Proposed change for Muzzeloaders??

[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.

[B. Amish]

isn't there another bill proposing to allow scopes on muzzle loaders?

these would seem to contradict each other...?

[lichen fox]

If you go to the Minnesota State Legislature HSOforum and read the entire bill, you will see that that provission is included in this bill...the "point" however is they have sticken muzzleloader and replaced it with primitive firearms ....In the first part of the bill they define primitive firearms ...Subd. 37a. Primitive firearm. "Primitive firearm" means a side hammer firearm with flintlock or caplock ignition. ....they strick through muzzleloader every where in the bill....I would take that as "in-line" muzzleloaders are no longer recognized as primitive weapon...It also says that they will establish a "primitive firearms" season...does that mean, they are going to have another season for flintlock and caplock rifles or will the muzzleloader season as we know it only allow flintlock and caplock rifles??

[Gordie]

I would have to say that you are correct lichen fox.

[mntatonka]

this is a bill that people need to keep from passing. There's already a primitive weapon season, it's called muzzleloader season. If you want to use a flintlock, then use a flintlock.

We need the unrestricted scopes on muzzleloaders bill to pass. If people don't want to put a scope on their muzzleloader, then they certainly don't have to.

The number of muzzleloader hunters is so low and insignificant now, that there's no reason to restrict them any more than they already are.

[lichen fox]

The main "point" here is not "the use of scopes"...it is the redefining of primitive weapons to exclude modern day, in-line muzzleloaders...I really wouldn't have a problem with only allowing side-hammer flintlock and caplock rifles during the muzzleloader season and I really believe that is the direction that they are taking on this...you could still use your in-line during the regular firearms/slug seasons, but not during "muzzleloader/primitive weapons" season...I know there will be alot of unhappy inline owners if that is indeed the case...however it is evident by past discussions on the topic of muzzleloader hunting seasons that many already think the numbers of hunters are rising too fast for that season in ceratain areas of the state...Perhaps this is intended to cut back on the number of muzzy hunters...perhaps it's meant to provide a separate season for flintlock and caplock hunters...It will be interesting to see how it unfolds and if it passes as is or with revisions...

[B. Amish]

muzzy season has become an extension of the firearm season. are they as successful... NO. but, they sure do put a lot more pressure on the deer herd.

i too would like to see it returned to the primative weapon status that it was originally intended as.

[goblueM]

The main "point" here is not "the use of scopes"...it is the redefining of primitive weapons to exclude modern day, in-line muzzleloaders...I really wouldn't have a problem with only allowing side-hammer flintlock and caplock rifles during the muzzleloader season and I really believe that is the direction that they are taking on this...you could still use your in-line during the regular firearms/slug seasons, but not during "muzzleloader/primitive weapons" season...I know there will be alot of unhappy inline owners if that is indeed the case...however it is evident by past discussions on the topic of muzzleloader hunting seasons that many already think the numbers of hunters are rising too fast for that season in ceratain areas of the state...Perhaps this is intended to cut back on the number of muzzy hunters...perhaps it's meant to provide a separate season for flintlock and caplock hunters...It will be interesting to see how it unfolds and if it passes as is or with revisions...

Down here in VA you can use scopes on your muzzleloader, inline, whatever. Muzzy season is BEFORE regular firearm season. You wouldn't believe how many muzzy hunters there are... it is insane. So you are definitely on track with the growth of muzzy hunters and effectiveness and pressure on the deer herd

[ANYFISH2]

After reading this I believe licken fox is on to something.

I am a owner of a in-line muzzeloader and do believe that taking in-lines out and making the season a true primitive weapon season is a great idea. The new in-lines are more or less a single shot rifle, IMO. If I could hunt with a scope on mine, I know it is more accurate than my 30-30 at 200 yds.

I also would not be against another special season for just primative's also. But would prefer just changing the exsisting season.

This should get intersting to read going forward.

[bowhunternw]

If it is a change to a more primative season, then I support that. That was the whole intent in the first place. If they are just adding another season then I am completely against it.

[mwal]

My Thoughts are that they are going restrict the current muzzle loader season to actual traditional side lock muzzle loaders. IF you have an in-line you will have to hunt during the regular firearms season. In-lines are really not primitive when scoped and accurate out to 200 yards. I think this is what they are trying to do. I use an inline during slug season because its superior to a non rifled slug gun. I have only hunted the muzzle loader season with my .54 cap lock with patched round ball. The inline instead of slug.

Mwal

[Ballyhoo]

I don't agree with it putting more pressure on the herd. if it is putting more pressure on it then the DNR needs to regulate licenses better. They can't control how many people hunt but they can control how many tags are given out. How they are killed shouldn't matter. I can see where more people hunting another season chasing deer might be considered more pressure but as far as overall kill, it shouldn't matter. In northern Mn I know a lot of people hunted muzzy season because they did not kill anything during firearm season.

[Gordie]

this is a bill that people need to keep from passing. There's already a primitive weapon season, it's called muzzleloader season. If you want to use a flintlock, then use a flintlock.

We need the unrestricted scopes on muzzleloaders bill to pass. If people don't want to put a scope on their muzzleloader, then they certainly don't have to.

The number of muzzleloader hunters is so low and insignificant now, that there's no reason to restrict them any more than they already are.

Same can be said about inlines and scopes if you want to put a scope on it hunt with it during rifle season..

The number of muzzle load huntters have increased alot over the introduction of inlines and I would bet that most of the inline users would not of got into it if they were not legal in the first place.

Go back 20 years and find out how many people bought blackpodwer licenses and then look at last years numbers and you will see a very significant rise in numbers.

This also will be higher because you never use to be able to hunt every season either.

I personally don't own side hammer or flintlock but it will be my next gun purchase as thats the way I want to hunt and yes I own 2 in lines and one of them is almost 20 years old.

I would like to ssee this bill pass but I dont think it will due to revenue that the license bring in.

[TonkaBass]

I hope this bill falls flat on its face.

[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.

Just checked and found that he's the guy that got jacked up when he was walking around a Planned Parenthood clinic while carrying. Comments then on line indicated that some thought he was OK, others thought he was going through something and was a bit off on his compass.

[jay83196]

If its less pressure on the heard they are after then perhaps we shouldn't have intesive harvest...year after year in areas.....5 deer really! or even managed areas? Many of us own hundreds or thousands of dollars worth of inline equipment ( and yeah I realize I could use it for regular firearms seasons, that's what my regular rifle is for and not why I purchaseed it!) If someone wants to use a true primitive go for it, but don't judge or punish me for using my inline (still a hell of a lot less accurate/powerful than my 30-06 with a scope). This is yet another example of the ignorance within our legislature or DNR or both. I bow hunt more than anything but I don't judge others for using a rifle, I could argue want primitive get a bow then! What's next should we throw our compounds in the trash and buy recourves too! With all our technology now are muzzleloaders really the biggest threat to the heard!

[mntatonka]

Same can be said about inlines and scopes if you want to put a scope on it hunt with it during rifle season..

The number of muzzle load huntters have increased alot over the introduction of inlines and I would bet that most of the inline users would not of got into it if they were not legal in the first place.

Go back 20 years and find out how many people bought blackpodwer licenses and then look at last years numbers and you will see a very significant rise in numbers.

This also will be higher because you never use to be able to hunt every season either.

I personally don't own side hammer or flintlock but it will be my next gun purchase as thats the way I want to hunt and yes I own 2 in lines and one of them is almost 20 years old.

I would like to ssee this bill pass but I dont think it will due to revenue that the license bring in.

Muzzleloader license sales have actually DECREASED since 2008, when the all season license was eliminated and the muzzleloader numbers actually reflected people that bought muzzleloader licenses (not to mention allowing 3B hunters to hunt muzzleloader). Of course, these numbers depend on which table you read in the DNR's report, since there's quite a few errors that are noticeable this year.

If people are worried about putting less stress on the deer, then if anything the archery season needs to be restricted. There's twice as many archery hunters than muzzleloader hunters and they harvest three times as many deer.

As for complaints about 5 deer zones, very very few people actually have ever used all 5 tags. The estimates from the DNR office were less than one half a percent of hunters actually use more than three of the five tags. Something around 5-10% use three tags, and the other two were split about 50/50 with the remaining hunters.

The muzzleloader season wasn't introduced to be a "primitive" season, it was originally introduced as a "traditional" season, using a single shot weapon loaded at the muzzle. If you want to use a flint lock go ahead, no one is preventing you from doing that. Heck, if I had one, I'd probably use it if I bothered to go muzzleloader hunting anymore. Why should someone who wants to use a flintlock make it so that the person with an in-line can't use their muzzleloader in a season that was designed for a muzzleloader?

[LABS4ME]

The number of muzzle load huntters have increased alot over the introduction of inlines and I would bet that most of the inline users would not of got into it if they were not legal in the first place.

Go back 20 years and find out how many people bought blackpodwer licenses and then look at last years numbers and you will see a very significant rise in numbers.

This also will be higher because you never use to be able to hunt every season either.

I personally don't own side hammer or flintlock but it will be my next gun purchase as thats the way I want to hunt and yes I own 2 in lines and one of them is almost 20 years old.

I would like to ssee this bill pass but I dont think it will due to revenue that the license bring in.

I own both traditional percussion cap side hammer and an inline. I think the legislature is splitting hairs. Keep scopes out of the equation and the differences between the two aren't as great as is being made out. The inline still has to be muzzleloaded, still using iron sights, the main difference is the ability to have your primer protected. I don't see how that would influence reams of hunters to take up muzzleloading.

I first started with a traditional 50 cal, loose powder, round ball and patch and if we go to a primitive season, we need to require all those elements to a traditional hunt. No powder pellets, no conicals, no maxi-balls, no sabots, no fiber optic sights... loose powder, round ball and patch and true iron sights. I would still most likely participate in the hunt, but can honestly say I am more confident every time I pull the trigger with my in line, (no hang fire, more accurate) and know that the deer will be harvested than with the old school. And I do not feel my distance is excessive. With open sights I keep my shots well under 100 yards with my inline (never shot anything over 40 yards anyways) and maybe 70 yards with my old .50 cal carbine.

Improvements to hunting and fishing products happen all the time. We need to not worry about what each other chooses to pursue their sport as long as they are ethical. I hunted with a custom made recurve for years and would never look down at an Archer using the newest and greatest compound. Sure his ability to take a deer was greater at longer distances, but in reality, he was still limited to fairly close shots... he still had to develop hunting skills... I now hunt with a compound, but may in the future get my recurve out and see if that spark is till in me. Those are my choices.

just think if all this primitive debate happened in the fishing industry with all the high teck sonars, gps, trolling motors, big stealthy boats, underwater cameras etc. We except those changes and hold our standards as sportsman to remain ethical in pursuit of fish, we cna do the same in the shooting sports. Inlines are still loaded from the muzzle, give you a one shot opportunity, open sights still limit the distance you can effectively take a deer, the rest of the differences are semantics. If you want to go traditional, do so by all means... the gentleman who got me doing it went so far as to wera bucksins and moccosin style boots... he was a traditionalist and while he would never shoot an inline, I never heard him say anything bad about them. He reserved his judgement as personal opinion. He did not like the free and easy access for the multitudes of hunters who could hunt the rifle season and turn around and still hunt the muzzy season. That is the biggest change in the past 20 years. He longed for it to go back to make your choice, rifle or muzzy... then the loader you choose will not be in a debate as the muzzy licenses will fall dramatically.

Good Luck!

Ken

[lakevet]

This likely is a move so that when the pro scope bill is paired against this in negotiations, they compromise and agree to leave things as they are. This bill likely would not have been introduced if the scoping bill wasn't attempted, as happens year after year. I see it as a route for maintenance of existing regulations.

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.

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.

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.

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 you need TWO seasons to use your more effective 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 your 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

[Jameson]

...you have to give up all other firearms seasons to be able to hunt that season....that the original muzzleloader season worked so well and it worked very, very well for MANY years.

Nope. Not buying it.

If the firearms season was in December and the muzzy season was on the rut than us hunters would flock to the muzzy season even if we did only have to choose one season. Us having to choose one season coupled with the timings of our firearms/muzzy seasons were the reason the original muzzy season happened to work so well.

[lakevet]

The easier rut hunt is a draw for many. As is the allowance of using multi-shot, scoped, very reliable long range weapons. However no one had ever proposed Muzzy during the rut. The idea always was for muzzleloading to be later to make it less appealing to hunters not primarily muzzleloaders and more difficult to get a deer. That acted as a natural check and balance to keep the hunt from over harvesting deer without having to do a bunch of micromanagement and regulations. That prevented the over harvest of deer the DNR feared at that time. And achieved the hunting publics desires of having a low hunter density hunt that is challenging, even on popular public lands without any impact on the rest of the deer hunting public.

No matter what, glad you see that the season had worked very well before it was modified.

lakevet

[PFUNK]

Using your scoped 209 primed muzzleloader INCREASES YOUR EFFECTIVNESS and INCREASES THE HARVEST IN MUZZLELOADER SEASON.

I don't think the use of scopes is the question in this thread. It is that this bill appears to aim at no longer allowing the use of inline muzzleloaders, if I am not mistaken. I personally find that to be pretty much ridiculous. When you take all of these hunters out of the equation... there is going to be a loss in license sales revenue right? There will be lost sales in our local sporting goods shops. Where will the DNR make up the lost profit? Just curious.

It is your opinion that it is better to impose restrictions on the technology as opposed to imposing restrictions on harvest regulations. While you are certainly titled to an opinion on the matter that I will completely respect, I and many others may not agree with that opinion.

Like someone said earlier, are we supposed to ban compound bows because they are effective out to say 50 yards while the poor guys who like their long bows can only shoot out to 30? I get tired of the whole "Hey I don't want to use that as a hunter so you shouldn't be able to use it either!" mantra. In a perfect democratic system the voice of the people is heard and the majority rules. Only way to govern legislation is to urge your legislators to do what you feel is best. Talk loud or you won't be heard.

[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

[Bear55]

I think you nailed it lakevet, just a bunch of hot air and nothing gets changed.