Civil Rights Case regarding BP optics

[ArmedBear]

"If modern firearms
hunters in these states are given the right to hunt with a magnifying
telescopic rifle sight (scope), then the muzzleloading hunter has the
right to use the same sighting aid during a season established for
muzzle-loaded guns.

Uh, that premise is a crock.

Muzzleloading seasons are not just for guns that load from the muzzle; they are often for guns defined by a longer list of criteria than that. There are several specifications that the gun must meet, and they vary from state to state.

I've read posts from people who carry BP revolvers as backup guns during muzzleloader season in some places. In other places, the gun must be a single shot. Double rifles must be loaded one barrel at a time. Some places require sidelock guns, others don't. Some require one of a list of specific propellants, others don't.

"No optical sights" may be an arbitrary regulation, perhaps, but no more "discriminatory" than any other specifications in the list. Perhaps allowing only hunters who can't see the game they're stalking to use scopes would work...

 

[Otherguy Overby]

Dilusional dimwits.

There are countless threads on what caliber is enough for humane kills...

So, some of you immediately hop on a bandwagon to restrict hunting rights for the visual impaired.

<Non High Road comment removed by Art>

 

[JohnBT]

"...harvests during the 1920's averaged approximately 620 deer..."

Looks like they started wiping them out with blunderbusses in Virginia starting in the early days of the 1600s.

- from www.virginiaplaces.org/natural/deer.html

"In 1699, to address declining deer herds, Virginia was one of the first colonies to set a closed season for hunting deer (from February 1 through July 31). By 1738, separate seasons had been established for bucks and for does and fawns."

"Annual deer harvests during the 1920's averaged approximately 620 deer for the 33 counties that had open deer seasons. In 1924, the General Assembly restricted hunting to a 45-day buck-only deer season between November 15th and December 31st with a bag limit of one deer per day, two deer per season.

In 1926, the Game Commission initiated a deer restoration program. Early records of this restoration effort are incomplete. In its early stages, 1926-1950, 1,305 deer were imported from out-of-state sources into Virginia. Virginia has received deer from more states (11) than any other state in the southeast. The last deer was imported into Virginia in 1950."

 

[tulsamal]

there has to be some limit placed on the meaning of "muzzleloader", or there's no justification for a special season.

States have allowed inline rifles, scopes, etc. for two reasons.

1) The hunters demanded them. You know, the voters and citizens who pay taxes which runs the government? People wanted to use the guns that were easier to use, more surefire, and more accurate at longer ranges. Game departments resisted at first but wouldn't it be wrong for them to deny the hunters what they want to use? Otherwise you are just being paternalistic.

2) Most states have more and more deer and less and less deer hunters. They keep extending the gun season for longer periods. Increasing the bag limits. Allowing more anterless deer to be taken. And yet the numbers are still going the wrong way. One way to address that is to also make it easier to get deer during archery and blackpowder seasons. If you could only use a recurve bow during archery and a flintlock during blackpowder, there would be a HECK of a lot less deer taken during those seasons.

Gregg

 

[tube_ee]

The muzzleloading season here in CA was introduced as a special hunt. The deal that DFG made with hunters was, if the hunters were willing to accept limitations on the effectiveness of their weapon, they'd get more opportunities to get their deer. Modern bolt-action, scoped inline rifles break the hunter's side of that deal. Within the context of our ML season, it's cheating, plain and simple. You want all of the advantages of modern firearms, you take the shorter season. You don't get to have it both ways, and that's the way it should stay. It's not just about you.

In states with higher deer populations, and less hunting pressure, and less development, the rules should probably be different, and they are. This is a situational issue, and demands situational solutions. They won't get the same answers, because they're not all asking the same questions. That's as it should be.

--Shannon

 

[antsi]

---------quote-----------
In states with higher deer populations, and less hunting pressure, and less development, the rules should probably be different, and they are. This is a situational issue, and demands situational solutions. They won't get the same answers, because they're not all asking the same questions. That's as it should be.
-------------------------

The above part of your argument, I can buy. My state happens to be one of those that's overrun with deer. We need more hunters out there, hunting more, and taking more deer. If letting people use inlines and scopes is going to create more kills, that's exactly what my state needs.

I can see if you live in a state where the deer population is closer to a natural balance, or if there are excess hunters, then tightening up the regulations makes sense.

However, I don't see where protecting somebody's idea of "primitive purity" should be a goal of hunting regulations.

 

[Art Eatman]

The whole idea of special seasons for archery and black-powder was to provide a safe time for hunting with primitive weapons.

The emphasis was on "primitive".

People being people, and rather inventive little doofers, here came compound bows with sights and all that stuff. Here came in-line black-powder rifles with short lock time as the primary sell.

And now folks want scopes on their black-powder rigs.

"Primitive"? 'Scuse me?

And it has nothing to do with the growth of deer herd populations or the numbers of hunters around to shoot Bambi.

If you want special rules, then stay within the spirit of the deal with the special rules that have been provided.

Can't see iron sights in your old age? Well, a lot of mountain men took up a new line of work besides fighting Indians when their own vision degraded.

Can't see iron sights in your old age? Buy a bolt action or some such, put a scope on it, and live with the deal.

Gettin' old ain't for the faint of heart, but I see lots of faint-of-hearts gettin' old.

I've been wearing trifocals for a number of years. I'm 72. I can still figure out iron sights good enough to hit Bambi at 50 yards or so. Maybe a hundred; I can hit a pie plate with my Garand, at that distance, offhand. What's the usual black-powder distance, anyway?

, Art

 

[ArmedBear]

However, I don't see where protecting somebody's idea of "primitive purity" should be a goal of hunting regulations

True. Even though would I advocate limiting our special deer season -- here in California, read my posts about the difference between deer/hunter ratio here vs. other states -- to sidelocks, that's not about "primitive purity" at all.

It's because the whole point of the special season was to accommodate guns that have an effective range of 100 yards or a hair more. Iron sights and/or sidelock guns fit the criteria of a limited-range, single-shot gun.

The gun can be stainless and carbon fiber. That's not the point.

The point is that bolt-action 209 primer guns with scopes, if designed well, are no longer guns with limited effective range. Therefore, if trends continue, in a place like California where there are lots of hunters but deer are not as plentiful as rabbits, there may BE no more black powder season unless some of these restrictions can be applied.

I'd prefer allowing scopes for those who have a hard time with irons (my eyes have never been the best, even when I was a child, so, though I like iron sights, I can sympathize with those who are good hunters but can't see the sights). But if we allow scopes here, then we may have to go to sidelock-only rules like some other states. That's fine with me; a sidelock is all I own. But it will sure piss off a lot of people who have bought expensive in-lines.

Two points, in summary:

1. States should make such rules as fit the nature of deer hunting in the states. Some places have too many deer, not enough hunters. Others are the opposite. That's why states should be allowed to manage their own game. It's not perfect, but it beats management by lawsuit, or by the Federal Government.

2. Special seasons/tags can have all sorts of arbitrary limitations, and that's fine with me. Military only, youth only, women's hunts, archery, black powder, slugs... we already have these here. I have no problem with that, since, as I said, we have many hunters but not so many deer as some of you.

 

[arcticap]

Controlling the number of deer harvested is not a sound argument for or against the use of optical sights. There really isn't any slippery slope as some assert by claiming that these states would lose their control over their deer harvest without taking some drastic measures.
The state controls the number of hunters and tags for each unit, the length of the season, and the sex of the deer harvested.
Any changes in the hunter success ratio is adjusted by each state in relation to the size of the deer herd and evironmental considerations every year already and will continue to be.
The narrow issue is whether this Federal law is applicable to the states.
35 states have managed to avoid being named in the complaint while 15 have not. Should we believe that these 15 states are deer poor?
If a state decided to go the sidelock route, then everyone can go buy a sidelock and will if that's what it takes to use a scope. But from there, each state's voters will retaliate through the political process as it should be.
Whether the complaint is successful or not isn't even the only concern here. It's whether or not each state will make any effort to respond to some of the charges made in the complaint in an effort to accomodate their own resident hunters (and voters) needs and desires by doing what's right voluntarily. That's the way a representative democracy is supposed to work.