Click On Photos To Enlarge
What Is Happening With Muzzleloader Hunting?
Can you remember when your state first held a muzzleloader deer or other big game season? Can you remember when modern in-line ignition rifles were first allowed...or saboted bullets...or scopes on muzzle-loaded rifles during a special muzzleloader season?
All of these things came about because enough of us wanted them...and because an aggressive muzzleloader industry went to bat and fought to get what the vast majority of us now use legalized. None of these things were offered freely by state fish and wildlife agencies. For the most part, during the 1970s...1980s...1990s, the majority of those agencies did not know enough about muzzleloading or muzzleloader hunting to intelligently address the topic...or for that matter the regulations needed to serve ALL muzzleloading hunters. And there are still a handful of state game departments who still do not know.
As a whole, today's muzzleloading industry has gotten pretty lame. Few companies who cater to today's muzzleloader hunter still actively fight for more sensible muzzleloader regulations or new muzzleloader hunting opportunities. And that's a damned shame, and an insult to those who have always fought to better our sport.
In this day and age, it is sad to realize that 11 states still discriminate against older hunters (now the majority of today's hunters) who cannot see and use open sights well enough to be able to participate in the muzzleloader seasons now held in THEIR state. Just as sad, OUR muzzleloading insudstry continues to do nothing to take on those state wildlife agencies which continue to deny hunters the right to use a scope during the muzzleloader seasons.
(Only one state in the country DOES NOT have a muzzleloader season - MONTANA. This state's Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks is totally out of touch with hunting today.)
North American Muzzleloader Hunting will continue to fight for the changes needed to keep our muzzleloader seasons open...for expanded muzzleloader hunting opportunities...and to make muzzleloader hunting appealing to ALL muzzleloading shooters and hunters. The sponsors listed at the bottom of our Home page are the only members of the Muzzleloading Industry who are actively supporting fair and equal muzzleloader hunting opportunities in this country. Please support them.
Following is a letter that has gone to Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar, filing a formal complaint against one of the states which continues to discriminate against older muzzleloader hunters or hunters with some sight impairment.
Toby Bridges
NORTH AMERICAN
MUZZLELOADER HUNTING
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
All of these things came about because enough of us wanted them...and because an aggressive muzzleloader industry went to bat and fought to get what the vast majority of us now use legalized. None of these things were offered freely by state fish and wildlife agencies. For the most part, during the 1970s...1980s...1990s, the majority of those agencies did not know enough about muzzleloading or muzzleloader hunting to intelligently address the topic...or for that matter the regulations needed to serve ALL muzzleloading hunters. And there are still a handful of state game departments who still do not know.
As a whole, today's muzzleloading industry has gotten pretty lame. Few companies who cater to today's muzzleloader hunter still actively fight for more sensible muzzleloader regulations or new muzzleloader hunting opportunities. And that's a damned shame, and an insult to those who have always fought to better our sport.
In this day and age, it is sad to realize that 11 states still discriminate against older hunters (now the majority of today's hunters) who cannot see and use open sights well enough to be able to participate in the muzzleloader seasons now held in THEIR state. Just as sad, OUR muzzleloading insudstry continues to do nothing to take on those state wildlife agencies which continue to deny hunters the right to use a scope during the muzzleloader seasons.
(Only one state in the country DOES NOT have a muzzleloader season - MONTANA. This state's Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks is totally out of touch with hunting today.)
North American Muzzleloader Hunting will continue to fight for the changes needed to keep our muzzleloader seasons open...for expanded muzzleloader hunting opportunities...and to make muzzleloader hunting appealing to ALL muzzleloading shooters and hunters. The sponsors listed at the bottom of our Home page are the only members of the Muzzleloading Industry who are actively supporting fair and equal muzzleloader hunting opportunities in this country. Please support them.
Following is a letter that has gone to Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar, filing a formal complaint against one of the states which continues to discriminate against older muzzleloader hunters or hunters with some sight impairment.
Toby Bridges
NORTH AMERICAN
MUZZLELOADER HUNTING
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
North American Muzzleloader Hunting
Todays No. 1 Source for Muzzleloader Hunting Information & Load Data
December 27, 2011
Honorable Ken Salazar
Secretary
U.S. Department of the Interior
1849 C Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20240
Dear Secretary Salazar;
This letter is to file a formal complaint of discrimination against the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources.
In 2006, North American Muzzleloader Hunting filed a complaint with the Department of the Interior against 15 state wildlife agencies which continued to enforce regulations that prohibit the hunter wishing to participate in the special muzzleloader big game hunting seasons from using a telescopic rifle sight. It was our contention that due to specific state restrictions placed on many hunters who cannot see open sights well enough to ethically and accurately place their shots, those hunters were being denied the opportunity to enjoy these seasons.
The fact is, the majority of today's hunters are well into their 40s and older, a time in life when eyesight begins to weaken, especially the ability of the eye to shift focus rapidly enough in order for a rear sight...a front sight...and a deer standing at 50...75...100 yards to remain reasonably aligned for precise shot placement. By reducing "sighting" to a single focal plane, a riflescope (a.k.a. telescopic rifle sight) would permit these hunters to hunt these seasons.
The reason why this complaint is being filed with the Department of the Interior is that your agency is in violation of its own
anti-discrimination policies when it continues to provide federal assistance and funding to the Minnesota DNR. By forcing such discriminating regulations, that agency does not qualify for such funding or financial aid. Unless the DOI has more recently changed the wording of its policy in regards to discrimination, your department cannot provide U.S. tax dollars to any agency or organization which openly discriminates against any U.S. citizen - not even the disbursement of Pittman-Robertson Funds.
Any regulation which segregates a hunter with aged or impaired eyesight is indeed discrimination.
When the original North American Muzzleloader Hunting complaint was filed with the DOI in 2006, four states did the right thing and changed their muzzleloader hunting regulations to permit ALL hunters to use a magnifying riflescope.
Those states were Georgia, Kansas, Nebraska and Wisconsin. The DOI/USFWS did require the other 11 states to make special provisions for those hunters who MUST use an optical sight. In addition to Minnesota, those states are Alaska,
California, Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, and Washington.
What the state wildlife agencies in these states now have in place (or are supposed to) require that a hunter requiring the use of a riflescope in order to hunt the muzzleloader season(s) complete a special exemption application, then undergo an examination by a physician or doctor of optometry, and to include a letter from that doctor, and submit all of this in order to qualify to use a riflescope during the muzzleloader big game seasons.
All of this is just another form of discrimination. By making the hunter with aged or impaired sight to jump through these
hoops in order to take part in these recreational opportunities is requiring them to "qualify" in an entirely different manner than those hunters who simply claim to have good enough eyesight for proper shot placement.
The Department of the Interior anti-discrimination policies prohibit such requirement.
This complaint is specifically against the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources...whose regulation reads -
"Only open and 'peep' type sights (including those with fiber optic material) are legal during the muzzleloader deer season. Scopes, including holographic or 'red dot' scopes, are not legal for this season, except for use of non-magnifying scopes by special permit for persons with medically verified visual impairments. A permit application is available by calling the DNR Information Center (see page 126)."
This regulation serves absolutely no one. In fact, it goes against all ethics of hunting, by requiring all hunters to use sights that the majority of today's hunters cannot see well enough to use.
North American Muzzleloader Hunting feels that until the Minnesota muzzleloader hunting regulations adhere to U.S. Department of the Interior anti-discrimination policies, all federal funding, financial assistance and disbursement of Excise Tax dollars collected on firearms, ammunition, archery gear, fishing tackle, etc. to the Minnesota DNR should be
withheld.
Over the course of the next month, we will be scrutinizing the muzzleloader hunting regulations in the other 10 states (listed previously), and if hunters in those states are also required to "qualify in a different manner" in order to ethically hunt the muzzleloader seasons, we will follow up with formal complaints against the wildlife agencies in those states as well.
Sincerely,
Toby Bridges,
NORTH AMERICAN
MUZZLELOADER HUNTING
North American Muzzleloader Hunting
100 Parker Court - Missoula, MT 59801
E-mail - toby@namlhunt.com
________________________________________________________________________________________
Claims Made By State Game Departments In Regard To Scoping Muzzleloaders
When North American Muzzleloader Hunting first undertook legalizing scopes during the muzzleloader seasons in ALL states back in July 2006, it was interesting to hear and read state wildlife agency arguments AGAINST scopes.
The agencies in Colorado, California and Idaho, plus a few others, tried to plead that the regulations they had in place were to insure a "traditional" or "primitive" hunting experience. A common comment was, something to the effect of, "Riflescopes would detract from that opportunity, since they were not used on original muzzleloaders." And that shows a bit more of their ignorance of muzzleloaders and the development of shooting equipment. The rifle at right is fitted with a modern copy of the circa 1855 Wm. Malcom "telescopic rifle sight". And prior to this "scope", such optical sighting systems were built by a number of riflemakers and optometrists, as early as 1840. In short, riflescopes were around during most of the original percussion rifle era.
Another argument was that scopes tended to encourage hunters to take shots outside of the effective range of a muzzleloader. But none of the agencies making such claims could reference any official study that verified that as a fact. But, that does bring up the question... "What is the effective range of a muzzle-loaded big game rifle?"
Well, that depends on the style of rifle, the rifling twist of the bore, the powder charge used, and the type of projectile being shot. The traditional patched round ball rifle load data at http://www.namlhunt.com/traditionalmldata1.html shows that a .50 caliber rifle of that style, shooting a 178- to 181-grain soft lead ball, even with a heavy charge of black powder, drops under the minimum energy level (800 f.p.e.) needed for cleanly taking deer-sized game at just 50 to 60 yards. On the other hand, a true .45 bullet rifle of the late 1840s to early 1850s design, shooting a 400- to 500-grain soft lead bullet can maintain the velocity and energy needed for game as large as elk to 200+ yards. And those rifles, and the telescopic rifle sights often found on them, are just as "traditional" as any percussion patched round ball shooting Hawken of the same period.
State wildlife agencies are trying to regulate the distance game is taken with a muzzleloader by forcing the use of more ineffectual loads and the ability of the shooter to precisely place those shots. And due to such idiotic thinking, we are likely suffering far more wound loss than the "experts" can even begin to realize.
This issue is sure to create a lot of friction between modern day muzzleloading hunters and the extreme traditional patched round ball shooters. It always does. But, there is a reason why the staunch traditional side of muzzleloader hunting now makes up less than 10-percent of all muzzleloading hunters in the U.S. Muzzleloader hunting regulations need to reflect the wants and needs of the 90-percent majority. And that's what we will fight for here. - Toby Bridges
Published 12-27-11
To Comment On This Topic...Please Go To This Link To The North American Muzzleloader Hunting Blog...
http://namlhunt.blogspot.com/2011/12/eleven-states-still-discriminate.html
The agencies in Colorado, California and Idaho, plus a few others, tried to plead that the regulations they had in place were to insure a "traditional" or "primitive" hunting experience. A common comment was, something to the effect of, "Riflescopes would detract from that opportunity, since they were not used on original muzzleloaders." And that shows a bit more of their ignorance of muzzleloaders and the development of shooting equipment. The rifle at right is fitted with a modern copy of the circa 1855 Wm. Malcom "telescopic rifle sight". And prior to this "scope", such optical sighting systems were built by a number of riflemakers and optometrists, as early as 1840. In short, riflescopes were around during most of the original percussion rifle era.
Another argument was that scopes tended to encourage hunters to take shots outside of the effective range of a muzzleloader. But none of the agencies making such claims could reference any official study that verified that as a fact. But, that does bring up the question... "What is the effective range of a muzzle-loaded big game rifle?"
Well, that depends on the style of rifle, the rifling twist of the bore, the powder charge used, and the type of projectile being shot. The traditional patched round ball rifle load data at http://www.namlhunt.com/traditionalmldata1.html shows that a .50 caliber rifle of that style, shooting a 178- to 181-grain soft lead ball, even with a heavy charge of black powder, drops under the minimum energy level (800 f.p.e.) needed for cleanly taking deer-sized game at just 50 to 60 yards. On the other hand, a true .45 bullet rifle of the late 1840s to early 1850s design, shooting a 400- to 500-grain soft lead bullet can maintain the velocity and energy needed for game as large as elk to 200+ yards. And those rifles, and the telescopic rifle sights often found on them, are just as "traditional" as any percussion patched round ball shooting Hawken of the same period.
State wildlife agencies are trying to regulate the distance game is taken with a muzzleloader by forcing the use of more ineffectual loads and the ability of the shooter to precisely place those shots. And due to such idiotic thinking, we are likely suffering far more wound loss than the "experts" can even begin to realize.
This issue is sure to create a lot of friction between modern day muzzleloading hunters and the extreme traditional patched round ball shooters. It always does. But, there is a reason why the staunch traditional side of muzzleloader hunting now makes up less than 10-percent of all muzzleloading hunters in the U.S. Muzzleloader hunting regulations need to reflect the wants and needs of the 90-percent majority. And that's what we will fight for here. - Toby Bridges
Published 12-27-11
To Comment On This Topic...Please Go To This Link To The North American Muzzleloader Hunting Blog...
http://namlhunt.blogspot.com/2011/12/eleven-states-still-discriminate.html