Should 209 primers be legal?

[Bob33]

The terms “primitive” and “modern” are not necessarily two distinct points 180 degrees apart. There’s a continuous spectrum with many points between. A scoped inline muzzleloader with 209 primers is probably every bit as or more effective than an iron-sighted 30-30 lever action.

Technology has progressed in all three hunting methods: modern, muzzleloader, and archery. A case could be made that of the three muzzleloaders have progressed slower than the other two in recent years.

Where the line is drawn to limit technological advances will always be debatable.

I do think it’s important to recognize that WDFW sets season dates and lengths based on anticipated harvests, and attempts to balance opportunity and harvest between the three methods.

[ctwiggs1]

The terms “primitive” and “modern” are not necessarily two distinct points 180 degrees apart. There’s a continuous spectrum with many points between. A scoped inline muzzleloader with 209 primers is probably every bit as or more effective than an iron-sighted 30-30 lever action.

Technology has progressed in all three hunting methods: modern, muzzleloader, and archery. A case could be made that of the three muzzleloaders have progressed slower than the other two in recent years.

Where the line is drawn to limit technological advances will always be debatable.

I do think it’s important to recognize that WDFW sets season dates and lengths based on anticipated harvests, and attempts to balance opportunity and harvest between the three methods.

Every time I read your posts I feel that your Zebra is staring into my soul.

[Fl0und3rz]

So if 209 primers are no more successful or reliable than musket caps and are also, paraphrasing,  "exposed to the elements" and subject to moisture like musket caps, what then is the reason to preclude them for legit muzzleloader weapons?

[Sabotloader]

@sabotloader

Mike - I'm not as well versed as others but the term "modern" seems to be used pretty loosely here.  I mean the Henry rifle was produced 160 years ago and it would be considered a modern firearm.

Curtis

Curtis - I know exactly what you mean!  One of the things that we need to remember or think about Traditionalists and Archers are very well organized and make their presence and wishes known in the right places.  On the other hand we the regular shooters hunters - really including the bulk of the modern day rifle hunters - WE are not organized and do not offer a united front.  I compare us to the farmers of America - do you know how strong and powerful they could be it they were truly organized and united.  The problem is as with us a lot of the time, how do you tell a group of independent strong willed farmers - this is the way we are going to do it because that is the way we want you to do it!!

[Sabotloader]

The terms “primitive” and “modern” are not necessarily two distinct points 180 degrees apart. There’s a continuous spectrum with many points between. A scoped inline muzzleloader with 209 primers is probably every bit as or more effective than an iron-sighted 30-30 lever action.

Not necessarily true!!!  I can get a lot of extra shots with a 30-30, actually even many more than a normal modern bolt action rifle. With a modern ML I still only get normally one good shot!  And you know what I still way prefer the ML.

Technology has progressed in all three hunting methods: modern, muzzleloader, and archery. A case could be made that of the three muzzleloaders have progressed slower than the other two in recent years.

Where the line is drawn to limit technological advances will always be debatable.

I do think it’s important to recognize that WDFW sets season dates and lengths based on anticipated harvests, and attempts to balance opportunity and harvest between the three methods.

[Bob33]

The terms “primitive” and “modern” are not necessarily two distinct points 180 degrees apart. There’s a continuous spectrum with many points between. A scoped inline muzzleloader with 209 primers is probably every bit as or more effective than an iron-sighted 30-30 lever action.

Technology has progressed in all three hunting methods: modern, muzzleloader, and archery. A case could be made that of the three muzzleloaders have progressed slower than the other two in recent years.

Where the line is drawn to limit technological advances will always be debatable.

I do think it’s important to recognize that WDFW sets season dates and lengths based on anticipated harvests, and attempts to balance opportunity and harvest between the three methods.

Every time I read your posts I feel that your Zebra is staring into my soul.

It is, but I won't post what is sees.

[Mr Mykiss]

No

[Machias]

Before I went to Virginia in 2012 I would have voted no.  I voted yes.  I've never been to a state that pits it's user groups against each other like this state does.  Pretty sad really, pit each user group against each other and cram everyone into certain GMUs, so more over crowding goes on.  Amazing.

[pianoman9701]

  That's why I voted yes. I have no dog in this fight - don't hunt or own an ML.

[Jonathan_S]

nope

[Karl Blanchard]

Nope

[The100Road]

Yes!

If you hunt muzzy and don't like 209 then don't use them.

If you don't hunt muzzy then why do you care what I use? If it makes it more "modern" then stop rifle hunting and switch to muzzy.

I don't archery hunt, but why would I vote no to lighted knocks and expandable broad heads? If you want to use them then go for it. If you don't then don't. Why would I care what you use as long as its not illegal?

[JDHasty]

Yes!

If you hunt muzzy and don't like 209 then don't use them.

If you don't hunt muzzy then why do you care what I use? If it makes it more "modern" then stop rifle hunting and switch to muzzy.

I don't archery hunt, but why would I vote no to lighted knocks and expandable broad heads? If you want to use them then go for it. If you don't then don't. Why would I care what you use as long as its not illegal?

The reason for the discussion being opened up is because if a change in equipment affects harvest rate then the way that WDFW will address that is by changing the Season length.  I personally think the longer ML Season is worth having to deal w/caps instead of primers being allowed.  If you think allowing 209s will not have any affect on ML Season length or you think a more reliable ignition is a fair tradeoff for having a shorter ML Season then you probably will be for the allowance of 209 primers. 

[JimmyHoffa]

Yes!

If you hunt muzzy and don't like 209 then don't use them.

If you don't hunt muzzy then why do you care what I use? If it makes it more "modern" then stop rifle hunting and switch to muzzy.

I don't archery hunt, but why would I vote no to lighted knocks and expandable broad heads? If you want to use them then go for it. If you don't then don't. Why would I care what you use as long as its not illegal?

I don't think it is about being a muzzy hunter or a bowhunter.  If muzzy is someone's it thing, they have a few seasons to use it in (early muzz, modern, late muzz, bear, cougar).  There are a few guys that do go after bear with muzzy because they like using muzzy.  Mostly, it seems like trying to get as close to having a 'modern' weapon outside of the 'modern' season especially in an optimally timed season.  Basically trying to use a rifle ahead of the rifle guys.  If modern had an Oct 1-7 option for elk, how many muzzies would still be out in the woods?  If modern was Sept 15-30, what percent of current bowhunters would be switching to a rifle?

[WSU]

The limiting factor for a muzzy is a single shot and open sites.  Keeping your powder dry is a pain and a 209 might be more reliable (I don't know, never used them), but I've never had ignition problems with No. 11 or musket caps.  Keep your powder dry and the gun goes boom every time.