collapse

Author Topic: Should 209 primers be legal?  (Read 13025 times)

Offline Machias

  • Trapper
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Explorer
  • ******
  • Join Date: Mar 2007
  • Posts: 15368
  • Location: Worley, ID
Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
« Reply #105 on: October 05, 2017, 07:57:57 PM »
Bob33, I don't dispise Wa Fish and Game, I save that for Liberals and Terrorist,  but I repeat myself.   I'm not happy with some of their management...er mismanagement decision, but I don't dispise them.  My point wasn't about restrictions on equipment,  if you thought that, I'm guessing you missed my whole point about not caring what equipment they allow or restrict.  My whole point, and thank you for posting Idaho's regs, is in Idaho the various user groups don't care about season lengths or equipment because everyone is not fighting for more time in the field or different dates.  They can all already participate in each of the three seasons.  Now they certainly have discussions about how far to push those restrictions, but you don't have guys bitching about season dates and length of seasons some other guy is getting, because they aren't pitted against and competing against each other.
« Last Edit: October 05, 2017, 09:20:15 PM by Machias »
Fred Moyer


History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid.

Offline konradcountry

  • Non-Hunting Topics
  • Trade Count: (+2)
  • Hunter
  • *
  • Join Date: May 2016
  • Posts: 228
  • Location: SouthWest
Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
« Reply #106 on: October 05, 2017, 08:07:31 PM »
Absolutely no reason not to allow 209 primers. If you are a High and Mighty on primitive go get a Hawken. Still primitive with a 209 btw

High and mighty? What about adding a laser? That was developed before 209 primers. Still primitive?

I voted no. Allowing 209 is just one step closer to getting rid of NW rules and allowing scopes. Then more people will flood the already short muzzle season.

You are the one being "high and mighty" by not considering all viewpoints. Easier equipment = more people. It really it is that simple.

Offline hunter399

  • Political Topics
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Sourdough
  • *
  • Join Date: Feb 2014
  • Posts: 1513
  • Location: northeast washington
  • Groups: NRA RMEF
Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
« Reply #107 on: October 05, 2017, 08:30:02 PM »
I don't see it as hunters pitted against each other.  The state reached out to see what we think and we are having an open discussion.  It doesn't seem too realistic for hunters to agree on 100% of the things 100% of the time.  Nothing wrong with a good discussion in my book.

This survey is not pitting us against each other, the state has already done that with creating the choose your weapons requirement.  You don't have this fighting in the vast majority of states, because modern firearms guys are not jealous of the long season the bowhunters have, because if they wanted to bowhunt they could.  We on the other hand are jealous if the archery hunters get an extra day or if the muzzle loaders dates are in a more prime time, because we are all fighting for days in the field and the "enemy" is the other user groups.  In other states they could care less if you hunt with a lighted sight on your bow with mechanical heads, shooting lazers out of the nock.  They don't care if you have a scoped crossbow in archery season.  They could care less if you have a scoped, inline muzzleloader, shooting 209 primers.  None of the hunters fight like we do, because if you don't want to use that equipment then you don't.  If you do, great.  I was a big proponent, for a long time, of no electronics on the bow or arrow.  After living there and realizing what other guys were using had ZERO impact on me, I stopped worrying about.  I personally don't like lighted nocks, so I didn't use them.  Despised crossbows during the archery season, then went to a state that allowed them, so I tried them.  Hunted for 2 weeks with a crossbow and hated it.  Sold it and went back to a compound bow.
A few points good points,the choose your weapon ,i can't imagine muzzy,bowhunter,trying to hunt public land in Washington with all the rifle hunters,out at the same time,or having any deer left.I'm also for choose the side of the state your hunting for deer.I'm for equipment changes in all user groups ,I do agree with the idea behind if you don't like it ,than use a different method.But I'm like most people if I don't get changes in my user group than I'm not gonna vote yes for better changes ,At this point I don't want any change in weapon restrictions.Just like the 4pt min in the NE corner a lot people complaining made it go away , now the quality of bucks,or lack of bucks is really starting to take effect,I guess what I'm sayin is sometimes people don't know what's good for them,or know what they had till it's gone.Sometimes no change is needed,if muzzy people don't like the rules there is other options ,multi season permit,or other weapon.
Two birds in the Bush is always better than one in the hand-that way you can always go to the Bush and hunt another day .conservation=Better hunting.
Wrote by hunter399

Offline j_h_nimrod

  • Non-Hunting Topics
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Sourdough
  • *
  • Join Date: Aug 2011
  • Posts: 1219
  • Location: Humptulips, WA
Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
« Reply #108 on: October 05, 2017, 10:35:15 PM »
Absolutely no reason not to allow 209 primers. If you are a High and Mighty on primitive go get a Hawken. Still primitive with a 209 btw

High and mighty? What about adding a laser? That was developed before 209 primers. Still primitive?

I voted no. Allowing 209 is just one step closer to getting rid of NW rules and allowing scopes. Then more people will flood the already short muzzle season.

You are the one being "high and mighty" by not considering all viewpoints. Easier equipment = more people. It really it is that simple.

Not sure about high n mighty but a 209 does not make a muzzleloader hunting easier or more effective. There are only a few wet side areas that would benefit from the intrinsic water resistance of most 209 systems. The major difficulties of hunting with a mz are one shot, slow and difficult reload, and limited range.  The 209 primer changes none of this and only adds the benefit of using different powders and pellets reliably and having a slightly better chance of ignition in the relitively small portions of the state that are very wet. The 209 type primer has been around for a long time, not sure of the full history but the shotshells of the 50s n 60s had a very similar primer design and in reality they are very similar to other primers in their constituent parts.

 I would say you are wrong in stating lasers have been around longer than the 209 type primers. Lasers started in the late 50s or early 60s in a very rudimentary form. The 209 is a refinement of existent primer design that has been around since the mid 1800s.

I cannot see the addition of 209 primers to a legal mz season would make more that a minute difference in the number of hunters or the amount of game killed. There was much less reason for mechanical broadheads being added to archery than the 209 being allowed for mz. I thought archery was supposed to be a "primitive" season as well :dunno:

Offline Damnimissed

  • Political Topics
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Scout
  • *
  • Join Date: Dec 2013
  • Posts: 445
  • Location: Rochester
Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
« Reply #109 on: October 05, 2017, 11:37:11 PM »
No, I hunt the wet side and do not want 209 primers approved. Keep it primitive.
"Don't piss with 'em"

Offline JimmyHoffa

  • Non-Hunting Topics
  • Trade Count: (+2)
  • Explorer
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2010
  • Posts: 10303
  • Location: 150 Years Too Late
Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
« Reply #110 on: October 05, 2017, 11:46:50 PM »
Bob33, I don't dispise Wa Fish and Game, I save that for Liberals and Terrorist,  but I repeat myself.   I'm not happy with some of their management...er mismanagement decision, but I don't dispise them.  My point wasn't about restrictions on equipment,  if you thought that, I'm guessing you missed my whole point about not caring what equipment they allow or restrict.  My whole point, and thank you for posting Idaho's regs, is in Idaho the various user groups don't care about season lengths or equipment because everyone is not fighting for more time in the field or different dates.  They can all already participate in each of the three seasons.  Now they certainly have discussions about how far to push those restrictions, but you don't have guys bitching about season dates and length of seasons some other guy is getting, because they aren't pitted against and competing against each other.
Idaho has got a ton more animals per hunter, though.  They can have all kinds of seasons before hand by different user groups and still have decent odds at a legal animal.  Some of the more elky westside units are down below 5% success.  You can drive by some pastures and see a couple hundred elk, all cows/spikes/two points.

Offline Mallardmasher

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Scout
  • ****
  • Join Date: Jan 2016
  • Posts: 252
  • Location: Port Orchard, Washington
  • IBEW LU 46
  • Groups: CCA WWA
Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
« Reply #111 on: October 06, 2017, 12:33:37 AM »
If you are not shooting a Hawkins with flint, how can you make a statement, like keep it primitive, if you are shooting winged Muscat caps, sabots, anything other then BP and rifles barrels, and say I voted "no" keep it primitive. Please look in the mirror. Choose your method of modernization, and don't choose for others. To each their own
USN 1985-94, IBEW Local 46 1994-Present
Matt

Offline Machias

  • Trapper
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Explorer
  • ******
  • Join Date: Mar 2007
  • Posts: 15368
  • Location: Worley, ID
Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
« Reply #112 on: October 06, 2017, 07:53:48 AM »
Bob33, I don't dispise Wa Fish and Game, I save that for Liberals and Terrorist,  but I repeat myself.   I'm not happy with some of their management...er mismanagement decision, but I don't dispise them.  My point wasn't about restrictions on equipment,  if you thought that, I'm guessing you missed my whole point about not caring what equipment they allow or restrict.  My whole point, and thank you for posting Idaho's regs, is in Idaho the various user groups don't care about season lengths or equipment because everyone is not fighting for more time in the field or different dates.  They can all already participate in each of the three seasons.  Now they certainly have discussions about how far to push those restrictions, but you don't have guys bitching about season dates and length of seasons some other guy is getting, because they aren't pitted against and competing against each other.
Idaho has got a ton more animals per hunter, though.  They can have all kinds of seasons before hand by different user groups and still have decent odds at a legal animal.  Some of the more elky westside units are down below 5% success.  You can drive by some pastures and see a couple hundred elk, all cows/spikes/two points.

And yet they cram us all into a few GMUs
« Last Edit: October 06, 2017, 09:13:45 AM by Machias »
Fred Moyer


History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid.

Offline baker5150

  • Site Sponsor
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Sourdough
  • *****
  • Join Date: Feb 2012
  • Posts: 1805
Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
« Reply #113 on: October 06, 2017, 08:32:47 AM »
If you are not shooting a Hawkins with flint, how can you make a statement, like keep it primitive, if you are shooting winged Muscat caps, sabots, anything other then BP and rifles barrels, and say I voted "no" keep it primitive. Please look in the mirror. Choose your method of modernization, and don't choose for others. To each their own

I think by "keep it primitive" they mean keep it at it's current level of primitiveness (is that a word, probably not).
From what I gather (because it's been stated multiple times already) they are more concerned with making things easier and less challenging, thus creating more hunters in the field, a good point in my opinion.


Offline Fishmaker57

  • Business Sponsor
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Pilgrim
  • *****
  • Join Date: Aug 2017
  • Posts: 12
  • Location: Eastern Wa.
  • Groups: Ducks Unlimited, CCA
Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
« Reply #114 on: October 06, 2017, 09:10:08 AM »
As we already are allowed to use sabots, and pelletized powder, I can't see a reason not to allow 209 primers. As for the discussion on "primitive weapon" you either go truly primitive i.e. flintlock, patch and ball, or leave it as is and add 209s.  Fewer and fewer manufactures of smoke poles are offering them without the 209 system. The topic of scopes shouldn't even be discussed, as that takes this to a whole new level.

Offline The Deacon

  • Non-Hunting Topics
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Pilgrim
  • *
  • Join Date: Oct 2008
  • Posts: 31
  • Location: Cathlamet
Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
« Reply #115 on: October 06, 2017, 09:47:31 AM »
Yes on 209 primers. Yes on scoped muzzleloaders. It's not a "primitive weapons" season; it's a muzzleloader season. From an ethical standpoint, why not allow hunters to use the most effective tool for the task at hand? You can use a hammer; however, you have to drive the nails with the handle. It's never made any sense (to me) -

Is there WDFW evidence to support the claim that harvest rates will (dramatically) increase resulting in GMU closures and shortened seasons, if 209 primers were allowed? Have harvest rates increased since the inclusion of pelletized powders and saboted bullets? Is there any data pertaining to how many hunters will join the ranks of the primitive weapons crowd should 209 primers be permitted?

Isn't referring to a modern inline muzzleloader as a "primitive weapon" somewhat - well - misleading?

If it's a question of technology in hunting, how can one defend the use of trail cameras? Laser rangefinders? Mechanical broadheads? Compound bows? Synthetic (black)powder? Wireless electronic predator calls?

My concerns are the (constant) wedges being driven into the ranks of today's consumptive user BY the consumptive user. Us versus Them. Us versus Them. Does anyone remember 2000 and WA trapping? Hounds? Bait?
Maggie, January 1994 - 5 May 2008

Offline Sabotloader

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Sourdough
  • *****
  • Join Date: Apr 2011
  • Posts: 1947
  • Location: Idaho, Northern
Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
« Reply #116 on: October 06, 2017, 10:01:42 AM »
Yes on 209 primers. Yes on scoped muzzleloaders. It's not a "primitive weapons" season; it's a muzzleloader season. From an ethical standpoint, why not allow hunters to use the most effective tool for the task at hand? You can use a hammer; however, you have to drive the nails with the handle. It's never made any sense (to me) -

Is there WDFW evidence to support the claim that harvest rates will (dramatically) increase resulting in GMU closures and shortened seasons, if 209 primers were allowed? Have harvest rates increased since the inclusion of pelletized powders and saboted bullets? Is there any data pertaining to how many hunters will join the ranks of the primitive weapons crowd should 209 primers be permitted?

Isn't referring to a modern inline muzzleloader as a "primitive weapon" somewhat - well - misleading?

If it's a question of technology in hunting, how can one defend the use of trail cameras? Laser rangefinders? Mechanical broadheads? Compound bows? Synthetic (black)powder? Wireless electronic predator calls?

My concerns are the (constant) wedges being driven into the ranks of today's consumptive user BY the consumptive user. Us versus Them. Us versus Them. Does anyone remember 2000 and WA trapping? Hounds? Bait?

Excellent point!
Keep shooting muzzleloaders - They are a blast!!

Offline Magnum_Willys

  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Frontiersman
  • *****
  • Join Date: Nov 2009
  • Posts: 2971
Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
« Reply #117 on: October 06, 2017, 10:13:10 AM »
Well Deacon Iím thinking you are on to something here. With all the factors removing opportunity for hunters we should be pushing to expand any opportunities we can to offset wolves, loss of habitat, climate change, social change, etc.  Even more so anything that encourages new and/or youth hunters is good. At the very least letís let youth muzzle loaders use a scope ?  What a great way to enhance youth success rates - which are so low it really discourages new hunter participation.

Offline pianoman9701

  • Mushroom Man
  • Political Topics
  • Trade Count: (+2)
  • Legend
  • *
  • Join Date: Mar 2011
  • Posts: 27547
  • Location: Vancouver USA
  • NRA Life, MH, WFW, CCRKBA, NAGR, RMEF, WSB
Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
« Reply #118 on: October 06, 2017, 10:22:53 AM »
 :yeah: It's like compound v. longbow. If you don't want to use it, don't use it. That doesn't mean another fellow hunter doesn't get to.
"Restricting the rights of law-abiding citizens based on the actions of criminals and madmen will have no positive effect on the future acts of criminals and madmen. It will only serve to reduce individual rights and the very security of our republic." - Pianoman

Offline blackveltbowhunter

  • Non-Hunting Topics
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Frontiersman
  • *
  • Join Date: Oct 2009
  • Posts: 3023
Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
« Reply #119 on: October 06, 2017, 10:34:23 AM »
Sorry. I would not support this sentiment. I don't have a problem with 209 primers however. The term "primitive" for the sake of this discussion should be viewed as "less effective". Even of the guys who hunt stick and string, very few run gut strings, or chip flint, or sand their own cedar. Sure a few do, but the vast majority still take advantage of certain luxury afforded by technology.  Certainly all of our equipment has advanced. But restrictions remain in effect to make it "less effective". I do not hunt muzzy, so will defer topics on range and effectiveness to those who are experts in that field. But based on my discussions with others and comments here 209 would not dramatically increase the performance and/or reliability to experts with inline guns.

Similar to the lighted nock and mechanical debate. Neither really help in creating additional opportunity. Those who are successful will remain so, the guy who is in the middle may see a slight increase in opportunity, and the guy who is currently unsuccessful is not likely to benefit either. There is technology that exists that certainly makes both "primitive" weapons far more effective. Those remain restricted, for good reason.

 

* Recent Topics

triple se7en powder by lokidog
[Yesterday at 11:03:31 PM]


2018 upgrades by yakimanoob
[Yesterday at 11:03:08 PM]


Archery Deer this year, Yay! by lokidog
[Yesterday at 10:59:09 PM]


338 375 ruger build by yorketransport
[Yesterday at 10:46:12 PM]


DIY Break-Away Flashers - A tutorial by cem3434
[Yesterday at 10:34:14 PM]


Leica CRF 1600B rangefinder by Black Ghost
[Yesterday at 10:31:07 PM]


WTB 44 MAG REVOLVER AND 7MM STW by clayslayer85
[Yesterday at 10:28:48 PM]


After Libs Blame West Coast Fires on Global Warming, Forester Speaks out by bigtex
[Yesterday at 10:21:25 PM]


Maui/Lahina fishing by KFhunter
[Yesterday at 10:11:54 PM]


THE CLOCK IS TICKING, THE GROUSE CALENDAR IS COUNTING DOWN by Mfowl
[Yesterday at 09:53:55 PM]


2018 Area 9 and 10 Summer Kings by blackpowderhunter
[Yesterday at 09:30:21 PM]


WTS Left Handed Benelli SBE 2 (Price drop) by Rex_04
[Yesterday at 09:25:40 PM]


Project truck by Angry Perch
[Yesterday at 09:05:48 PM]


best backpack by Sakko300wsm
[Yesterday at 08:47:26 PM]


For Sale 2006 Dodge Ram Cummins by jrebel
[Yesterday at 08:20:08 PM]


Powder by Sabotloader
[Yesterday at 08:19:55 PM]


Hen Ringnecks by Old Dog
[Yesterday at 08:09:21 PM]


FS: '17 Hoyt Carbon Defiant 34, 60-70lb #3 Cam by Viking360
[Yesterday at 07:39:23 PM]


New to WA - access laws question by KFhunter
[Yesterday at 07:21:13 PM]


My new truck... by jstone
[Yesterday at 07:02:53 PM]