the traveling with powder restrictions, and you come quickly to the realization, that some have it better than us... :)

I'm not ******** about this, just for perspective from where it is that I am observing some of this from. We don't have the arguments here about inline versus traditional (thankfully)... we are all so grateful just to have the opportunity to hunt for even one day.

Much Aloha... Tom :cool: