Utah Wildlife Forum banner
41 - 60 of 138 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,209 Posts
I think you are right. Do you think they would add a separate "primitive " season just to satisfy folks?
If they did, they will replace the current late muzzy hunts on the general units with a “primitive” hunt. They really should bump the season back and make it a “traditional” hunt. Recurves/long bows and old muzzleloaders only. You’d increase opportunity, kill less animals and push more people through the point system
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,401 Posts
I’m very aware of the needs in equipment besides the scope, but let’s see you take the rifle (barrel), powder and bullet and kill an animal at 800 yards with open sights. Yes, hypothetically it can be done. Hypothetically. You get the point.




It’s not about saving the herds. You quoted my post with me saying this very thing very clearly and then asked about saving the herds again. It has NOTHING to do with biology. Nothing we’re talking about is going to impact the health of the herds. For the record, I’m NOT one of the people pushing for this change. I’m also honest enough to admit there is logic behind the push, even if I don’t necessarily agree with it, because there is logic behind it.
Yes, hypothetically it can be done.

I would refer you to Matthew Quigley ;)

It’s not about saving the herds...Nothing we’re talking about is going to impact the health of the herds.

Not all things are directly related to biology for herd health. We all know the ability to effectively kill a monster buck at 658 yds with a blackpowder setup repeated 34 times over the last 5 years will most certainly and absolutely have an impact on the herd over time, especially if those 170 bucks posses the genes for brute strength, stamina, and the ability to survive a harsh winter. Hypothetically. Will increased harvest data cause a decrease in the number of permits issued? Maybe. Mostly because too many bucks are being taken out to help replenish the herd from natural death to predation, cars, and winter kill. Hypothetically.

Now that we've established that limiting magnification has no impact on herd health, what's the logic for the push? Must be someone else's definition of "fair chase" or the nostalgia of the persona to Davy Crocket or Daniel Boone while deer hunting.

Certainly the effectiveness of killing top gene pool animals shouldn't play a role in it, after all, trail cams don't really aid in the shooting of specific animals, do they?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,549 Posts
Yes, hypothetically it can be done.

I would refer you to Matthew Quigley ;)
THAT, was a good movie. But lets mention an actual, historically well known and recorded long shot with black powder propellant, its more interesting.

Billy Dixon in the 2nd battle of Adobe Walls, was a known good marksmen. Indians retreated to a nearby hill top to replan their attack. Billy was talked into taking a long shot at them, which he did... cleanly killing one of the warriors. The army corp of engineers later surveyed the distance at a wopping 1,538 yards. That ended the battle, the Indians were so demoralized they gave up and left.

Mathew Quigley's movie shot was estimated at 780'ish yards... roughly half of what Billy Dixon actually pulled off in front of a fort full of witnesses.

-DallanC
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
10,481 Posts
But that is why they call it the any weapon hunt.

If it was about the hurd health they'd cut tags drastically and let the herds recover, that is if they can. On that note I believe that both the Henry Mountain and Book Cliffs units were shut down for 5 years and I think that one was longer to let the deer recover.

But as I mentioned before, the furthest that I have shot at a animal with a muzzle loader is 120 yards with all the others being under 100 yards. So if you can't find a open sight system to shoot at those ranges why hunt with a muzzle loader?

Sent from my SM-J737V using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,260 Posts
If it was about the hurd health they'd cut tags drastically and let the herds recover, that is if they can.
The only way this is true is if the inferred poor herd health was due to hunting. This statement would mean hunting is the main limiting factor for the deer herds in Utah. I would disagree with that.

On that note I believe that both the Henry Mountain and Book Cliffs units were shut down for 5 years and I think that one was longer to let the deer recover.
Weren’t these shut downs when they were going from general season to LE? And an attempt to let there be older age class for those specific LE units?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,234 Posts
There are many questioning the health of both the Henry herd and Book Cliff herd. And you would think by that metric Antelope Island should be over run with deer. It is not.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,549 Posts
There are many questioning the health of both the Henry herd and Book Cliff herd. And you would think by that metric Antelope Island should be over run with deer. It is not.
Nor any of our national or state parks where hunting isn't allowed.

-DallanC
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
10,481 Posts
Weren’t these shut downs when they were going from general season to LE? And an attempt to let there be older age class for those specific LE units?
In my opinion both the Henry Mountains and Book Cliff herds were in hurting positions when they were shut down. I had been hunting both units for 10 + years during the antler restriction days and then the Books once they took the restrictions off. While there were a number of hunters in both units there were no where near the numbers when the antler restrictions came off. In both units you could routinely see dozens of 3 pts and smaller bucks all over the place but that first year when they opened it up out in the Books, it was a zoo with all the new hunters. It seamed like everyone abandoned their usual hunting areas to show up down there. There were trains of 4 wheelers on all of the roads and when they went back at night to their camp most of them were carrying a small buck on the racks. The deer after that first year were harder and harder to find even down in the deep canyons. We hunted it in 1995 the year before they shut it down and we were seeing very few mature bucks and most of the young ones were shot on opening weekend and we hunted the whole season.

And from what I heard the same thing happened down on the Henry Mountains.

While the Book Cliffs is a huge area it just didn't stand up to the pressure that was put on it in those few years after they removed the restrictions. Some said that there was a large die off in the wintering area, but all I observed was what happened during the general seasons down there. Even now I don't believe that the herd in the Books is back to what it was in the late 80's and early 90's. The last time I was out there was during the spike elk hunt in 2019 and we saw very few bucks.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,549 Posts
While the Book Cliffs is a huge area it just didn't stand up to the pressure that was put on it in those few years after they removed the restrictions.
Pre-shut down in the hay-day, the bookcliffs used to regularly support 20,000 hunters on it. They shut it down thinking it would recover to support those original hunt #'s but it never did.

IMO, if you look at our earliest records (Lewis and Clark) of mule deer. Even then, they made mention that the Mule Eared Deer were pretty scarce. I believe that the settling of the west, including the absolute war on predators caused conditions where deer absolutely flourished in the vacuum of no predation. Then in the early 1970s when 1080 was banned, the mule deer were firmly established with high populations, but predator populations began to rise in relation to the abundance of deer they could eat. Then you throw in the massive winter kill of 1983, and suddenly you have a large predator population and a much smaller deer population. Things remained status quo for a while with fluctuation herd #s, but then in 1993-94 we got another absolutely massive winter kill... and the herds have never fully recovered from that. Thats when we went to 5 regions... and now the even smaller micro regions.

So much winter range is now developed in alot of areas, you simply cannot carry an over abundance of bucks from one year to the next, because for every buck left around, that's one less doe you can have on a hard winter. And does make the next crop of deer.

Our national and state parks where hunting isnt allowed, should have booming populations of deer. They dont... but they do have alot of predators.

-DallanC
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
392 Posts
Dallan is right on the money.
Predator and Prey.
They will co-exist, but only one will thrive.
Kill every predator you can if you want a healthy Mule deer herd again.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
10,481 Posts
I know that when I started hunting deer in the mid 60's that you hardly ever saw a predator. Cats and bears were shot on sight, but if you wanted a tag they were only a dollar and it was good all year. You would occasionally hear a coyote but would very seldom see one.

Sent from my SM-J737V using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,401 Posts
THAT, was a good movie. But lets mention an actual, historically well known and recorded long shot with black powder propellant, its more interesting.

Billy Dixon in the 2nd battle of Adobe Walls, was a known good marksmen. Indians retreated to a nearby hill top to replan their attack. Billy was talked into taking a long shot at them, which he did... cleanly killing one of the warriors. The army corp of engineers later surveyed the distance at a wopping 1,538 yards. That ended the battle, the Indians were so demoralized they gave up and left.

Mathew Quigley's movie shot was estimated at 780'ish yards... roughly half of what Billy Dixon actually pulled off in front of a fort full of witnesses.

-DallanC
Recall, though, Quigley made the shot standing up.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,401 Posts
If this scope issue was about ‘herd health’,
it would be focused on removing scopes from the any weapon season, not the muzzleloader season.
I agree, what's the point to removing a scope on a muzzleloader if not to give deer a more "sporting chance" at survival?

I see threads all the time about limiting technology that have caused hunters to become very good killers. Being a good killer means fewer tags long term because why?

For rifles, it's range finders because as we all know a rifle cannot function without a scope. Just because the rifle is capable of 300 yd shots doesn't mean the weapon should be rewarded with the ability to do it.

With archery it's releases and slider sights. If anyone has ever used a single pin slider, they know they are absolutely useless if a quick shot opportunity arises.

So, what's the real reason to removing the muzzy scope? There is none if it doesn't have a positive net effect on harvest numbers decreasing...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,549 Posts
All of this conjecture can be solved pretty easy. Someone compare the harvest rates of MLs before and after the scope change went into effect. Spot check the harvest rates of archery and rifle over that same period to catch increased harvests due to herd increases.

I dont think it really changed much other than alot more people suddenly decided to start ML hunting.

-DallanC
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,281 Posts
All of this conjecture can be solved pretty easy. Someone compare the harvest rates of MLs before and after the scope change went into effect. Spot check the harvest rates of archery and rifle over that same period to catch increased harvests due to herd increases.

I dont think it really changed much other than alot more people suddenly decided to start ML hunting.

-DallanC
Here are my MZ results during the deer hunt...

Totally missed a shot at 130yds at a good 4 point. He wandered off with his buddy and then stood there laughing at me for a while until he got bored and walked over the ridge.

Variable power scopes do not make you a better shot. Nor do they make up for lack of practice.

End survey.

Sent from my SM-N976U using Tapatalk
 
41 - 60 of 138 Posts
Top