Muzzleloading question?
- Thread starter skydiver3346
- Start date
Oh, ok. I was the one confused then.
I don't get it either. It's not like we're over burdened with deer. The only limits to the rifle is it has to have an external hammer. I suppose that makes it primitive.:barf: Heck might as well let'em use a 30-06 bolt action with a single shot follower for all the primitive an external hammer is. To make it worse I heard from a reliable source we're going to be allowed to bait deer this year. JEEZ, what next?sundance44s
New member
Don`t forget the deer hunting with dogs in MS. something else I want no part of .
Since we've decided to get into facetious name-calling (oh learned-one) I'll make this my last post in this thread.
Yes, I'd like to 'reduce' the discussion to semantics. I'd like to actually communicate instead of using euphemisms and the old 'you know what I mean by that, wink-wink'. Sorry if that challenges you. What you mean by 'primitive' is not what other people mean, and if you really want to fix this situation you'll use terms that actually describe what you want to say. Part of the problem here is that the use of the term 'primitive' has lead to intentional misinterpretation; many people who don't participate in the muzzleloading sports know full well that we don't mean stone axes, so obviously the term can be applied in any way that they see fit. Yeah, Hawg, just having an external hammer isn't 'primitive', but using that word doesn't communicate what you want to the people you're trying to convince. Unless, of course, you are only speaking to 'those in the know', in which case you're wasting your time - they already agree with you.
I note that the reference to Florida's use of the term is in the past tense - they've obviously learned from their mistake. It does not surprise me that several other states still use the term, however. I am already aware of that and don't take it to be a sign of correct usage. State wildlife agencies are political entities, and admitting errors isn't exactly their forte. If the intent was to show that using the term 'primitive' was proper by citing authority it was misguided.
I was under the impression that the implementation of muzzleloading (primitive/traditional/etc.) deer seasons was done for wildlife management, rather than to provide a more solitary experience for a minority group of specialty equipment users. If I'm wrong, then the various state game agencies have all been guilty of at least misfeasance, and malfeasance at worst; their jobs are to provide effective and humane wildlife and habitat management, and they haven't done that. And it's backfired on them, because they weren't precise enough in their language and the woods are apparently filling up again, with people using 'the wrong kind of weapons.'
Look, the real issue is effective game management. Special archery, muzzleloading, shotgun, high power, etc. seasons are tools that, when used correctly can help ensure that both quality hunting and humane animal management exist now and in the future. One solution in all places will not work; different situations require different application of various regulatory tools. It may well be that Tennessee and/or Mississippi should have very tightly restricted special weapons seasons in some, even all, areas. Certainly the northern and upper peninsula areas of Michigan would benefit from that. But some areas, like southern Michigan, need more hunter-days to control a burgeoning population (there are areas in Illinois where the whitetail population exceeds 300 animals per acre!). I think we all need to work together to guide the politically motivated agencies to use ALL their tools, instead of separating into special interest groups that are only motivated by a sense of political correctness. We aren't there yet, but that's what this debate will degenerate to if we don't take a few minutes to look at the bigger picture.
Yes, I'd like to 'reduce' the discussion to semantics. I'd like to actually communicate instead of using euphemisms and the old 'you know what I mean by that, wink-wink'. Sorry if that challenges you. What you mean by 'primitive' is not what other people mean, and if you really want to fix this situation you'll use terms that actually describe what you want to say. Part of the problem here is that the use of the term 'primitive' has lead to intentional misinterpretation; many people who don't participate in the muzzleloading sports know full well that we don't mean stone axes, so obviously the term can be applied in any way that they see fit. Yeah, Hawg, just having an external hammer isn't 'primitive', but using that word doesn't communicate what you want to the people you're trying to convince. Unless, of course, you are only speaking to 'those in the know', in which case you're wasting your time - they already agree with you.
I note that the reference to Florida's use of the term is in the past tense - they've obviously learned from their mistake. It does not surprise me that several other states still use the term, however. I am already aware of that and don't take it to be a sign of correct usage. State wildlife agencies are political entities, and admitting errors isn't exactly their forte. If the intent was to show that using the term 'primitive' was proper by citing authority it was misguided.
I was under the impression that the implementation of muzzleloading (primitive/traditional/etc.) deer seasons was done for wildlife management, rather than to provide a more solitary experience for a minority group of specialty equipment users. If I'm wrong, then the various state game agencies have all been guilty of at least misfeasance, and malfeasance at worst; their jobs are to provide effective and humane wildlife and habitat management, and they haven't done that. And it's backfired on them, because they weren't precise enough in their language and the woods are apparently filling up again, with people using 'the wrong kind of weapons.'
Look, the real issue is effective game management. Special archery, muzzleloading, shotgun, high power, etc. seasons are tools that, when used correctly can help ensure that both quality hunting and humane animal management exist now and in the future. One solution in all places will not work; different situations require different application of various regulatory tools. It may well be that Tennessee and/or Mississippi should have very tightly restricted special weapons seasons in some, even all, areas. Certainly the northern and upper peninsula areas of Michigan would benefit from that. But some areas, like southern Michigan, need more hunter-days to control a burgeoning population (there are areas in Illinois where the whitetail population exceeds 300 animals per acre!). I think we all need to work together to guide the politically motivated agencies to use ALL their tools, instead of separating into special interest groups that are only motivated by a sense of political correctness. We aren't there yet, but that's what this debate will degenerate to if we don't take a few minutes to look at the bigger picture.
Regardless of what you want to call it, and I like to think that the people that created it should have some say in what it's called, if it was strictly a management issue then there would be no special seasons for certain hunters using certain weapons. Period.
My "learn-ed one" reference was in response to your total dismissal of my interpretation of "why" with absolutely no explanation, whether based on fact or fiction. I see now that all you're doing is assuming like the rest of us. As a matter of fact, that whole post had a condescending tone. The very fact that you would bail out after such a reference tells me that your argument is weak and you know it.
Maybe it's the politics of states like Michigan and Illinois that have more to do with the overpopulation of deer. Modern muzzleloaders can't fix that problem.
My "learn-ed one" reference was in response to your total dismissal of my interpretation of "why" with absolutely no explanation, whether based on fact or fiction. I see now that all you're doing is assuming like the rest of us. As a matter of fact, that whole post had a condescending tone. The very fact that you would bail out after such a reference tells me that your argument is weak and you know it.
Maybe it's the politics of states like Michigan and Illinois that have more to do with the overpopulation of deer. Modern muzzleloaders can't fix that problem.