cascadedad,

I don't know enough about any of it to know anything. I guess you could say I trust that Game and Fish is trying, whether in error or not, to maintain high levels of access the muzzleloading seasons within the greater mission of sustainable, and I think partly, higher quality of harvest.

It only my opinion, but I think approaching Game and Fish from this perspective will be more fruitful and may ultimately help to maintain access along with the use of inlines.

For example, instead of "You bunch of idiots are in bed with the traditionalists spouting stuff which is lies, cuz muledeernet.com says "this" . . . and now I have a weapon which is only a boat anchor . . ."

Perhaps this approach will work better. "We are as concerned about hunting access and herd health as is Game and Fish. We are here to participate and cooperate. Because we have an important role to play in the harvest, funding, and management of our state's wildlife, we want to discuss maintaining access with increased restrictions even while retaining the use of our inline rifles. We feel that it is possible to maintain access and funding, while still meeting more restricted harvest goals simply by the implementation of restrictions which equivate the useful range of an inline muzzleloader to that of a traditional rifle. We believe this approach will result more hunter participation, increased funding, andan improving herd that all will enjoy."