Attn: Idaho Muzzleloaders
 

Maybe good news, We need to attend the meeting on 7 Mar 07
Idaho may rethink muzzleloader ban
Saturday, February 24, 2007
LEWISTON, Idaho (AP) -- The Idaho Fish and Game Commission may revisit its decision to ban the use of in-line muzzleloader rifles in some hunting seasons, after commissioners have been deluged with letters and phone calls from angry hunters.

Commissioner Alex Irby of Orofino said he will ask other commissioners if they wish to revisit their position at the commission's next meeting in March.

Last month, the commission approved regulations that effectively ban the use of almost all in-line muzzleloader rifles, modern versions of the traditional guns.

Muzzleloader users have vigorously protested the regulation change, starting a letter-writing campaign targeting commissioners, the department, legislators and the governor. They also are circulating a petition protesting the change.
Ed Rankin of Boise bought an in-line muzzleloader last fall. Now he says the gun is useless.

"I'll have myself a boat anchor," he said of the weapon.

He, like many others, argue in-line weapons shoot no farther and are no more accurate than traditional muzzleloaders that are still allowed. But the commission and the Idaho Department of Fish and Game feel otherwise.

The rule change was proposed and adopted because technological advances of the in-line guns improved performance so much that commissioners felt they could no longer justify use of in- lines during muzzleloader-only seasons. Those seasons take place late in the fall when most deer and elk are on winter ranges and slowed by deep snow.

In-line supporters also point to definitions used by the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives that call any weapon that is loaded through the barrel a muzzleloader. They think the department and commission should do the same. Those protesting the move say they could live with restrictions to bullets, barrels and powder that would limit the range of muzzleloaders.

Commissioner Tony McDermot of Sagle said he has received more than 200 letters and 75 phone calls from owners of in-line guns. But he said he is not swayed by their arguments and will resist any movements to alter the new regulations.

"If we thought we made a bad decision there is enough courage on our commission to turn that around," he said. "But I don't think it was a bad decision."

Participation in muzzleloader-only hunts has ballooned from about 3,000 hunters in the 1970s to more than 25,000 hunters today.

McDermot said because of the inflated numbers, the commission was faced with either reducing muzzleloader-only hunts or taking the actions it did.

Irby isn't so sure. He said he might be open to altering the rules to allow in-lines, while adopting strict powder and bullet regulations to ensure the weapons can't shoot long range.

One supporter of the new regulations, Gordon Hubbard of Lewiston, is a fan of traditional muzzleloaders such as those used by the frontiersmen.

"When you look at a muzzleloader I see it as a primitive weapon and every time you take a step toward modernizing them, they are just taking a step away from the primitive idea of muzzleloader hunting," Hubbard said.

The commission's next meeting is March 7-9 in Boise.

Information from: Lewiston Tribune, http://www.lmtribune.com

RE: Attn: Idaho Muzzleloaders
 

Perhaps there is light at the end of the tunnel after all for some of you reference this issue. I would strongly suggest that if all possible, attend the meetings. You can bet your shorts, the traditional people are going to be there pleading their side of the issue.

RE: Attn: Idaho Muzzleloaders
 

Their logic made no sense whatsoever in suggesting this was a reaction to the increased mule deer kill by inlines. Totally baseless so far as I can tell. Best figures I could find showed Idaho muzzleloader hunters (all of them) took 1.8% of the mule deer total harvest. One can easily see how - with that much success - inline hunters are destroying the Idaho mule deer herds.

http://www.muledeernet.org/statusidaho.htm 2005 figures. If someone has data for last year, please provide link.

RE: Attn: Idaho Muzzleloaders
 

UC, since I read the numbers from the link when you posted it the first time, I continue to be amazed. If the numbers in that link are correct, even if the new rules makes a significant impact on ML success rates, it will make very little impact to the total number of mule deer harvested. It appears that some change to the modern firearm rules would be necessary to really make a difference.

The ONLY conclusion that I can come to is that this is politics and the Trads have Mr. McDermotin their back pocket. What a complete waste of Idaho tax dollars. With comments like this it is rather obvious.

{Commissioner Tony McDermot of Sagle said he has received more than 200 letters and 75 phone calls from owners of in-line guns. But he said he is not swayed by their arguments and will resist any movements to alter the new regulations.

"If we thought we made a bad decision there is enough courage on our commission to turn that around," he said. "But I don't think it was a bad decision."}

RE: Attn: Idaho Muzzleloaders
 

One other point that I would like to make and you folks correct me if I am wrong. The people that KNOW how to hunt and fish will harvest animals and fish, period. They will find a way, no matter what the restrictions are, because they KNOW WHAT THEY ARE DOING and they KNOW HOW TO ADAPT. Likewise, those that don't have a clue will not be successful. Oh, sure some will get lucky. But in this case, these laws won't make a difference.

RE: Attn: Idaho Muzzleloaders
 

I don't see how the number could be correct. For example, it the link says that there are 2650 TOTAL muzzleloading deer hunters in the state. If this number is correct, then over 94% of them hunt with inlines and lodged a complaint. Which would also mean that the state is pandering to less than 6% of muzzleloading population. It would further mean that they are just imagining the over 22,000 other hunters they claim participated in the muzzleloading season.

I wouldn't put any stock in Muledeernet.com's numbers whatsoever. Here's what I figure is going to eventuallyhappen. They'll keep the inlines and eventually, if not this year, be forced to draw the muzzleloading tags in the future.

RE: Attn: Idaho Muzzleloaders
 

What would really be interesting would be to see the numbers that the Commission used and what their rational was to propose the changes. Not just the words, but the numbers. Bottom line, how many less mule deer do they predict will be killed as a result of the changes?

As I stated before, you have some hunters that are VERY SUCCESSFUL and you have some hunters that are VERY UNSUCCESSFUL. In my mind, these make up a big portion of the hunting numbers and the laws won't change these folks' success ratios. Some will just say, heck with it and hunt modern firearm. You also have to take the % of current Trads out of the equation, because their method of hunting and success will be unaffected by the changed laws. Wonder if the Commission factored those thingsin.

Anybody have a link to a report from the study that Mr. McDermot wrote? That should answer a lot of questions. There had to be a study, right?

RE: Attn: Idaho Muzzleloaders
 

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."

RE: Attn: Idaho Muzzleloaders
 

I am absolutely with you, I don't know enough about it to make any real judgement. I'd just like to see their report or at least try to understand their logic. Who knows, it may make perfect sense. I doubt it, but it might.

That last sentence of minewas equivalent to "If we thought we made a bad decision there is enough courage on our commission to turn that around," he said. "But I don't think it was a bad decision." :D

One question though, why do you trust the Idaho Fish and Game Commission? Is it because MOST government agencies are trustworthy? :eek: Or have they done something in the past that has impressed you and earned your trust?

RE: Attn: Idaho Muzzleloaders
 

But it was a bad decision. I really think they could have gone about it in much better way and involved the hunting public more than they did.

Not that it applies here, but I was taught by my father that trust can only be destroyed, not earned. I was also taught that I could not trust one who could not extend trust.My father's wisdom in this matter, as all all matters to my recollection, has been dead on.

Now to your question. Even if they don't share my belief that hunting is a traditionwhich must be preserved and maintained through the maintenance and expansion of access, I do know that their funding largely comes from maximizing this philosophy. Money talks. Increased participation means more money at lower perunit cost which is what large markets are all about.

RE: Attn: Idaho Muzzleloaders
 

I guess my dad was all wrong.


I don't really see this logic as a reason why I should trust them. Of course, I am a non-trusting person by nature.

RE: Attn: Idaho Muzzleloaders
 

If they were really trying to control how many are taken they could ban cartridge guns that wold make a differance. Lee

RE: Attn: Idaho Muzzleloaders
 

Its quite simple really. If I don't trust you cascadedad, how can you earn my trust? I will watch your every move. You will not ever be given a chance to violate the trust which was never given. Odd thing about trust, it truly can not be earned.

Don't take this personal or anything, but for this very reason I couldn't trust you.

RE: Attn: Idaho Muzzleloaders
 

When I called my the Commissionaer for my Region, he basically played dumb and said that he couldn't remember what exactly they decided upon. Now we see one that is willing to at least bring it back up for discussion, and one that appears to be pretty well set in his mind. I'm wondering how many of the rest of you from other parts of the state have called? It might be nice to know who really needs to be convinced prior to the meeting, and then know a little bit of their background. I am from the Southwest Region, so now you know what he is thinking, although don't hesitate to call anyway. Let's do some groundwork and find out about the other comissioners that might be worth keying in on.

BTW, I like the way that pglascoe would like to approach the commission, but I don't neccessarily agree with the concept of trusting them without that trust being earned. Or, at a minimum I'd say that the recen decisions and the way they've gone about them on this topic has "destroyed" any trust I may have afforded them previously.

RE: Attn: Idaho Muzzleloaders
 

A pitbull has to EARN my trust. I am not going to trust them up to the point where they bite me, at which time I will not trust them any more. Sorry, the damage has been done.

People can be just as damaging as a pitbull and I don't trust them either until I get to know them.

RE: Attn: Idaho Muzzleloaders
 

Right, but getting to know someone is notletting some one earn your trust really. It's you feeling comfortable enough to extend trust or at least feeling like you know them well enough to trust them. My father never taught me to trust blindly. He taught me many could be trusted and thatmany could not.He also taught me that one who violated trust once could never be trusted again. He further taught me that the only way to know if someone can be trusted is to extend trust to them. He taught me never to extend trust to a person who showed signs of distrust. He taught me that this is a sign of a person who isn't trustworthy.

Even though I don't extend trust to everyone, anytime, anyplace, I don't inherently distrust anyone either. I realize that when trust is extended, it can be violated. But a relationship which depends on trust can never be attained without stepping on this ledge.

RE: Attn: Idaho Muzzleloaders
 

OK, you win, but I still don't trust the IFGC.

RE: Attn: Idaho Muzzleloaders
 

cascadedad

nor do I... money talks way to often even in spite of good sense...

RE: Attn: Idaho Muzzleloaders
 

My thought exactly. I herd quality was an issue, at least move centerfires out of primary rut and increase antlerless tags. As far as I know, that techniques has ever been mentioned.I personally don't think its a herd issue.

RE: Attn: Idaho Muzzleloaders
 

:D:D:DFair enough. I'll agree that it is fine for you be agnosticabout trustingor distrust (whichever it is) IFGC. I trust them for now because I hope they can be trusted. I figure their goodintentions, and the good intentions ofIdaho inliners, are the onlyhope there is of a solution which will please everyone.

RE: Attn: Idaho Muzzleloaders
 

There IS no solution that will please everyone. There are some very vocal andradical TRADS that want inlines and the hunters that use themeliminated - PERIOD. They DO NOT want that samegroup back inTHEIR woods at all.

Please note I did not say all traditional rifle owners/users/shooters.

If the above is true (and I don't see how one could believe otherwise), how could there be a one size fits all solution?

RE: Attn: Idaho Muzzleloaders
 

I have no problem with inlines. Do I like them, no. That is why a shoot a traditional. I have no problem with them as long as they don't have scopes or sabots. That extends thier range and muzzleloading is about getting semi-close. If you wan't to shoot 200yd, I think you need to hunt rifle season. That is what it is for.

RE: Attn: Idaho Muzzleloaders
 

Politions: trust worthy? Hardly. They are bought and paid for daily by intrest with money.

I agree the inline people need to show up at that meeting in mass. Catch the flys with honey, and leave the vinegar at home in the cleaning solution. Might also take note of the anti inline bunch and campain to get them removed from the commission.

:) Al

RE: Attn: Idaho Muzzleloaders
 

The meeting is tonight fellas. Hope to see you all there.

RE: Attn: Idaho Muzzleloaders
 

I personally prefer flintlock over in-lines, but I understand why you would use an in-line in Idaho. 100 yards is a pretty close shot for a muledeer, and a decently far one here for whitetail.

Still, it'd be cooler if you got a mule deer with a flintlock. ;)

RE: Attn: Idaho Muzzleloaders
 

Yoter

I'll be there in spirit... I have done my share of e-mailing and the meeting in Moscow last week certainly was interesting... as I am told the one on Lewiston was also...

RE: Attn: Idaho Muzzleloaders
 

Well, first reports are comming in on last nights F&G meeting, it is sounding like the new muzzleloader regulations may be overturned.

If any here were at the meeting it would be great to here your report.

RE: Attn: Idaho Muzzleloaders
 

I was there and I'd say that we had a good turnout and most of those that testified did a good job of stating their case. The main argument that was made was that the requirement of pivoting hammer is not neccessary if all other proposed changes are made. I think that the commission heard that loud and clear. I think that some of them already had their heals dug in, and others were more open to the comments and will give it sincere thought before making a final decision. I am cautiously optimistic.

I'd like to know the source of the "first reports" that you are referrring to.

RE: Attn: Idaho Muzzleloaders
 

Check your pm box yoter.

RE: Attn: Idaho Muzzleloaders
 

Public comment has been nearly split with a slight advantage going to those infavor of the definition change.

The rules came about because the current commision wants to return to a "primitive" weapon hunt during the late season. That was the original intent when those hunts were added. That necessitated changing the definition of a muzzleloader.

Remember: inlines are still fine during the any weapon hunts so to say you just bought a boat anchor is overreacting just a bit.

Many within the organization are in support of the definition change because we saw way too many bucks and cows being harvested during the late seasons. They (inlines)are simply too efficient at a time when the animals are most vulnerable and attempting to put on weight to survive the winter.

There are many hunters that are making simple modifications to their current muzzleloaders to make them fit the new definition.

RE: Attn: Idaho Muzzleloaders
 

How so?? I mean if you take a sidelock and an idaho legal inline (open ignition and percussion cap) load the same brand of powder, same quantity of powder, same caliber and weight of projectilewhat comes out the barrel will be the same, well almost the same, the sidelock would likely have a slight advantage due to the normally longer barrel.

It may be that the number of inline guns make it look like there is an advatage, say if the ratio of inline to sidelock is 2 or 3 to 1 and actual performance is equal then yes it could be said the inlines kill more animals but it sure isn't due to any performance advantage of one style of gun over the other.

The high harvest % numbers for muzzleloaders is due more than anything to the location and time of year the hunts occur, the results would be the same if those hunts were archery or centerfire, the time and location of a hunt is what makes the difference.

RE: Attn: Idaho Muzzleloaders
 

Excellent, now we have a "federal agent" among us that can straighten us all out.

Now that you are into the discussion and stating things like "because we saw way too many bucks and cows being harvested during the late seasons.", where are the statistics to back that up? I really would liketo see some numbers. And, when you say "we", does that mean you are a part of the commision? If so, you should certainly be able to provide a link to the data, or a copy of the study, or something. Thanks a lot BA for joining us and "setting us straight".

What kind of simple modifications? If this is true, what good does the "new definition" do?

RE: Attn: Idaho Muzzleloaders
 

BrutalAttack: Are you refering to the meeting last night when you say:

"Public comment has been nearly split with a slight advantage going to those infavor of the definition change."

I was there and would have to say that the numer that testified against the rule changes, particularly the pivoting hammer requirement outnumbered those in favor significantly.

How can you say that inlines with the same powder, same ammount of powder, exposed ignition with same ignition type, open sites, and same projectile is "simply too efficient" ? What adtvantage does an inline have when all of these other things remain equal?

RE: Attn: Idaho Muzzleloaders
 

There is no advantage, to say otherwise is to perpetuate the big lie.

And you know what the Nazi propaganda minister used to say don't you?

"If you repeat the lie often enough it becomes the truth" -Joseph Gerbels
Hitlers master of propaganda"

RE: Attn: Idaho Muzzleloaders
 

BrutalAttack

Of course here you are totally wrong.... An Idaho legal inline is no more efficient than a sidelock. I think I and several other folks can show that very easily, with what we can do with our sidelocks. Now if you are referring to a Modern Inline in general, one that is scoped and uses 209 ignition would agree it is more effecient than a sidelock, but an Idaho legal inline - not a chance. Even the one thing people are trying to grab "lock time" is inaccurate. The new TC sidehammer locks are much faster than the old one and may even be faster than some plunger guns....

This another whining statement - you can use any most ML during regular season, so why even have a ML season use what you got and enjoy it if you like it that much. I kinda wish we would go mostly to muzzleloading anyway - it certainly would help the heard numbers...

Nearly split should not give anyone a Mandate I think you are going to hear a whole lot more from the non-vocals and the working people that do not, can not make the meetings....

RE: Attn: Idaho Muzzleloaders
 

sabotloader
Where you been all day? Out practicing? Are you skeered???? :D:D:D


INLINES ARE EVIL...........INLINES ARE EVIL.............INLINES ARE EVIL.............

RE: Attn: Idaho Muzzleloaders
 

Cdad

sum of us gotta work now and then... Terry had things for me to do - we went to Lewiston -> now I gotta put water filters on the Kit sink and the Refer icemaker...

No but I did decide i would take the White along cause I KNOW it kin outshoot ya...

I would never put any lead in ma White and chance lead fouling... it shoots only plasssteek...

and I don't do black powder.... but I'll watch you...

RE: Attn: Idaho Muzzleloaders
 

You better get those filters on before I get there. I sure don't want to drink no stanky water!

That must be one of those MODERN INLINES. [:@][:'(][:@][:'(] Stainless, plunger, plastic, BP substitute. You must be some young punk that just wants things to be easy!!!! :D:D:D

By the way, just talked to Matt. His knee is feeling ok, so we should be there about 3:00 tomorrow. :)

RE: Attn: Idaho Muzzleloaders
 

SL, try some Swiss FFFg - it's some amazing stuff. :D

RE: Attn: Idaho Muzzleloaders
 

He probably couldn't handle the recoil. :(