idaho game commission meeting 2007

[cascadedad]

cascadedad,  That was a very grown up remark about me you made.  I hope you feel like you are the man now.
When A person can no longer use reason, they use insults. I am finished with this thread.  Ron

I live in Washington as I have stated several times.  Here is a link to our regs.

http://wdfw.wa.gov/wlm/game/hunter/huntregs2007.pdf

Please show me where I can get 5 to 10 tags.  There, you were blowing smoke and you didn't have a clue like I said before.  I wasn't insulting you.

I have used reason throughout this thread.  I have asked direct questions about the problems in Idaho and how the proposed change will make a difference.  You have not provided one tidbit of "reason" in the debate as to why the change is a good one.  In the thousands of words Captchee has written in this thread alone, there has been no explanation other than, "We should trust the people who are paid to make the decisions."  As I have pointed out to him, 99% of his words are rabbit trails that just muddy the waters and confuse the issues.

NONYA, up until recently, I didn't believe so, but your last two posts were right on the money.

[captchee]

Cap,I hope you understand yourself because I dont think anyone here besides you has a clue as to what you are trying to get across.What in the hell does me buying surplus doe tags in MT have to do with you wanting to stomp out modern ML hunting in ID?

 nothing . i was asking if  those extra doe tags were where you get you doe hunts you  referred to some time back . nothing less nothing more

[captchee]

I have used reason throughout this thread.  I have asked direct questions about the problems in Idaho and how the proposed change will make a difference.

ahhh no  you have stuck to your “opinion“, thought-out  the thread  .

 As you said you have little time for this subject .
 But since you seem to have the  answer to the million dollar question .

 I ask you  what experience do you have that  supports you opinion ?
  What documentation have you read  about the Idaho situation.  surly this includes   a vast knowledge  of  environmental  impact studies ,  structures of big game migrations and habitat .
  both spring and fall game counts , harvest numbers , mortality rates  with  decades of comparisons to go back on .
 Not to mention the  many state level meetings here in Idaho  you surly made as well as  commission meetings with first hand knowledge of the problem as well as process .
Surly you  at least have many years of first hand knowledge and  experience with  muzzleloading here in Idaho ?

 With out that I would say your not qualified to make any statement as to what will or will not work for this situation . At the very least any statement  or recommendation that should be implemented .

 The only person IMO who has made a valid point , which I have to by the way agree with was sabot shooter  when he ask “ why not just make those areas  that are having problems  into traditional hunts only “
 That to me seems like a logical  request .
 However for what ever reason it wasn’t supported by the fish and game .
 Hopefully soon we will find out  or at least get an answer  to that .

[cascadedad]

Captchee, after reading back through your posts in this thread I would like to bring up a couple of your quotes.

This first one I think explains a lot of your feelings on the issue and it explains why you are so passionate on this subject.

"...warned against the acceptance of to much technologies."  Do your own people have TVs, cars and computers.  Well, obviously you have a computer.  Is that too much technology?  Or were these "technologies" ONLY in regards to what type of weapon you chose to hunt with.  How do slot machines and video poker fit into this whole technology thing?  IF you are truely trying to preserve the tradition of your people, IMO there are many more important "evil technologies" to go after than an inline rifle.  That is all your business, but this whole arguement is very hypocritical.

"The acceptance of such technologies would in the end result  not only in the loss of our heritage , our way of life but also  our lands ."  Yes, things have changed.  The land has changed.  Everything has changed.  Again, this little section of your post says a lot.

As to  spears bows and  knives and such .
 I think I would be safe to say that every  American Indian nation , to include  my own people have had folks that warned against  the acceptance of to much technologies .
 The acceptance of such technologies would in the end result  not only in the loss of our heritage , our way of life but also  our lands .

 The warnings are there . They have always been there .
 The question is are we smart enough to learn from the past  or stupid enough to keep repeating  it
 

[cascadedad]

These quotes were taken from post #36 in this thread.  Read your own quotes Captchee.  These quotes are NOT taken out of context.

I really cant see where  there will be any real reduction of impact  over all either .
  Reduction of  harvest in a specific hunt im sure will drop somewhat . But  IMO  the only  real benefit will be in areas that provide no other hunts OR have  a general muzzleloader hunt followed or proceeded by  a permit  or draw only hunt of some kind .

At the same time I can see where  however the state is going . By reducing harvest numbers in the late season muzzleloader hunts  as these hunts are normally after the general  rifle hunts . However there are other hunts that are not  done this way and are before  the general hunts  so ?

 Because we here are aloud to hunt all the different seasons  until we fill our tag  I would agree with you that  that the % of harvest in theory will simply  move up  in the general weapons season  as those hunters  will still fill their tags .

Right here you say you "can't see where there will be any real reduction of impact over all either."  AND "..those hunters will still fill their tags."  This is my point exactly.  I don't have any numbers, facts, studies or anything else to back this up.  This is what I believe based on logical thinking.  (Shifting a few hunters to a different season.......how can that make a difference?)  Based on the vast information you have, you feel the same way.  YOU TYPED IT!!!!!!  Again, this is in post #36, go back and read it.

However as I said before , muzzleloading  here is low man on the pole  and we get impacted first .
Brad Compton  made some statements to this effect in his interview that was done in the  resent issue of Idaho ,Fish and game News .

So, MLing will be impacted first because they are low man.  This first step just happens to be a nice one for the traditionalist.  It in no way affects their "opportunity" and sets them apart as a VERY small group of hunters that basically have no impact on the total numbers.  How convenient?

But basically a in general he said that  right now they are making small adjustments . If no benefits are seen from those adjustments  then in the next few years we can expect to see an impact made not only in archery but also in the general any weapons season  .
 Basically this is just the start  of a change .

This is the kicker.  As I have said many times and as you have also said ("can't see where there will be any real reduction of impact over all either."), this first change will have no impact.   Again, very nice for the traditionalists.  "then in the next few years we can expect to see an impact made not only in archery but also in the general any weapons season.  Basically this is just the start of a change ."  Wow, another bingo for the Traditionalists!!!!!!  No inliners in their season, they were booted into the modern hunts.  THEN, since that change didn't have any impact, the archery and general any wepons seasons will be changed.  NOTE:  YOU DIDN'T MENTION FURTHER CHANGES THAT MIGHT IMPACT THE TRADITIONALISTS!!!!!  That is because there won't be any.  The traditionalists hit the jackpot while everyone else in the state is impacted.

Come on Captchee, the logic here is OBVIOUS to all of us.  You have argued it to the end, but your own statements prove just what you want.

You continue to say that you and the traditionalsist that attend these meetings have had nothing to do with this change.  COME ON GET REAL.  You don't just attend these meetings for the fun of it.  PEOPLE ATTEND THESE MEETINGS WHEN THEY HAVE AN AGENDA!!!!!  To which you have a BIG ONE.

Its very complex and im not sure anyone knows just what the out come will be

No this is not as complex as you would have everyone believe and you know exactly what you are striving for the outcome.  It is very simple from your standpoint.  In the end, every hunter in the state will be negatively impacted except the traditionalist muzzleloader.

Have a nice day and be safe!

[captchee]

 
so i would take that as NO you dont have any of that experience ?
 Thus you state an opinion. One as I have said  I cant totally disagree with .
 However  I myself don’t have a lot of the above experience either and can only relate what im seeing .

Yo don’t like that ha , no skin of my nose .

 However  again I back this move because the folks who  made this proposal , submitted it and  got it accepted have all that experience and more .
 Until I or someone else can prove that the  evidence they provided is flawed or wrong , im going to support it . Period
 i dont know the whole picture eather . however its safe to say i know alot more of it then you

 Everything else you have said,  beings you have no knowlage of this  situation,  is simply an opinion with no base .


 The fish and game said XXXXX
 We can accept XXX or lose more opportunity ?
 They said nothing about  one view over another , its start across the board .
 You also once again conveniently forget they did not remove ALL modern weapons just specific designs .
Doing so was not part of the  F&G proposal in any way shape or form .
 At least that I heard .

 The problem is that you still want to make this a modern Vs traditional move  and it is not .

 but ha what ever floats your boat i guess

[NONYA]

Cap you are like a 1 legged man in an ass kikin contest.Every time you post you kick your own ass.

[cascadedad]

Captchee, I have stated it before, but since you like to hear it, I will say it again.

I have no experience in Idaho, I don't have the numbers, I don't have the statistics, all I have is MY OPINION.  That is what I have stated here, nothing more, nothing less.  But, that DOES NOT by itself make my points invalid.  You show me where they are not valid, fine, but just saying I don't know anything about the subject doesn't cut it.

Go back and read my previous two posts.  Those are about things YOU have posted.  YOU don't think the current proposal will make a difference and yet you still support it.  You can poo-poo me all you want and that I don't know anything about the subject, but you ought to at least be able to support your own stance.

[cascadedad]

Cut and past from Captchee PM to me on May 15, 2007; 4:05 PM.

"I would also state that sending letters to brad Compton would also do 0 good .
He has not authority to make any of the rules and as a manager of the management section his responsibility as a full time paid employee of the department is to be impartial and recommend changes to the commission that need to be done for the good of the herd populations .

That basically is why I and others have requested an investigation into his recommendation . For if that recommendation was based on anything other then management numbers , then in our opinion he was derelict in his duties and can not be trusted to provide impartial information which is needed by the commission to maintain proper management through hunting in this state .
As such if the above is found to be the case , he should be dismissed immediately ."

So you fully support his recommendation here on the public forum and yet in a PM you state this?  Again, what you have said above agrees with what I have been saying.  So, please explain yourself.  Please, this has nothing to do with my lack of knowledge on this subject.  I have already admitted I don't know anything.  You apparently have been to all the meetings, read all the studies, talk at the meetings, so please enlighten us.  Myself, and I would guess others that have been following this thread might have a hard time believing what you sent me in the PM, that you have called for this "investigation" of Mr. Compton.  Especially since you have publicly, wholeheartedly supported the proposal.  Just doesn't make sense does it?

What happened?  Did they follow your recommendation to the investigation?  If they did, what was the result?  If they didn't, are you just going to let that go?

You yourself have posted that you don't think the change will have an impact on the number of deer taken.  I ask you again, why are you still supporting it?

Also, I certainly hope you can manage to respond to my previous posts today.  I have taken things you have said and stated the obvious about them.  Hopefully you will attempt to prove me wrong instead of just saying that everything I type is my opinion and therefore doesn't mean anything.

[sabotloader]

 captchee  

You also once again conveniently forget they did not remove ALL modern weapons just specific designs .

They did for all intents and purposes remove All inlines from being used - you can not use the word modern because we were never able to use MODERN inlines under the Idaho rules.  With the old Idaho rules there was virtually know difference between an Idaho legal inline and the standard traditional ML.  Do not even go to "lock time" as the difference - it is not valid except in the eyes of the uniformed.  The heavy plunger bolt nullifies that perception, + the advent of the newer TC locks with the short throwing hammer and the shorter TC nipple may even be faster.  When I asked Brad about his "lock time" statement, as being one of the reason that inline ML's were dis-allowed - he indicated that the information supplied to him indicated a faster "lock time" in inlines, when I asked where his information came from he would provide a specific answer

Had the state, or you guys, know about the then little know Kahnke or the Marksbery - the pivoting hammer would have been outlawed also - it was an oversite....  So do not act like you or the state did us a favor.

You also once again conveniently forget they did not remove ALL modern weapons just specific designs .
Doing so was not part of the  F&G proposal in any way shape or form .[b/]

Do not get what you are saying here... "Doing so was not part of the F&G proposal in any way shape or form"  Are you saying the F&G did not originally have the pivoting hammer in the presentation?

Which brings in another funny thing... one of your southern commissioners has even said the rule says "it has a pivoting hammer" - it does not say that the hammer has to strike anything - so do not say that all the complaining is coming from northern Idaho

And put this in your book - not all hunters are "Trophy" hunters... there are still a lot of us that hunt for the freezer....

Here is a novel idea - i think the whole state should switch to ML hunting in the general season and centerfire rifle hunting by draw or permit.  As long as the population keeps exploding there is going to be less and less big game... we are destroying their habitat... you down there have a bigger problem than we do because your population is growing faster than anywhere else.  I really do not think the hunters killing more game I think the big game is disappearing because of lack of habitat.

Of course this "novel" thought has no chance because:

a. It would cause a decrease in the number of harvested animals
or
b. It would cost the state to much money....

So you know right off which proposal would be proposed by the state...

Dang! why i spend time here - it justs frustrates me....  But that is what government is all about

[captchee]

So you fully support his recommendation here on the public forum and yet in a PM you state this?

 read it again , i support the recommendation and I still support the recommendation based on the information brought forward as being a issue of need for management .
 For the record I would support that even if they said the wanted to remove the muzzleloader season completely .

 However what I don’t support  is  “if its found that the recommendation was brought forward for other reasons  and  presented as  a management decision  them IMO Brad Compton is derelict in his duty   and should be removed .

 IMO the management section is task with providing management by  documentation not by public input .
 Now most certainly the F&G as a whole takes public input into  consideration .
 But the management section  is the one who lets everyone know if the public proposals  are acceptable .
 Now IF Compton had said in his proposal 
Public input suggests  they would like to see  the muzzleloader seasons in this state revert to a traditional only  venue   . We feel this is acceptable and sustainable   and thus support this move.

 Well then that would be a complete different story wouldn’t it .
 However that’s not what he said and not how it was presented .

 As to what they have done , well  nothing  that I know of . Am I giving up , nope  if I find  solid  documental proof that this proposal was   not based on management  then  I will again  submit the same issue to the commissioners .
 All we can do is submit requests and give our opinions on what should or should not be done .
 From there its out of  the publics hands ..

=========================================
You yourself have posted that you don't think the change will have an impact on the number of deer taken. I ask you again, why are you still supporting it?
=========================================

Again because I like you  don’t have the whole picture to work from . So I have to  trust those that do  up until I know full well otherwise

I cant tell you anymore cascadedad . I just don’t know how to say it any other way

sabotloader
 There are more then a few differences between modern and traditional muzzleloaders . Lock time is only one of them  I would agree that as you say lock  its marginal at best . We are talking milliseconds difference .
 Many folks don’t realize that at one time it was felt that a flintlock was faster in ignition then a cap lock . Not tell the invent of time laps photography was it found that a properly tuned flintlock is less the 100ths of a second slower .

Also IMO Brad was BSing you . Why do I say that ? Because he has hunted muzzleloader for many years bet he didn’t tell you that .  Next time you talk with him ask him about his antelope hunt last year , what he used and at what distance  he took his buck .

  under the previous rules  which were purpose designed to ensure that modern weapons would not have  all the bells and whistles that many other states allow 
 A modern inline  has very much been legal here , just its sighting system  and loads have been under regulation.
 Modern inline weapons  being those of the knight 85 and newer . Traditional inline ignitions like the under hammer “ which isn’t any more inline then some traditional side lock designs “ the Hall rifles or for that mater True inline ignitions  like the Purdy and pauly designs or even the  early French flintlocks with  direct inline ignitions   have also been regulated  by the exposed pivoting hammer rule .
 As far as I know all modern and traditional weapons with an exposed pivoting hammer  which also  has an exposed ignition are legal for use and not effected by this rule . Now if you have read something different then  you need to have that clarified . I have not heard of any regulation stating that  there is any  designation consisting of side hammer , under hammer or center hammer .
 If its got an exposed hammer  and open ignition then again as far as I know its legal

=====================================================
Do not get what you are saying here... "Doing so was not part of the F&G proposal in any way shape or form" Are you saying the F&G did not originally have the pivoting hammer in the presentation?
======================================================

 Originally  the submission for the exposed pivoting hammer   went on to say side lock only .
 This submitting was for a change in the traditional definition only NOT the general muzzleloading season .

 This was also not part of the F&G  original  recommendation  and only became part of the rules after the commission , their legal advisor and the F&G came out of  non public meetings  .
 
 But ask yourself this . If the pivoting hammer issue was brough forward buy traditionalist in the public , do you not think they would have presence of mind to have it read exposed pivoting hammer of a side lock  ignition ?

==================================================
 Which brings in another funny thing... one of your southern commissioners has even said the rule says "it has a pivoting hammer" - it does not say that the hammer has to strike anything - so do not say that all the complaining is coming from northern Idaho
================================================

  No , it doesn’t say it has to hit anything  but I think one may have a problem in court with that one . But ha most certainly a viable chance .

 The rest of you post I cant totally disagree with .

 But back on track here , remember   what your talking about is two different things .

 The F&G proposal brought about the change  on what system was legal . However it did not bring about the change  of say the .010  rule . Which from what I understand was to stop  any muzzleloading hunter from using sabots .

 There also was a change that  was brought forward  that would have required minimum projectile weights .
 If I recall it would have required  310 grain projectiles yet kept the 45 cal min for deer and 50 for elk
 That rule was being pushed for  both  types of hunts both general muzzleloading and traditional muzzleloader .
 There were a couple others as well on powder  , I would have to go back and read my notes on that  but the commission accepted them but  had to  change the wording do to a foreseen legal complication
 However  those were  brought forward prior to the F&G submission and  would I believe been accepted   even without the F&G proposal .

Look fellas that’s it . Im out  of town for a few days .
 Again I cant really explain it anymore then I have , either your going to believe what im telling you or your not ..
Some like our local resident Troll are going to always believe this was some kind of conspiracy .
So what ever .
 besafe  cascadedad and  sabotloader

[cascadedad]

However what I don’t support  is  “if its found that the recommendation was brought forward for other reasons  and  presented as  a management decision  them IMO Brad Compton is derelict in his duty   and should be removed .

Captchee, what do you mean by you don't support this?  Reread my post, this statement was yours and was a cut and paste from one of your PMs.  Hopefully I am misunderstanding.

[cascadedad]

While Captchee is away, maybe Idaho Ron or Roundball can keep the debate going.  Do either of you think the change in Idaho will make a difference?  Captchee said he doesn't think so, but he supports the change anyway because he doesn't have all the facts that those making the rules have.

How about you guys?

[crow_feather]

Idaho is giving a year to the traditionalists to get them off their back and then will continue with the regular muzzle loading seasons as they were prior to the 2007/08 hunting year.  The state has already made comments about the 2008/09 hunting season with regard to muzzle loading rifles.  In 2008/09 they will tell us that it didn't work and that they are forced to return to the way that it was.

Remember that those people making the laws aren't where they are because they always told the truth.  Don't argue with your fellow hunter about what is already set in stone.  We will enjoy this year and be able to have the Idaho black powder hunt for ourselves as it was in the beginning.  Next year is another matter.