Is this the end of Muzzeload season as it's been?

[lichen fox]

We may want to watch this one...if you read the entire bill, everywhere in the bill it says, "muzzeloader"....muzzeloader is crossed out and replaced with "primitive firearms" ...just as it is at the end of this excerpt from the bill...go to the MN legislature site and read it...Don't know if they are going to "add" a "side-hammer" muzzeloader season, or just do away with inlines for the existing muzzeloader season...should be interesting!

H.F. No. 2611, as introduced - 87th Legislative Session (2011-2012) Posted on Feb 29, 2012

A bill for an act relating to game and fish; providing for primitive firearms hunting season;modifying shotgun use area; requiring rulemaking;amending Minnesota Statutes 2010, sections 97A.015, subdivisions 37a, 41a, by adding subdivisions; 97A.411,subdivision 3; 97A.475, subdivisions 2, 3; 97B.301, subdivisions 1, 2, 4;

97B.311; 97B.318, subdivision 1; Minnesota Statutes 2011 Supplement, sections

97B.031, subdivision 5; 97B.041; repealing Minnesota Statutes 2010, section 97A.015, subdivision 32a.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA:

Section 1. Minnesota Statutes 2010, section 97A.015, is amended by adding a

subdivision to read:

Subd. 37a. Primitive firearm. "Primitive firearm" means a side hammer firearm

with flintlock or caplock ignition.

Sec. 2. Minnesota Statutes 2010, section 97A.015, is amended by adding a subdivision to read:

Subd. 37b. Primitive firearms season. "Primitive firearms season" means the deer season open only for legal primitive firearms, as prescribed by the commissioner.

Sec. 4. Minnesota Statutes 2010, section 97A.015, subdivision 41a, is amended to read:

Subd. 41a. Regular firearms season. "Regular firearms season" means any of the

firearms deer seasons prescribed by the commissioner that begin in November, exclusive of the muzzleloader primitive firearms season.

[Gordie]

The way I read it it will be a side hammer or flintlock only type thing and I am not opposed to this at all.

[lichen fox]

Basicly, It doesn't matter to me if they change the definition of "primitve firearms" to delete the "in-line" muzzleloaders...I'm just curious, as it also designates a "primitive firearms" season...does this mean there will be another season for "primitive" firearms...leaving the existing "muzzleloader" season intact...or does it mean that only "primitive firearms" will be allowed during the "muzzleloader" season? If that is the case, you could still use your in-lines for the regular firearm season, but you would have to use a flintlock or caplock with a "side-hammer" during the muzzy season...Will be interesting to see where this goes..

[Gordie]

I hate guess but I would say that they are trying to cut back the number of blackpowder hunters and have a primitive firearms season only but I would think that you will still be able to use a inline for regular firearms season.

I can see this happening anyways because of all the hype that surounds the dear heard in this state.

When I was first introduced to blackpowder firearms or primitive weapons it was a sidelock and though I dont own one I will soon purchase one if in fact this is the type of season that will be in place.

I rememeber hunting with my first blackpowder inline almost 20 years ago now and hardly anyone did it and it was really enjoyable to hunt that season.

[harvey lee]

Not that it could not happen but I would be more than suprised if they stopped allowing inline muzzleloaders. Way too many people hunt with them and if they stopped it, big loss in revenue dollars.

At this time, fishing and hunting licenses are not going all that well. I would have to believe they are going to add or change part of the season.

I e-mailed my state rep to see what the exact meaning of this is. Hopefully in a day or two I can post the reply from my rep.

[Tom7227]

I think that I read in Outdoor News last week that Mr. Cornicelli or his replacement said that the muzzleloader season was not much of a factor at all in the total number of deer taken.

If you look at the text it would appear to me to be an attempt to take in-line black powder guns out of the picture during the special season. The statute is the statute that sets up what we know to be the black powder season and it clearly takes out in-line firearms. Oddly it also allows for the use of scopes. I'm not sure I've seen a side hammer set up for a scope so that's another indication that someone is mixing up ideas.

Note that there is no companion bill in the Senate which often means it's a dead dog anyway. Rep. Hackbarth is the only author. I don't know much about him other than to say that he seems to be introducing a lot of stuff dealing with DNR type things this session and as far as I can tell none of them do what the DNR is supporting. Might be he's just grandstanding. Don't know but I wouldn't take this too seriously.

[cavalierowner]

It would appear to me that they are trying to stop the use of inlines. I would be in favor of that, if it's what they are trying to do. I originally bought a ML because I wanted to extend my season and at least attempt a return to an era when seeing a deer was not necessarily meat in the freezer. During rifle season it was to the point of being almost too easy. On the downside, if the law changes I may lose both of my inline hunting partners and be hunting alone. I'll have to convince them to buy a sidelock.

I can't imagine that they are responding to the numbers of deer taken because the ML season has far and away the smallest harvest number. Unless someone pushing this bill is REALLY out of touch! According to a DNR table for 2011 deer harvest: ML is 7,416; archery is 20,444; and firearms is 164,471.

I'm hoping harvey lee hears back from his state rep.

[lakevet]

A similar bill wanting primitive sidelocks, etc. has been introduced in past years as a counter to bill for scopes. End up negotiating to not do either change. This has happened in years past and has been discussed in various media outlets, esp outdoor talk shows in past years. End result has been both bills eventually get dropped and things stay the way they are. except time and money spent at the legislature going thru the process.

lakevet

[lakevet]

I think that I read in Outdoor News last week that Mr. Cornicelli or his replacement said that the muzzleloader season was not much of a factor at all in the total number of deer taken.

Lou C shifted the philosophy of the muzzleloader season from a very low impact season on the herd to wanting to use it as an additional deer population management tool. Also to increase hunter opportunity (some of pressure was from muzzleloader industry, esp Toby Knight and his bankrupted Knight rifles), and to increase license revenue. Not saying right or wrong, just that it occurred.

Before this ANYONE could choose to hunt muzzleloader season, just had to give up regular firearms that year. This self regulated the season and prevented any over harvest for many years. Those hunting the season tended to be ones who were looking to use sidelocks in a low hunter density situation that allowed you to harvest any deer, no restrictions or permits. In that season, any deer was a trophy as they were all spooky survivors of the previous hunting seasons, and no easy rut hunting.

The article is on the front page of the Feb 24, 2012 Outdoor News "The year flintlock goes high tech with scopes?" by Joe Albert

In the article you cited Lou C also says:

"Scopes would improve the sight picture for hunters who use them, help them see at longer range, and may allow them to extend their time afield at dusk and dawn."

Sounds like increased effectiveness and more pressure on the herd. A more "primitive" season may lessen pressure.

Also:

"In some parts of the state where deer are especially vulnerable during late season-the muzzleloader season runs from the end of November until about the middle of December- ' we could make permitting adjustments if necessary,' said Cornicelli.

Not just vulnerable deer, but he says "especially vulnerable deer." Not the situation where you want to increase hunter effectiveness by allowing scopes on muzzleloaders. Perhaps "open sighted sidelocks only" would lessen hunter pressure and harvest so more restrictive permitting is not needed.

Any restricting muzzleloader harvest by permitting was unheard of before this philosophy shift. Using permits already has been needed in parts of SW Minnesota during muzzleloading because of overharvest. Remember that the DNR went from restrictions on who could muzzleload (pick a season), because they wanted to NOT increase harvest/overharvest, to a philosophy of using it to manager deer population (increase harvest). This coincides with turnover in the DNR and the older managers and their wisdom leaving, who had managed the season long term with no negative impact on the herd, even in very low deer herd numbers years.

Already Lou C and the dnr's shift in how to run the muzzleloader season has resulted, according to the DNR, in OVERHARVEST by muzzleloaders in the SW part of the state. DNR solution is to make more regulations on WHAT you can shoot even more restrictive. Specifically no antlerless to be shot by muzzleloaders, not even youth. Now they have no position on scopes, say it may increase hunter effectiveness, and if it does we will place even more restrictions on what can be harvested. Why not but restrictions on how the harvest occurs (technology) and not have to have plans to manage an over harvest? At least don't allow more effective technology to be used for this one traditional/primitive/ "fill in the blank"/ season.

Why do we need TWO seasons to use more effective (200 yard plus) technology in, resulting in INCREASED effectiveness for hunters to harvest/overharvest the herd?. Yes, I can use my old technology open sighted percussion cap muzzleloader in the regular firearms season, but IT DECREASES MY EFFECTIVENESS AND LESSENS THE HARVEST. Using a scoped 209 primed muzzleloader INCREASES YOUR EFFECTIVNESS and INCREASES THE HARVEST IN MUZZLELOADER SEASON.

GIVE THE HERD A LITTLE LESS PRESSURE, NOT INCREASE IT.

I would be all for a "primitive" season, where you have to give up all other firearms seasons to be able to hunt that season. That is the core philosophy and reason that the original muzzleloader season worked so well and it worked very, very well for MANY years. It never hurt the herd in any way. A proven, sustainable, season with simple regulations!

lakevet

[cavalierowner]

Just an FYI, I sent an e-mail to the DNR asking them if they could comment on the bill and anything else related to the ML season and all the speculation going on. I'll let you know if I get a response.

[flipper]

To my knowledge there is no such person as "Toby Knight". Their is a Tony Knight who founded Knight Rifles but hasn't had ownership for well over a decade. He is a real gentleman and I have spoken with him several times. Their is also a Toby Bridges who has gone from state to state lobbying for new muzzleloader rules. Toby Bridges I have a few problems with as he has tried to get hunting with round balls outlawed as one of his many crusades. Furthermore, Knight rifles never did go bankrupt, they halted production for a period of time and have since been bought out. They are alive and well and manufacturing some very nice muzzleloaders today.

With all the anti-hunting sentiment that is out there I would suggest that hunters get along instead of bickering over what kind of ignition system should be legal. A sidehammer rifle can be more accurate than a lot of inlines. I bet most of the so called primitive rifles in use were built using modern steels and manufacturing. Not too many of them were built over an open forge.

[lakevet]

To my knowledge there is no such person as "Toby Knight". Their is a Tony Knight who founded Knight Rifles but hasn't had ownership for well over a decade. He is a real gentleman and I have spoken with him several times. Their is also a Toby Bridges who has gone from state to state lobbying for new muzzleloader rules. Toby Bridges I have a few problems with as he has tried to get hunting with round balls outlawed as one of his many crusades. Furthermore, Knight rifles never did go bankrupt, they halted production for a period of time and have since been bought out. They are alive and well and manufacturing some very nice muzzleloaders today.

With all the anti-hunting sentiment that is out there I would suggest that hunters get along instead of bickering over what kind of ignition system should be legal. A sidehammer rifle can be more accurate than a lot of inlines. I bet most of the so called primitive rifles in use were built using modern steels and manufacturing. Not too many of them were built over an open forge.

flipper,

Thanks for the corrections. It is Tony Knight. The B and N are right next to each other on the keyboard and I am not the greatest at keyboarding. Several gun websites and forums cite bankruptcy and/ or shutdown of Knight, often as part of a list of other companies hit by the downturn, but I could not find a press release stating anything other than "closed doors" or "ceased manufacturing".

Again thanks for holding me accountable for accuracy.

Again I see core issue as more technology/increased effectiveness with increased regulations on what is harvestable. This in combination with the reoccurring bills, one for more tech, one for less, resulting in stalemate, dropped bills and end result no change. That may someday shift, but it is a pattern in the past.

lakevet

[cavalierowner]

Here is the response I got from DNR this morning:

The “primitive firearms” season, which would have restricted in-lines, was briefly amended on to the game and fish bill at the legislature, but it was quickly withdrawn. So for now anyway, the muzzleloader season is business as usual.

There is a bill in the legislature that would allow scopes on muzzleloaders. There usually is every year, and thus far it has never gone anywhere.

[laker1]

If they go to scopes during muzzeloading season it is the same as single shot rifle season. Why does somebody always have to change a good thing. My opinion is if they allow scopes,just do away with the season and be honest with ourselves and it is just another rifle.

[harvey lee]

I talked to my state rep this am and he said he recieved many calls and e-mails in regards to not passing this bill if it made it that far.

Many opposed to it.

[Bowfin]

My son is planning on buying a new in-line muzzy - now what should he do?

I spent a lot of $$ on my Thompson Encore a few years ago.

I know there are differing views on what type of muzzy should be allowed during this special season. What shouldn't be allowed is politician's trying to flipflop the rules at sportsman's expense. They allowed in-lines a few years ago, a bunch of folks spent a bunch of money on them and for that reason I think in-lines should continue to still be allowed.

[Mcfin]

Amen-My thoughts exactly.

[Fins-n-feathers]

My son is planning on buying a new in-line muzzy - now what should he do?

I spent a lot of $$ on my Thompson Encore a few years ago.

I know there are differing views on what type of muzzy should be allowed during this special season. What shouldn't be allowed is politician's trying to flipflop the rules at sportsman's expense. They allowed in-lines a few years ago, a bunch of folks spent a bunch of money on them and for that reason I think in-lines should continue to still be allowed.

+1 - muzzleloaders are expensive and I would hate to see people's nice, top of the line muzzleloaders be confined to the gun safe

Muzzleloading has provided a unique challenge for me in the last few years, partly because I hunt in a different spot, and partly because it is a different time of year. The deer just act differently. I can understand that some people don't want to have scopes on muzzys, but outlawing inlines is a little over the top. Old-style muzzleloaders should be a personal choice for those who want the increased challenge.

[K_Josh87]

I have an in-line and have hardly shot it in the past few years, however, are they not in general more accurate and more effective than other styles? I've never owned or shot any other muzzys so I do not know first hand... but if they shoot more accurately with better effective stopping power, wouldn't i tbe in the best interest for the GAME to allow them? To me a quick, clean kill is the main objective, and anything you can do to help the chances of that need to be done...

[Spike76]

Primitive ways are fine, if the majority wants them. Don't let a few people decide for all of us. The most primitive way of fishing is spearing and a few want that to be gone. They have experimental slots to get bigger pike so they can run from lake to lake catching large pike, with their big boats and all their fancy fishfinders and depthfinders. I don't know anyone who wants the slots, but we have them so I wouldn't be surprised to see different regs come into play when the people I know, don't want them. Special interest groups have lobbiests, and get what they want. We have to stick together and be heard, so a few don't change our treasured pastimes. My inline got my deer meat this last year, and it would be a long year without it.

[lakevet]

I have an in-line and have hardly shot it in the past few years, however, are they not in general more accurate and more effective than other styles? I've never owned or shot any other muzzys so I do not know first hand... but if they shoot more accurately with better effective stopping power, wouldn't i tbe in the best interest for the GAME to allow them? To me a quick, clean kill is the main objective, and anything you can do to help the chances of that need to be done...

No matter what weapon is used, a consistent clean kill only happens when a responsible hunter who is familiar with their weapon, their weapons limitations, and MOST IMPORTANT the hunters own limitations and they stay within those. Had friend who wounded deer with 30/30, then went with 30/06 and wounded/lost deer, finally was up to 375 H&H scoped and still wounded deer. Never hunted with him and he never would listen to anyone's advice.

The only thing that needs to be done is to have a weapon that you know well, practice regularly, sight in each year and take only shots you are confident taking, and not taking a flier but instead choose to pass on a 200" buck because he is at a distance outside your weapons or your abilities. Very simple.

lakevet

[lakevet]

My son is planning on buying a new in-line muzzy - now what should he do?

I spent a lot of $$ on my Thompson Encore a few years ago.

I know there are differing views on what type of muzzy should be allowed during this special season. What shouldn't be allowed is politician's trying to flipflop the rules at sportsman's expense. They allowed in-lines a few years ago, a bunch of folks spent a bunch of money on them and for that reason I think in-lines should continue to still be allowed.

Have him hunt shotgun zone with it during regular firearms season! He can even scope it too!

I know more than one trophy hunter who long ago went to using a scoped muzzleloader for sniping long range rut stupid bucks in farm country during regular firearms because the modern muzzleloader was legal but a 30/06 wasn't.

Everyone can still use their inlines, scoped even. Just will be during regular firearms season. This is an option that has been available to everyone for decades.

lakevet

[cavalierowner]

I have thought about this a lot since the thread was first started. When I bought my first ML, I bought a traditional caplock because I decided if I was going to have a ML, it was going to look like a ML. I seriously considered a flinter but I decided against it because it sounded like too fussy for deer hunting for me as a beginner. So that's my background.

As much as I would like to see a traditional only requirement, even though I would probably lose at least one of my hunting partners, I am concerned it wouldn't be fair to those who have the inlines. If "they" are concerned about inlines for the ML season, the time to address that would have been when inlines first started to be used. Heck, who says they may someday want to ban caplocks. Then they decide to go further back and ban flinters. Maybe we all need to run out and buy a matchlock.

My feeling is that they need to find a way to put technology on hold the way it is now and keep inlines they way they are now. Let's not allow any more new technology to show up on any ML. And I especially would fight any change that would allow scopes.

My other concern, maybe unfounded, is that there may be some animal rights or antigun nut case behind this move. In fact, it's what tipped me over the edge to the inline side. It sounds too much like banning firearms to me. You know, foot-in-door and all that.

[LABS4ME]

I have an in-line and have hardly shot it in the past few years, however, are they not in general more accurate and more effective than other styles? I've never owned or shot any other muzzys so I do not know first hand... but if they shoot more accurately with better effective stopping power, wouldn't i tbe in the best interest for the GAME to allow them? To me a quick, clean kill is the main objective, and anything you can do to help the chances of that need to be done...

I own a side hammer percussion muzzy and an in-line. Why is everyones perception that an inline is more accurate? The accuracy came from advancements in powder and bullets... not in the source or placement of the ignition system. If I use a patched round ball and 90g of loose powder in my inline, I doubt if there would be a perceivable difference at 50 yards in my inline or side lock... vice versa if I use 2 pellets and a sabot in a modern side lock and an inline, I again would expect the same accuracy at say 75 to 100 yards.

The long range accuracy touted by in-line companys come from using max powder, lighter weight sabot bullet and a SCOPE. Take the scope out of the equation and most guys will limit any shot to under a 100 yards. There is only percieved differences in accuracy and realistically we are still for the most part limited to shots under a 100 yards no matter what gun you choose.

If the politicians truely want a primitive system, they will need to go to flintlock like Pennsylvania has. That defintely has no chance of being a 'modern' muzzleloader. they should also mandate loose powder and patched round balls or maxi-balls. That takes speed loading out of the equation. I wouldn't agree to these changes, but then you have a true primitive season.

I know there are .209 systems available for side hammer muzzys and at that point, the only difference between that gun and an inline is the primer dumps it's fire in from the side of the barrel vs. the breech of the barrel. Using a modern barrel and powder pellets, a sabot and fiber optic sights, you in essence are using the same gun as a modern inline that just 'looks' old.

Good Luck1

Ken

[K_Josh87]

I don't have any experience with anything else, so it was more of a question than a statement I guess.

Bruce, that being said, I most likely will not go purchase another muzzy and my inline would now be useless to me, and pretty invaluable to trade for another gun. I think your thoughts on a move towards "banning" or limiting hunting all together is a very realistic thought... Antis are fighting everything out there... From logging, to our in states egg production, hog confinement, trapping, and hunting, its a very REAL threat... and they have the money to get what they want done... If you want to keep eating at a fair price, and hunting as you wish, think about things a bit...

Eliminate inlines, then it will be compound bows... Then heck why not shot guns and rifles? May as well just make it a sling shot season to begin with...

I'm not saying its going to happen, or soon, but they will try, probably have been trying already... and this is how we lose the thing we enjoy doing, or it gets so dang expensive to do... or the food we eat gets more and more expensive...

sorry for the rant, but its just a few thoughts on it to think about before supporting anything that Limits our current hunting rights, it will be one thing after the next... so be careful what you support...