idaho game commission meeting 2007

[cascadedad]

it would probably be safe to say many of you all grandfathers also hunted with muzzleloaders . you may have skipped a couple generation but  basically  not to long ago  thats all you had .

This is really kind of funny when you think about it.  Yes they hunted with MLers, but it wasn't all they had.  They could have used their bare hands, or a knife or even a bow and arrow.  But no, they used the most modern technology they had at the time and that was a MLer.  So, they were the "moderns" of their time.  Did any of them say, "Come on, you should use a bow and arrow and get back to the tradition of our grandfathers and greatgrandfathers."   Ahhhh, I don't think so.  They were interested in putting meat on the table and not tradition.

[captchee]

   
            





ahhhhh
Laughing ha ? LMAO   actually they did how much information  would you like ?
Its not hard to find
.  the cartridge system has been around   in basically one for or another from 1810 in percussion form . In flint lock form back to  the early 1700 .
 The inline ignition system , not to be confused with today’s conversions   can be traced back to Mohammad in military use .
John Machen writes that in 1942  at the beginning of the 2nd world war  there were folks enlisting in the military   from what he calls the hart lands of America who were still using  flintlock rifles  and had very little to no experience with cartridge guns
 A person of such notoriety  in the 1st world war that you may know of is Sgt York   
 For sporting use  I can say that I can provide documentation to 1710  of double barrel  inline Flintlock ignitions .

 In 1930  American riflemen did an article on  the differences in muzzleloading  both sport shooting and hunting .
 You will find in that article  many folks claiming that people should  move away from  cartridge technologies  because of their impact  on  game populations .
 I also have one that’s on my PC from  if I recall  1936 where  folks  do not allow modern muzzleloaders  in their events or in their hunting camps .
 The descriptions of these are  very much what we consider traditional rifles today that have  barrels shorter then  28 inches  
 
 The flintlock system alone is  the oldest ignition system in continued production and use .
 it also stayed the prefured system of many well into the 20th centry .
 infact  the last flintlock sold by the hudson bay compony acourding to thier inventory list was 1919 ? or was it 1920  , maybe  someone here could correct me on that but im sure im within 5 or 6 years of the correct date

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]

Captchee, no doubt you know much more of the history than I do, but this was your post.  You said that no too long ago that's all they had, I just quoted you.

it would probably be safe to say many of you all grandfathers also hunted with muzzleloaders . you may have skipped a couple generation but  basically  not to long ago  thats all you had .

I did find some data you provided to me in a PM.  You said it was old info and not complete.

One other thing that was common in the PMs we shared was that you stated that the commission's recommendations were for necessary and made due to the mule deer numbers.  It is interesting that the quotes you make at the beginning of this thread state that the recommendations were to "shift to more traditional firearms".

Sure was interesting reading back through those PMs.  I had forgotten all that you originally explained to me.

[captchee]

 you should re read those PMs  cascadedad .

"shift to more traditional firearms".

  is referring to the Commission request  for  information  on technologies . i believe im also correct in stating that i said no such thing in this thread.
  the Commission said that . if you read the minutes that I provided to you , you will see  those very words are included  in those minutes .

 See the problem is that many folks when reading these reports  do not look at the report . They don’t read the whole report . They simply scan through looking for anything that catches their eye.  It may be dry reading  and most time  long and boring but if you want the information  you HAVE to read the whole thing .
 I believe the minutes you want for that information will be back in dec 2005 or jan of 2006

 the point that you missed was one that this all came from the state . traditionalists had very little to do with any of it but for changes within our own seasons . the  links i provided to the minutes for the last 5 years what to help show you just  who was saying what and WHERE this  change originated



 As to the mule deer . I stand by that . I very much think this  change was based on mule deer AND  elk  numbers  in many units .

As far as I know the whitetail  are doing fine north of the salmon . Even spreading south now into areas we have never seen them .
 So much so we now have a whitetail specific tag  where in the past we just had a deer tag

[cascadedad]

Captchee,
I understand that the "shift to more traditional firearms" that I quoted was from the commission.

Even though I do think pressure came from the traditionalists, I don't place the blame there.  It is the commissions responsibility to make the decisions and that is why I have posted that quote a couple times.  It seems to me the commission is speaking out of both sides of their mouth.

As I have said before, I am just trying to figure this out in my own mind.

Again, I don't dispute there needs to be something done to "manage" the mule deer.  The rule changes they made just won't do it.  There is just no way.  I have explained my logic before.  The hunters that will be affected (that shoot inlines) will either hunt with CF, archery, or traditional.  My arguement is, hunters that consistentlly take game with an inline, will consistently take game with whatever method they chose.

Take a shot at explaining your own logic.  We keep coming back to pointing fingers.  Let's stick with what is relevant.  The mule deer and if the changes that were made will have any affect.

Also, you asked me to reread  the PMs you sent.   I'll do that and with your permission I'll post some quotes from you in those PMs.  Maybe you forgot some of the things you wrote to me.  Should prove most interesting.  I'll wait for your permission.  Since they were Personal Messages, I wouldn't post them without your permission.

[NONYA]

If the deer numbers are so damn low why allow a hunt at all?I find it IMPOSSIBLE to believe that there would be any hunting going on if the deer numbers were as desperate as you want us to believe.If you are so concerned with their numbers why hunt them at all?When an area in my state looses a large percentage of the deer due to whatever reason it is closed or severely limited until the population re-stabilizes

[captchee]

 please go ahead cascadedad , i cant remember it all ,  LOL especially when many of my posts get so long . As im sure you have seen my spelling and punctuations are  not the best .  When posts get long I struggle hard to get my point across .

Please post any   PM that I have made . Its interlay possible  I wasn’t clear  or worded  my remarks  so as to yield wrong information  which is never my intent .

 That being said I  would have to agree with  your last post completely .
Again my intent is not to carry on the other thread here but to show  folks that  this is not the case of a group of traditionalist making some unseen move .

 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 .

Noyna
Also raises a very good point .

 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 .
 Ill try and post some of what he said tonight when I get home concerning this for those of you who  are from out of state and don’t have access to that publication . I wish the state would publish it on line as well . Maybe they do but I have yet been able to find it .

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

 be safe , im of to work . chat more tonight

[captchee]

here , lets see if this works

 can this be read ?

[quickdtoo]

You'll be able to read it if you save it to your PC first, there's 4 different .jpgs in the entire pic, right click on the upper and lower half of each page and choose "save picture as", then open each of them from the saved files, you'll be able to read them then.

Tim

[cascadedad]

Hmmmmmm, for some reason I can't get the second half of page 1 to copy over.

But, I can read the large print portion in that area.  "Hunter harvest must be reduced by 80% for five years to increase mature bucks from 15 to 30 percent."  Well, if that is one of their goals, the MLer rule change was a complete waste of time and effort.

Captchee, as you have mentioned "reduced opportunity" before, that is the ONLY way they will make a significant difference by changing game laws.  No one likes it, but that just has to be the way it is if the info in the article is correct.

As we have bickered back and forth about whether the traditional hunter groups have or have not pressured the commission......  While in my own mind I still believe they have.  They are organized groups, they believe strongly in the "tradition" that they carry on and want to maintain that tradition.  Again, that is what I believe and what makes sense to me.  Note:  I very well could be wrong on this, and frankly I will never know for sure........

But, the bottom line is, the IF&G is in a hard spot.  They MUST sell licenses and tags to survive.  There is no tax money to support them and their cause (managing the wildlife).  Therefore, everything they do is at least partially (more likely HIGHLY motivated) for the almighty $$$$$.  Does this make sense?  Seems to me that the wildlife in each state should be supported by the State.  Why should hunters alone pay the whole tab?  If I have 2-3 kids and myself that I am paying hunting and fishing licenses for and my neighbors around me don't hunt and fish and yet they bird watch, and enjoy all kinds of nature hikes, etc, why should I have to pay their share.  (OK, now I am ranting and probably preaching to the choir.  Sorry I ramble when I am tired.)

Another thing I read throughout the article is, "This is just too difficult to enforce.......that is just too difficult to enforce, etc."  Well, cheaters are going to cheat no matter what the rules are.  If they want to take game, they are going to take game.  WHEN they get caught, they need to prosecute to the MAX.  A slap on the hand doesn't even threaten the law breaker.  The punishment is not sever enough to deter them.

A few years ago, a local man was convicted of poaching elk and bear in Oregon and Washington on many different counts.  He ran an archery shop here and to my knowledge was using these trophy animals to promote his business.  Washington law enforcement agencies tracked him for 2 YEARS.  He got fined pretty stiff I am sure, but he still maintains his day job that he had prior to the convictions.  He and his wife still drives fine cars to work every day...........  AND he didn't spend one day in jail.  I don't know this for sure, but I doubt very seriously if the fines he received paid for that 2 year investigation that HE CAUSED.  So, I believe a portion of my fishing and hunting license money paid for part of that investigation.  That aint right!  If you do a google search you can probably find some info on this case.  If not, PM me and I'll help you.

THIS steams me.

So, as my mind is working on all this and this info is soaking in...........the poachers are a HUGE impact.  Take care of that and a huge portion of the problem goes away.  So instead of changing the law to affect a very small portion of hunters, taking a very small portion of the animals every year (modern MLers), maybe the commission should have pushed for MUCH STIFFER penalties for folks caught poaching and breaking laws regarding fish and game.  (Probably not an option for them.)  These people aren't just taking a deer here and an elk there, they are stealing a very large portion of a state's fish/game resources.

Rant over.

[captchee]

OHHH i think we are very much on the same page  cascadedad .
 check you PM , ill send you the artical alittle more broken up , maybe that will work

  if you go alittle deeper   into the article you will see that  a big section is devoted to going to a Draw or permit ONLY  hunt . Brad Compton even goes so far as to mention doing away with  general hunts .
 Now right now the general hunt is  the largest and most populated hunt  we have .
 Understand that a few modern muzzleloaders crying out is nothing compared to   out cry from the general rifle hunters every time this topic comes up .
So what gets effected first is areas with the smallest groups of hunters and the smallest voice. With this fix anything completely ? No probably not . Make a dent  in the problem ? Maybe in some areas . However the point it that the state must do something  . No buddy wants to be first on the chopping block   but somebody has to be

 Here is another article from the same paper
 This one is short enough I can write it down I think .

SURVEY FAST FACTS
* hunting methods.
 More then 90% of hunters use rifles as their primary hunting weapon .After rifles, compound bows were second most popular weapon. The highest % of  multi weapon  hunters were in Northern Idaho with 36.2% of the hunters using one or more weapon type to hunt mule deer

* Special weapons seasons .

When ask why hunters participate in muzzleloader, archery or short range weapons only season, the highest scoring responses were :to hunt when fewer hunters are afield” and “ to expand or increase the length of my hunting season “.
“We are just beginning to analysis and we intend to fully explore the wealth of information contained within the survey results “ Compton said
“ Additional analysis is necessary to ensure we have a complete and accurate understanding of  deer hunters opinions and preferences  from which to build the state management plan .

As survey results are compiled, the department will produce a detailed summary for distribution to the public
In the more detailed analysis to be released this summer , researchers will compare a similar study completed in 1989 to the new survey .
Attitudes about deer hunting have shifted  somewhat since 1989 but not radically so in any category .
Broadly , the average Idaho  deer hunter  wants to be able  to go to the same places he has always gone for many seasons, he wants to go there with   the same friends and family , and he wants  to go there with those people every autumn . He does not want to share the experience with a lot of other hunters he does not know .

 The new survey shows that the special  aspects of the annual deer hunt is slightly more important now  then in the 1989 survey. The significance of harvest has slipped a little bit . The issue of filling the freezer with venison gone away with the increasing of urbanization of Idahoans but slightly less important then it was .

Perhaps the most noticeable  difference between the two surveys  is the now pervasive use of OHVs.
Deer hunters in general  still do not want to see OHV users who are not in their own hunting party when they are afeild . The overall willingness to accommodate some restrictions on OHV use may indicate a recognition that there will be a limit if a high quality hunting experience is to be maintained.

 The 1989 survey played a large role in the deer management plan that guided fish and game over the past 15 years . Results of the new survey after careful analysis, will provide guidance in the constructing the new deer management plan intended to set boundaries for the department actions over the next 10 to 15 years .
As this and other big game management information is developed, it will be made available in the pages  of Idaho Fish and game news as well as on the Idaho fish and game web site.

 now through years , growing up in the fish and game as well as working with them on other issues  i have found that its pretty easy to tell where the IDF&G is going if a person just  reads what’s being said . often times they same the same  things  over and over but just with a twist added .
 If a person doesn’t read and think about whats being said  they often get a warm fuzzy feeling . HOWEVER  once thought about  you cant help but stand back and say ? Your going to do what ?!!!!.

 So with that in mind  lets remember  the discussion about reduction in opportunity .
  Now read the first article and this quote.
 Notice all the mentions of “Survey”  and “Study “ notice how they are relying on those for input and information .
 Now keep in mind most all those have already been done . The information obtained on muzzleloading  concerning the then proposed changes  are all part of this big workings .

 So now I ask you . Is it not better to  keep the season  open to all  under a given weapons restriction  OR
Close the season to all  and provide limited opportunity ?

Modern muzzleloaders are not alone in this . The ATV community is screaming bloody murder  over public access rights .

 So looking at the bigger picture  maybe there will be some impact in this change when added to all the other changes that are also being implemented . Right now I cant say , I think only time will tell .

[captchee]

You'll be able to read it if you save it to your PC first, there's 4 different .jpgs in the entire pic, right click on the upper and lower half of each page and choose "save picture as", then open each of them from the saved files, you'll be able to read them then.

Tim

thanks Tim i was afraid it couldnt be read and that i would have to type the whole thing out . wasnt much looking forward to that .

I urge folks to pick up this special issue if you can find it . there is alot of information within the pages .  its all only these same lines , BIG changes are coming , not everyone is going to be happy .
 no budy wants to be the first but somebudy is still going to be . the real question is  can this be done while at the same time effecting as few as possable .

 i think that will depend on how clear the fish and game makes the bigger picture

[sabotloader]

Cdaddy   

Do not know if this will help but down in the lower right of your screen you will a + in a magnifying glass and probably the number 100 then a down arrow head - click on the arrow head and choose 150 - maybe 200 for your eyes then you will be able to read the article...

[cascadedad]

Thanks to Captchee and SL for trying to help me read this.  Can't see any of it on this computer, it filters everything.  Will try again tonight.  But, I did get to read most of it last night.

The problem with the survey, is exactly in the nature of a survey.  Everyone that fills out the survey is going to fill it out in a manner that helps themselves.  If a guy uses 4 wheelers, he can cover miles and miles and he doesn't want to lose that.  Personally, I don't have them.  If my son and I hike in to our hunting spot a few miles and a bunch of 4 wheelers pass us up heading in the direction I am going, I might as well head home and mow the grass.  It is not going to be a good day.  So, there is a big conflict there.

My big point in all this......is based on what is being printed there is a problem in some areas with mule deer numbers.  Again, "Hunter harvest must be reduced by 80% for five years to increase mature bucks from 15 to 30 percent."  If this is really the goal, something DRASTIC must be done, and it must be done now.  So, instead of making changes this year that will have an impact, they make this little change which will make no difference.  Therefore, they wasted one out of the five years.  If the current ML change stands, they'll probably have to study that for 3-5 years to find out it isn't working, when common sense tells you it won't work.  With population and hunters continuing to grow, the problem gets worse.

As they said, hunters want all this opportunity and they want it like they used to have it.  There just aint no way.  The longer they don't do something that will make a difference, the worse it will get in the future.  To me, that is the point that ANY and EVERY group of hunters in Idaho should be making.

Of course they could always put a bounty on poachers!

[NONYA]

As i said why dont they just close md hunting in theses problem areas for a few years?We have a bounty on poachers here,$1000 reward if you turn in a poacher and they get ticketed and convicted.

[captchee]

As i said why dont they just close md hunting in theses problem areas for a few years?We have a bounty on poachers here,$1000 reward if you turn in a poacher and they get ticketed and convicted.

pretty simple really .
look at the fit some are throwing  over simple disallowing a few modern muzzleloaders mind you a   some where around 2-5 % of the total hunter numbers  .
 Now were not talking closing hunting here . All those folks still have an opportunity  to hunt even in muzzleloader seasons , just not with a given weapons design .
 Now imagine  the  the out cry and conflict if the state completely closed the hunts for 5-10 years   LMAO you think  some folks are fired up now . This issue would pail in compression

 not to mention  money , just a cascadedad mention . no hunting , very little money for the state . but they at the same time must food the cost of damages caused by  growing numbers of game . even now large amounts go out each year to farms and ranges who have lost crops or  food supplies do to wild game .
 No i dont believe they will ever close the season , even if it is despratly needed

[NONYA]

Close the areas that need to recuperate,this adds pressure to the areas that need thinning,it has worked here in areas where blue tongue came through and completely wiped out the deer.You dont have to close down the entire state ,just the small areas where the deer numbers are down.Any hunter that truly gives a dam about the deer will not have a problem finding a new area to hunt while the others have a chance to flourish.

[sabotloader]

Another dumb question I'll ask, since I have not got any answers on the others...

These are Captchee's words

look at the fit some are throwing over simple disallowing a few modern muzzleloaders mind you a some where around 2-5 % of the total hunter numbers 

[/b]

I read that as a pretty insensitive remark of course he is not one of the 2-5%.... worst part is I truly have no problem believing that captchee could care less... but, I also do not think he even knows or cares about the economic hit the decision put on a lot of people and dealers around the state.

But if the problem is with Mule Deer and mainly mule deer in Southern Idaho - why could not the F&G just set the season in those areas as Traditional ML only... they had the power to do that - but instead they they remove the inline state wide - does not make sense.

Another thing that has not been mentioned - the state issues two different deer tags, a regular deer tag, hunt either whitetail or mule deer in a much shorter hunting season, and whitetail deer tag.  If you purchase the whitetail tag you can not shoot a mule deer, further reducing the pressure on the mule deer, at least here in the north where most tags sold are whitetail tags.  So if the modern inline is taking to much of a toll on mule deer why is not allowed when hunting with a whitetail tag, or during elk season.

[captchee]

But if the problem is with Mule Deer and mainly mule deer in Southern Idaho - why could not the F&G just set the season in those areas as Traditional ML only... they had the power to do that - but instead they they remove the inline state wide - does not make sense.

Another thing that has not been mentioned - the state issues two different deer tags, a regular deer tag, hunt either whitetail or mule deer in a much shorter hunting season, and whitetail deer tag.  If you purchase the whitetail tag you can not shoot a mule deer, further reducing the pressure on the mule deer, at least here in the north where most tags sold are whitetail tags.  So if the modern inline is taking to much of a toll on mule deer why is not allowed when hunting with a whitetail tag, or during elk season.

 You wont here any complaints from me about it   


 i cant answer that , i simply dont know . it would seem like the thing to do .
  i can tell you when the  state recommended what they did i was very surprised .
Jaime Gould from the Idaho muzzleloading association was sitting next to me  and I think he was surprised as I was . In fact we had along  discussion after the meeting concerning this very subject .

I can say however that he was proposing a side lock definition for traditional units that night  and I was task with providing  information on the advancements of technologies  nation wide concerning muzzleloading  and how looking at the problems  that other states had run into might keep us from experiencing the same pitfalls .
All that however was kind of over shadowed 

I read that as a pretty insensitive remark of course he is not one of the 2-5%.... worst part is I truly have no problem believing that captchee could care less... but, I also do not think he even knows or cares about the economic hit the decision put on a lot of people and dealers around the state.

Well to be honest my answer is 2 part . Yes I know  and im aware of the impact

Do I care ? Frankly  and you may not like this but no I really don’t .
 Why ?
1) because I feel that if done correctly the impact can be kept to a minimum or at least  if drastic only so for a  relative short time , as these such things go . The alternative is   a complete loss

2))
Because   the process of the complaint system that  the folks went through  was flat a$$ wrong and IMO removed all credibility .
To sign petitions , send letter  with false names, numbers and such  so as to give the impression of greater numbers  is wrong  and destroys the credibility  of a lot of good folks who have a serious gripe .
 Before you say you didn’t know that happened , it did and was reported by one of the game commissioners to the attorney general of the state .
 Right along with the death  and  threats to personal family members received by a couple of the commissioners .
Tell me ? Is this the type of movement you fellas want ? Is this the way  mature adults  deal with a situation they don’t agree with ?

I Will also state that  the one mom and pop outfit who claims to be sitting on 60.0000 dollars of modern  inline  muzzleloading rifles  that are non refundable from the supplier ? I Find very hard to believe  that his soul  investment was for local sale .
As a business man myself  if those accounts are true  then the fella , Again IMO is a very poor businessman
Or thought he was holding aces when in fact he had a pair of 2’s
My personal opinion is it’s a line  and about as believable as many of the false names and addresses listed .
Sad to see all the large number of official replies of concern letters  from the F&G returned  with no such address or no such person at this address .
 Both sportsman’s warehouse and cabalas stated  they expected  a loss to revenue. However that at last report has not happened , inventory has turned over all the same .

 Now if your  thinking of loss of income to communities by this  change to muzzleloader policy . That also has had little effect from what I have been told .  The northern units where the effect  would have been felt the hardest now has two new short range weapons season  that were in the past muzzleloader only . So now  the hunter numbers in that time frame shouldl be higher  resulting in higher revenue.

 However that’s not what your saying is it .

 Think on this . The state IMO has in the past shown that incomes to communities  when it comes to issues such as this  carry little weight  . Some will say this isn’t so . However all we have to do is look at the fisheries  management of this state to see the facts .
 I ask you , what happened to all the small towns that  relied on annual fisherman during the salmon runs ?
  I don’t know how old you are but  if you can , take a second and think back to before the dams .
Think about all those little towns on the salmon , Clearwater , snake , henries fork ……..
 Many are just a whisper  of what they were ., no salmon fishing no main income .

 Oh im very aware of the impacts  of policies on communities . However I do not think policy should be  dictated by a small % of the total population, no mater that be traditionalist or modern , conversationalist or environmental wacko .

 Now you may think that harsh , that’s ok I have no problem with that . However understand  our wildlife resource  is not something that  we can just use without consideration of the future.
 I would most certainly hope my children , your children , all our grand kids  will have the opportunity to experience  the hunting opportunities of this state as I did growing  up .
 Id ticking off a few folks , hurting some feeling , or being seen as un sensitive  is aprt of trying to   ensure that hope then so be it .

ill make no opologies for it

[NONYA]

WHy not?Because it would be Way too simple and the loincloth club wouldn't get want they really want,no more modern muzzloaders.

[captchee]

 have another beer nonya 
 maybe put on one of the leather loin cloths your always harping on , you know you want to , its stuck  in your cobwebs .
 maybe itll lighten you up alittle
 but then trolls normal dont lighten up do they

[NONYA]

Hey Cap if you and your "traditionalists" are so concerned about deer numbers why are you still trying to kill them?You know damn well if it weren't for your hatred towards modern MLs you would be concerned about this issue at all,it has nothing to do with you mask of concern for the deer or you wouldn't still be hunting them.I have been to F&G commission meetings with your type before Cap,if you cant have it your way and eliminate all the others you will make a stink so bad that the ML season will disappear,id be willing to bet you will achieve that in your state in no \time.Your "traditionalists" raised so much hell here when the commission considered an early season ML hunt that they scraped the idea because it was going to be impossible to get everyone to agree on what weapons were allowed.The purist crowd would rather nobody gets to hunt if they dont get their way,a true hunter dont care what you use as long as he gets to hunt his way.I hope every inliner that got pushed out of the ID season buys a top of the line side lock,sticks a GM barrel on it and hits the field this year just to prove that you cant eliminate them from the field as easily as you wish.Purists who try to push out hunters they find non conformist to their beliefs do more to damage hunting than any other group.

[NONYA]

You are like a broken record Cap,answer some of the questions posed,you are supposed to be the expert on this situation.

[cascadedad]

Wow, Captchee, I lost a tremendous amount of respect for you in that last post.

I admit I have been off track a time or two or maybe more on this topic.  But as of late, I have been trying to stick to the issue.  That is if the proposed change will work.  I think I have made a very strong case that it will not.  In fact, I think you have mentioned that you agree that you don't think it will make a significant difference both in this thread and in PMs you sent me in the past.  And yet you still support it.  This makes absolutely no sense to me.  Sabotloader's comments were right on the money.  Now, I don't know about the economic hit to businesses, I have to believe there is some.  But to individuals for sure.  I just bought 3 MLers this past year that are all legal in Washington and Idaho when I bought them.  Now if the laws in Washington changed, things would change for me and it would cost me money in one way or another.

You lumping all modern MLers together is WRONG.  There are law breakers and criminals in EVERY group including the traditional group of hunters.  I'd bet a million that if the traditionalists were hit with similar law changes that took away hunting as they know it, their would be the same uproar and death threats.  The people putting these polls out KNOW just what kind of response these polls are going to receive before they put them out there.  Then they can use the action of some of the wackos to say, "See, these people are unreasonable."  Then people like you get right on the bandwagon and justify what is being done because of the bad apples instead of looking at the real issue.  Again, this is plain wrong.

You say that you will make no appologies.  What you should do is make an appology about supporting this whole thing when you know it won't work.

[cascadedad]

Well, Captchee, since you gave me permission to post some of your PM's that you sent to me, at this time I think I will.  When I do, I will cut and paste your exact words.

Quopte from Captchee PM on May 11, 2007
"For me the difference in modern and traditional are fundamental basics .
Traditionalists like myself support traditional muzzleloaders because of what they are , what they represent as well as the difficulties of the weapons .

Modern folks on the other had suport modern weapons for what they can do , what benefits and opportunities the modern weapons give them .

Basically its two complete different points of view . A view that can coincide but never truly understand each other or for that mater at the core , get along ."


So, based on the fundamental basics as you describe, we can never get along.  So basically you are saying that you can not get along with a modern MLer because of the rifle that he carries.  Wow.  I have no problem with a person carrying a traditional rifle.  I think that is fantastic.  And, regardless of what you say, I can appreciate why some hunt with them.

[cascadedad]

Quote from Captchee PM on May 14, 2007
"About to meeting into this discussion brad Compton the superintendent of game management brought forward a recommendation of removal of modern muzzleloading weapons from muzzleloading all together based on management of game numbers in this state . The F&G suggested to the commission that by removing the modern weapons we could expand opportunity . His recommendation also said that if we did not remove them that the F7G would have to reduce the current opportunity even smaller then we currently had . Which by the way isn’t a lot ."

Now, when Compton said "we could expand opportunity" what was he talking about?  Since you have said all along that the traditionals groups are the only ones that attended these meetings, it is pretty obvious who he was talking to and what this means.

Same with "reduce the current opportunity".   Again, opportunity for who.  Again, it is very obvious.  It certainly is not for the Modern MLer and it certainly is not for archery hunters or CF hunters.  There is only one group left and that happens to be the group that you yourself say is always present at these meetings.

[NONYA]

Yep,they love to see other hunters who choose a different weapon loose opportunity in order to boost their odds of taking a trophy,its the purist,self absorbed attitude that must be countered by the common sense hunters in ID,you guys have to get to these meetings and make sure the commission knows there are hunters out there who have a different opinion.

[cascadedad]

Another quote from Captchee PM on May 14, 2007
"But any back to your question . Harvest numbers are in question and as they were the base of Compton recommendation and that recommendation the base for the change .
Rest assured that is the real reason for the commission taking a second look .
Also know that there have been a number of requests and recommendations to the commission to remove Compton . I have publicly made such a request and in fact so stated in the last public meeting that if we find out that there is no base for the recommendations he brought forward that he should be immediately place on administrative leave pending an investigation .IF his studies are valid then the state should keep this change if not go even further . However if its found there is no base for his findings the he should be held accountable
I personally know of 3 others who have said the same thing . All are traditional shooter . But I have yet to see one modern shooter stand up and demand accountability of Compton . Instead they focus their aim at traditionalist who really had 0 to do with this move ."


I find it interesting that you mention all this in a PM to me, but I don't recall you EVER putting this on a message board.  I'm not saying you didn't, just that I haven't seen it.  Please correct me if I am wrong.

In our discussions in this forum, it seems like you are implying that the commission is taking a second look because of the uproar from the inliners.  While in the PM you say they are looking at it because the numbers might not be valid.  I think for anyone reading your posts on the board and the quote from you above have to be scratching their head.

[cascadedad]

Another quote from that same PM
"Now as to Washington .
You should realize this Idaho is part of a pact of 5 western states . Those states all talk issues over . They all know when another is going to change something . Thos estates are Oregon , Washington , Idaho , Montana and Wyoming .
Oregon already has rules much more stringent then Idaho , Washington will follow suit as will Wyoming then Montana.
How long that will be , I cant say . Maybe it will not happen before we all go to a chose your weapons system sometime in the next 5 to 10 years . Maybe Washington never will though past history makes that look highly un likely . "


Even though I don't live in Idaho, this is why I am so interested, because I realize Washington CAN be affected by Idaho's decision.  Idaho's new rules surpass Oregon's.  But you must realize, many of Oregon and Washington's hunts are already by draw.  So, you are saying that the states follow each other's lead, that would be a logical step that Idaho could take if necessary which apparently it is necessary.  Make the drawings for areas that NEED more control.  That is what they get paid for "MANAGING".

[cascadedad]

One more thing.  If this is true.

"Also know that there have been a number of requests and recommendations to the commission to remove Compton .  I have publicly made such a request and in fact so stated in the last public meeting that if we find out that there is no base for the recommendations he brought forward that he should be immediately place on administrative leave pending an investigation .IF his studies are valid then the state should keep this change if not go even further . However if its found there is no base for his findings the he should be held accountable "

Please point us to that in the meeting minutes.