rdpettit

Don't know if anyone has seen this or not:

http://www.hpmuzzleloading.com/SeasonalMessage.html

kshunter

I love shooting & hunting with ML's, but don't agree with or support the change for that particular season.

rdpettit

ML is still a ML if it has a scope on it.

Here in Ohio I prefer to hunt in the ML only season since there are fewer idiots in the woods. Our ML only season is only 4 days. And I can't see a damn thing without my glasses unless it's 5 inches from my face.

Only allowing ML with scopes during the "regular" rifle season seems to defeat the the purpose of wanting to hunt in ML only seasons where there are fewer hunters in the woods and when it's "safer" hunting.

Everyone should be allowed to scope their MLs so they can hunt and see what they are aiming at. Not only in "regular" firearms seasons but in "ML only" seasons as well.

David Kansas

In my younger years I would agree with you , but now that I can not see without my glasses YOU are being far too narrow minded some of us older hunters need to have a scope on our rifles to see well enough for a clean kill And since I have been hunting I do not like to wound any game . So as far as this Kansas hunter goes I vote for the scopes.

LaneNebraska

The way I see it, no one is forcing you to scope-up. You now have a CHOICE, to scope or not to scope.
Do what floats your boat

But please, don't restrict or belittle other's "Legal Choices", now that the state has changed the rules....And IMO, for the Betterment of the season

I am also one of those whose eye sight sucks. Every rifle in my home sports a scope.

And I was just about to give up bow hunting, till I found a new sight that will allow my tired old eyes to work with it

kshunter

I'm not belittling anyone's choices at all. If you use a scope this year, then that's 100% fine with me, as it's legal... no problem there. I think there are great points to both sides of the debate. I just don't agree with the narrowly passed change which the KDWP made.

I completely understand and respect the arguement of poor eye sight. And it's not that I want to restrict you from seeing clearly. I just feel there are alternatives. If there is a medical condition to require a scope to see to shoot why not require a doctors note likewas the case of using a crossbow. If that's not good enough, then why not a scope at 1X. I personally have great eyesight, but have several members of my family and close friends who have very poor eyesight... all which can still have make good groups at up to100 yards without a scope and with corrective eye glassses/contacts & fiber-optic sights.

I have nothing against a seperate ML season. I just don't like the idea of weapon, thatwhen properly tuned to shoot 200+ yards, havinganOctober Season... for the same reason I wouldn't support a rifle season to open on Nov 1st.

But it doesn't really matter now. It's beyond the point, as it's already changed. Best to yourluck this fall.

arkrivco

I don't believe that the actual decision making process has anything to do with eyesight. Its about shooting more and more modern inline muzzleloaders so that TC, Knight, and theState of Kansascan make more money. Allowing scopes means more huntersbuying inline muzzleloaders and hunting during the muzzleloading season. After all, do you ever see a traditional muzzleloader on TV-NO! All you see are scoped muzzleloaders. This makes it easier for more people to hunt that season. The eyesight argument might be politically correct; but it doesn't fly here.

arkrivco

"love those old guns"

rdpettit

Let's take the sight pins off crossbows and bows. They aren't traditional. If if it's not an eyesight issue then it's this "traditional" thing...

And what's the problem with T/C, Knight, etc... selling more firearms? Good thing in my book...

Allow everyone to hunt with what they want and need. NOT what you think someone ELSE should use!

Let's take the scopes off the centerfire rifles as well. Why do you need them? To see more clearly so you can shoot better? YES...