Idaho reconsidering???
07-30-2007, 12:21 PM
#51
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Hayes, Va.
Posts: 2,332
RE: Idaho reconsidering???
Before everyone gets on a high roll with this crap about "With age comes great knowledge/experience!" Just remember that a bunch of oldSOB's in Washington sent us young-uns to Viet Nam and Iraq!!!
Need I say any more?
Need I say any more?
07-30-2007, 12:28 PM
#52
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location:
Posts: 5,180
RE: Idaho reconsidering???
i have put no one down. Get back on the topic.. How many of these "idaho reconsiders" have we seen on this forum?? 6-7 posts already? I take that as a sign that idaho is just doing this to get everyones "inliners" spirits up and then once hunting season gets closer, drop the bomb with saying, Sorry! No rule changes. We're going with sidelock only. By having them say that they are reconsidering, is going to ease the pressure on them and in that short time, thats where they will stick it to you.
07-30-2007, 12:31 PM
#53
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location:
Posts: 5,180
RE: Idaho reconsidering???
Opps i also forgot..
If they do let inliners back in, what if they cut back on the amount of tags they hand out? Dont you think that would hurt you more than if you had to use a sidelock? I know in colorado, certain units i hunt , i would have to have atleast 2 pref. points in order to draw that unit. Now i think them cutting back on tags would hurt a lot more than if they said Sidelocks only.
If they do let inliners back in, what if they cut back on the amount of tags they hand out? Dont you think that would hurt you more than if you had to use a sidelock? I know in colorado, certain units i hunt , i would have to have atleast 2 pref. points in order to draw that unit. Now i think them cutting back on tags would hurt a lot more than if they said Sidelocks only.
07-30-2007, 01:18 PM
#54
Typical Buck
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 666
RE: Idaho reconsidering???
If they have to limint the number of tags in order to keep the game population right then so be it. Limiting tags will need to be done across the board too, not just by singleing out only one group of hunters. If the IDFG was really concerned about the game then what they did last year is really off the mark. This thing about regulating firearms based on what they look like is not the way to manage firearms, game or people (remember the Clinton gun ban).
07-30-2007, 01:18 PM
#55
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Tri Cities, Washington
Posts: 1,616
RE: Idaho reconsidering???
FG, you have been spending WAY too much time on the Trad site. You are starting to use the same lame arguements as Roundball.
I understand you have found a newfound love in traditional rifles recently. That is great and I am truly happy for you. I also appreciate what you have done with some very inexpensive rifles you have bought.
BUT, use your own head to think this through. You have made the case very strong here that a traditional rifle with equal sites can shoot just as good as an inline. So why do you suggest now that Idaho might have to reduce the number of tags IF they let inlines back in?
Please go back and read those other threads that I referenced and that you just mentioned in your post. In them, I stated some direct questions to Roundball or anyone else that could answer. Roundball never did, he just disappeared for awhile until the thread disappeared down the list. Then he can pop back in later, take his pot shots and then when he gets challenged, just disappear again. If he really wanted to debate the issue and the FACTS, he wouldn't run away every time he is challenged.
I won't post the whole thing again, but I would just like for someone to post a link to the study that Idaho did to determine the changes were necessary. Or provide some statics that indicate that inlines are so much more effective than traditional rifles. They said it was for game management, but where is the justification? If they provide the justification, I for one would shut up about it. I would think if they had it, they would provide it to get people off their backs.
As for the traditional part of the hunting, as Sabotloader and Goatbrother (both with many years of experience inIdaho), have stated, this was always a MUZZLELOADER season, not a TRADITIONAL season.
I understand you have found a newfound love in traditional rifles recently. That is great and I am truly happy for you. I also appreciate what you have done with some very inexpensive rifles you have bought.
BUT, use your own head to think this through. You have made the case very strong here that a traditional rifle with equal sites can shoot just as good as an inline. So why do you suggest now that Idaho might have to reduce the number of tags IF they let inlines back in?
Please go back and read those other threads that I referenced and that you just mentioned in your post. In them, I stated some direct questions to Roundball or anyone else that could answer. Roundball never did, he just disappeared for awhile until the thread disappeared down the list. Then he can pop back in later, take his pot shots and then when he gets challenged, just disappear again. If he really wanted to debate the issue and the FACTS, he wouldn't run away every time he is challenged.
I won't post the whole thing again, but I would just like for someone to post a link to the study that Idaho did to determine the changes were necessary. Or provide some statics that indicate that inlines are so much more effective than traditional rifles. They said it was for game management, but where is the justification? If they provide the justification, I for one would shut up about it. I would think if they had it, they would provide it to get people off their backs.
As for the traditional part of the hunting, as Sabotloader and Goatbrother (both with many years of experience inIdaho), have stated, this was always a MUZZLELOADER season, not a TRADITIONAL season.
07-30-2007, 08:44 PM
#57
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 501
RE: Idaho reconsidering???
"...As for the traditional part of the hunting, as Sabotloader and Goatbrother (both with many years of experience inIdaho), have stated, this was always a MUZZLELOADER season, not a TRADITIONAL season..."
I'm sorry,I'm sure they have a lot of experience, but experienceaside, the logic of that statement is flawed. The original muzzleloader seasons were indeed traditional seasons. You have to understand the whole story...can't just deal in little sound bites...whenthe original seasons were established in states all over this country back during the early and middle part of the 1900s...when the NMLRA was established in 1933...it was all done by hunters and shooters who used theonly muzzleloaders in existance...they were traditional muzzleloaders.
Whenthey set up the seasons the high technology feeding frenzy had not even been a dream in anyone's mind much less a reality during those times so there was no thoughteven given or necessity to specify "traditional" muzzleloaders because there wasn't any other muzzleloaders to have to differentiate from...the term "muzzleloader"was chosen to simply differentiate from centerfires. The seasons were absolutely not named "muzzleloader" seasonsjust to ensure that modern centerfire capable inline rifles could be used decades later!
In fact, it's the primary reason for the problems that exist everywhere now...thestates became overwhelmed with the influx of the mass produced, easy to use modern inlines into the muzzleloading seasons exactly because of the original use of the term "muzzleloader"...the encroachment began because it legally could due to the loose terminology that was unknowingly used back then...and states haveonly just recently begunto look at possibly revising the wording and/or adding restrictions, etc...incidentally, Idaho isn't the first state to do this...I think there are nowa half dozen statestrying to figure out if and how todo some damage control.
So, not to impinge anyone's experience at all...justto correct the incorrect implications being tossed out by that statement...and please remember...emotional reactions to this are of no benefit to anyone...this is simply thefacts and the truth of the history of muzzleloading...you can't change reality and taking issue with me or anyone forsetting the record straight from time to time never moves the ballforward...just causes problems...an alternative approach is to go read and study the history...learn for yourself, etc
I'm sorry,I'm sure they have a lot of experience, but experienceaside, the logic of that statement is flawed. The original muzzleloader seasons were indeed traditional seasons. You have to understand the whole story...can't just deal in little sound bites...whenthe original seasons were established in states all over this country back during the early and middle part of the 1900s...when the NMLRA was established in 1933...it was all done by hunters and shooters who used theonly muzzleloaders in existance...they were traditional muzzleloaders.
Whenthey set up the seasons the high technology feeding frenzy had not even been a dream in anyone's mind much less a reality during those times so there was no thoughteven given or necessity to specify "traditional" muzzleloaders because there wasn't any other muzzleloaders to have to differentiate from...the term "muzzleloader"was chosen to simply differentiate from centerfires. The seasons were absolutely not named "muzzleloader" seasonsjust to ensure that modern centerfire capable inline rifles could be used decades later!
In fact, it's the primary reason for the problems that exist everywhere now...thestates became overwhelmed with the influx of the mass produced, easy to use modern inlines into the muzzleloading seasons exactly because of the original use of the term "muzzleloader"...the encroachment began because it legally could due to the loose terminology that was unknowingly used back then...and states haveonly just recently begunto look at possibly revising the wording and/or adding restrictions, etc...incidentally, Idaho isn't the first state to do this...I think there are nowa half dozen statestrying to figure out if and how todo some damage control.
So, not to impinge anyone's experience at all...justto correct the incorrect implications being tossed out by that statement...and please remember...emotional reactions to this are of no benefit to anyone...this is simply thefacts and the truth of the history of muzzleloading...you can't change reality and taking issue with me or anyone forsetting the record straight from time to time never moves the ballforward...just causes problems...an alternative approach is to go read and study the history...learn for yourself, etc
07-30-2007, 11:35 PM
#59
Fork Horn
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Rantoul IL USA
Posts: 193
RE: Idaho reconsidering???
I guess the fact that CVA and TC were profitable in the 70's because of "mass produced" muzzleloaders was not a concern because they had the right "look". Mass production of ML's should not be a criteria for management of game or seasons... is that what you are suggesting roundball? If so, that is just plain silly... TC is all about making things easier for the ML hunter always has been. It only became a problem when the "look" changed...
07-31-2007, 12:04 AM
#60
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Tri Cities, Washington
Posts: 1,616
RE: Idaho reconsidering???
Centerfires have evolved, bows have evolved and muzzleloaders have evolved.
As I have stated before, as I understand it, in the east what difference does it make? Most shots are less than 100 yards. People get 4 or 5 tags a year, so what is the problem? Enough deer for everybody and no one should feel "undergunned" given the typical ranges.
In the west, many shots are WAY longer than 100 yards. Most guys that I know that hunt centerfire here have rifle/scope combos that are capable taking deer or elk at 4-500 yards. Most of the guys I know consider their "inlines" a 150 yard maximum gun.
In the west, there are many, many times more centerfire hunters than muzzleloader hunters. What kind of logic tells you take a big percentage of hunters out of the smaller MLer group and throw them into the already large group of centerfire hunters?
"The seasons were absolutely not named "muzzleloader" seasonsjust to ensure that modern centerfire capable inline rifles could be used decades later!"
Name one modern inline ML rifle that is comparable to a 7mm mag, 300 RUM, 338 Win mag, or any one of the other commonly used centerfire rifles of today? If you want to compare to a 30-30 to strengthen your arguement, it makes no sense.
As I have stated before, as I understand it, in the east what difference does it make? Most shots are less than 100 yards. People get 4 or 5 tags a year, so what is the problem? Enough deer for everybody and no one should feel "undergunned" given the typical ranges.
In the west, many shots are WAY longer than 100 yards. Most guys that I know that hunt centerfire here have rifle/scope combos that are capable taking deer or elk at 4-500 yards. Most of the guys I know consider their "inlines" a 150 yard maximum gun.
In the west, there are many, many times more centerfire hunters than muzzleloader hunters. What kind of logic tells you take a big percentage of hunters out of the smaller MLer group and throw them into the already large group of centerfire hunters?
"The seasons were absolutely not named "muzzleloader" seasonsjust to ensure that modern centerfire capable inline rifles could be used decades later!"
Name one modern inline ML rifle that is comparable to a 7mm mag, 300 RUM, 338 Win mag, or any one of the other commonly used centerfire rifles of today? If you want to compare to a 30-30 to strengthen your arguement, it makes no sense.