This is a post from a forum in Oregon. In case you guys in Alaska are not aware of it you are on the list also. So I would suggest that you respond to the BS as have other states hunting organizations have. Georgia is the only state that has caved in to the BS lawsuit.
How do you guys feel about some fellow from Missouri telling you how you you should hunt? aye!!??
I'd email the dude and tell him to stick to MKissouri and mind his own business. AZs we here in Oregon have done.
Backcountry Hunters and Anglers told the guy to stick it@!!!
Below is a post from ifish.net:
Warning: This is a rant and a call to action for those who are so inclined.
HPML is High Performance Muzzleloading, and if you haven't heard of them, you're not alone. It seems to be an online magazine/lobbying organization funded by Knight Rifles. They've filed a complaint against ODFW and 14 other state game agencies claiming that regulations prohibiting the use of scopes during muzzleloader-only seasons violate the civil rights of hunters with poor eyesight. The goal of the complaint is to get the Interior Department to withhold funding for these state game agencies until they allow scopes during muzzleloader seasons.
They've got a page about this on their web site here.
What bothers me the most about this, aside from the bogus "civil rights" aspect of the complaint, is that this group has absolutely no representation among Oregon hunters. They ran a survey on their web site asking for input on their site and they got zero responses from Oregon. Not only that, but the Oregon muzzleloader regulations have been designed to represent the views of Oregon muzzleloader hunters as the result of a survey taken in 1999. In that survey 79% of the respondents (all of them Oregon muzzleloader hunters) said that scopes should be illegal.
I just talked to a guy at ODFW and he said they're aware of the complaint, but that there's nothing they can do until the Dept. of Interior issues a ruling. He said that if scopes are allowed, it will probably result in fewer tags being issued to make up for the increased harvest that would result. This really [whoopsydaisies!] me off, and if it does you too, you can make your feelings known by writing a polite email to the guy (who's from Missouri, by the way) who is pushing this whole thing. He replied to the email I sent him yesterday by saying that he was going to see this through and that I would just "have to get used to it." I don't think I will "get used to it." His email is firstname.lastname@example.org
I'm done ranting now. Thanks for reading this far.
Yep. Here's their hit list, although Georgia has apparently already given in.
Do you have any links to the websites so we can get some more info on this? Thanks.
From what I can tell, Alaska is pretty well covered. You can use MLs with scopes during the regular season, but not during the special seasons. The reasoning is that they want to limit the effective range of weapons during the special hunts.
I've tinkered with scoped MLs during the regular season, while using open sighted ones during the special seasons. A friend is right when he says scoping a ML is like putting a jet engine on a cropduster. I've got no problem with open sighted inlines during the special seasons because any range advantage they offer doesn't hold up without a scope. I'm good to about 100 yards with traditional or inlines and open sights, but put a scope on an inline and give me a rest, and I could make killing shots pretty reliably at 200 yards- defeating the whole point behind the special hunts in the bargain.
Shooting both has been enough to show me that it's the right approach for limiting effective range. Some states such as Colorado don't allow use of scopes or sabots in the ML season. Same reasoning applies.
If I was god of game regs, I'd simply shut down the special seasons if a suit was filed and the plaintiffs prevailed. Faced with that, I bet Knight and whoever else would take a harder look at their "position."
So why isn't Penn, that not only prohibits scopes but restriicts muzzle loqder hunts to flint locks only on the list? Although I like scopes, I have no problem at all with the no scope rule. Personally, I'd rather see them go back to the "traditional" muzzleloaders rather then the high tech weapons now. But of course, that's just me and I may be wrong.
Originally Posted by mod elan
Here is the link to the newspaper article that started the mess
and here is the link to the HPML web site
Here is the email address and the snail mail address of the fed guy we need to let him know that primative hunts should stay primative!
US Fish and Wildlife Service
Division of Federal Assistance
4401 North Fairfax Drive
Mail Stop MBSP-4020,
Arlington, Virginia 22203
Muzzleloading with scopes
The problem is that I don't see any manufacturers out there making primitive scopes that they mention in the online article. If they want to insist that muzzleloading rifles are primitive and traditional with scopes, just because scopes were invented in 1840, they would have to use scopes from that period (or true replicas) to remain primitive.
I am from Oregon, and my Dad and I regularly hunt with muzzleloaders. And we get a bigger thrill from hunting the traditional way. With patched round balls, percussion cap rifles, open sights and traditional rifles instead of inlines. We found when you hunt this way it is more rewarding in the end. The harder you work for your deer or elk the sweeter the reward. I agree with the ODFW in making this a traditional hunt, as it was intended to be. If I wanted to hunt with a scoped rifle I would get an over the counter deer tag and do it. If you want to hunt with an inline muzzleloader with sabot bullets, pyrodex pellets, 209 primers and scopes you can all you want but you have to hunt during the regular season. In Oregon the hunters all decided how the muzzleloader rules should be not ODFW.