Yoter

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

cayugad

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.

Underclocked

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.

cascadedad

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."}

cascadedad

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.

Pglasgow

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.

cascadedad

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?

Pglasgow

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."

cascadedad

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."

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

Pglasgow

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.