Should 209 primers be legal?

[Sitka_Blacktail]

I have been paying to hunt Unit 660 Minot Peak because it's close to home and I can take my son out after school.  I'm not paying to hunt another unit in the late season. I probably won't pay to hunt there after this year. As for archery, I have a bad shoulder so it's not comfy to do any more. I do like hunting muzzy, but the season frankly sucks.

As for the season lengths I just posted, you can check yourself if you don't believe me. Early season rifle Oct 14-Oct 31. That is 18 days in my book. Archers get it Sept 1- Sept 29 Ooops only 29 days, not 30, my bad. and Nov 22 - Dec 31. That is 40 days. So 69 days of any deer archery and only 9 days of muzzleloading buck only season. And this is in a unit I am paying to hunt in. You can't tell me that there is a management reason that Archery can't give up some days to muzzleloading. Especially with bucks only for muzzy season. It's not management, it's political.  I'd hunt muzzy there if the season was reasonable. Instead I hunt modern so odds are better I'll get my deer. In fact I already have.  Politics is forcing me to hunt with a more efficient weapon.

First of all good for you getting your son out. I also enjoy hunting with my sons. If paying to hunt helps that's great but it's your choice. You are correct on the number of days but wrong on the point that it's ANY DEER for 69 days, now some units offer that option but others only offer any buck or 3 pt min. Just like MZ seasons some units offer any deer as well and others any buck. The number of days is a direct reflection of the success between archery and long guns. Sounds like you have hunted archery before?? I will say since I changed to archery I totally enjoy hunting alot more having to get VERY close to the game I'm after. With rifes getting out to 1000 yards now and MZs going out to 200+ archery is much more of a challenge and more fun, at least for me. Enjoy your time with your son now. Mine are grown with kids of their own. So it can be a challenge to get all three of us together on a hunt now. Oldest grandson is turning 9 next spring so in the next couple years it's been my goal to hunt all three generations together.

goldnhtr, I'm talking about the unit that I hunt locally, 660 Minot Peak. It is any deer for 69 days for archery.  As for black powder, I treat it like I'm hunting with a bow. I certainly don't take 200 yard shots. My limit for a first shot is 50-60 yards. Most of the deer I have taken hunting black powder have been under 20 yards with 4 of them being 5-10 yards. We used to hunt Lincoln, 501 back when it was open access. But I'm not willing to pay for more than one unit to hunt in. As I said, I chose the local area to be able to take my son out after school.

As for challenging...... The success rates in my unit (660) are 21% for Modern, 18% for archery, and 5% for muzzleloaders.  Part of that is because of the liberal  archery season and the short muzzy season.  There is no biological reason that muzzy hunters can't have more time in there. Especially when they are paying to hunt there. 

Go down to deer table 5 through table 7 and you will see the state's own data on this.

http://wdfw.wa.gov/hunting/prospects/2017/district17.pdf

[goldenhtr]

I have been paying to hunt Unit 660 Minot Peak because it's close to home and I can take my son out after school.  I'm not paying to hunt another unit in the late season. I probably won't pay to hunt there after this year. As for archery, I have a bad shoulder so it's not comfy to do any more. I do like hunting muzzy, but the season frankly sucks.

As for the season lengths I just posted, you can check yourself if you don't believe me. Early season rifle Oct 14-Oct 31. That is 18 days in my book. Archers get it Sept 1- Sept 29 Ooops only 29 days, not 30, my bad. and Nov 22 - Dec 31. That is 40 days. So 69 days of any deer archery and only 9 days of muzzleloading buck only season. And this is in a unit I am paying to hunt in. You can't tell me that there is a management reason that Archery can't give up some days to muzzleloading. Especially with bucks only for muzzy season. It's not management, it's political.  I'd hunt muzzy there if the season was reasonable. Instead I hunt modern so odds are better I'll get my deer. In fact I already have.  Politics is forcing me to hunt with a more efficient weapon.

First of all good for you getting your son out. I also enjoy hunting with my sons. If paying to hunt helps that's great but it's your choice. You are correct on the number of days but wrong on the point that it's ANY DEER for 69 days, now some units offer that option but others only offer any buck or 3 pt min. Just like MZ seasons some units offer any deer as well and others any buck. The number of days is a direct reflection of the success between archery and long guns. Sounds like you have hunted archery before?? I will say since I changed to archery I totally enjoy hunting alot more having to get VERY close to the game I'm after. With rifes getting out to 1000 yards now and MZs going out to 200+ archery is much more of a challenge and more fun, at least for me. Enjoy your time with your son now. Mine are grown with kids of their own. So it can be a challenge to get all three of us together on a hunt now. Oldest grandson is turning 9 next spring so in the next couple years it's been my goal to hunt all three generations together.

goldnhtr, I'm talking about the unit that I hunt locally, 660 Minot Peak. It is any deer for 69 days for archery.  As for black powder, I treat it like I'm hunting with a bow. I certainly don't take 200 yard shots. My limit for a first shot is 50-60 yards. Most of the deer I have taken hunting black powder have been under 20 yards with 4 of them being 5-10 yards. We used to hunt Lincoln, 501 back when it was open access. But I'm not willing to pay for more than one unit to hunt in. As I said, I chose the local area to be able to take my son out after school.

As for challenging...... The success rates in my unit (660) are 21% for Modern, 18% for archery, and 5% for muzzleloaders.  Part of that is because of the liberal  archery season and the short muzzy season.  There is no biological reason that muzzy hunters can't have more time in there. Especially when they are paying to hunt there. 

Go down to deer table 5 through table 7 and you will see the state's own data on this.

http://wdfw.wa.gov/hunting/prospects/2017/district17.pdf

Ok I see where you are going with this I think. I see in the regs that IN YOUR UNIT 660 archers have the late hunt. There for you have no late hunt close to home that you paid for. BTW you don't pay the WDFW for your access so that is a non factor to me and has nothing to do with the season length. I have the same gripe in the unit I spend most of my time in unit 130. Several years ago they took this unit (late hunt)from archers and gave the late season in this unit to MZ users. Tell you what I will give up the late archery hunt in unit 660 if you give up the late MZ hunt in unit 130.   Bottom line is you want more time in the woods. Sounds like you need to take up archery. My brother still hunts MZ and has not connected in the last 5 years and he takes the whole 9 days off work and hunts every day. Looks like success is directly related to the area you hunt, surprise. But I think you know that. Take advantage of the time you have with your son in the field and remember it's not all about harvesting an animal at this point. You didn't say how old your son is but as he gets older maybe an incentive for good school work he can get a couple days out of school to hit the field for several days in a row.(TFSS)

[Lefty315]

I voted no. Many reasons why! One would be that it is a more consistent ignition system even in the elements thus the amount of kills would greatly increase. That takes away from the idea of the muzzle loader. Its bad enough that the muzzy guys and gals are skirting the law by putting plastic and tape over their caps.. which technically is illegal because that means the cap wasnt exposed to the elements at all times. When i think muzzle loader hunting i think like my old hawkens .50 cal with a side hammer or even older muzzle loader rifles. If you are good you can hit targets at 100 yards with a round ball. These modern inline muzzle loaders using saboted rounds and such can shoot 150-200 yards no problem. If there is no significant difference between the 209 primers and caps then why push so hard for the 209’s? Doesnt make sense.

So by your thinking you would rather see possible hang fires and wounded animals?   The limitations that muzzleloader hunters have has more to do with open sights and having one shot available until they can reload.    I'm guessing with practice someone might get that done in 15-20 seconds, but most people will not.   You could make the same argument regarding compound bows versus traditional bows.   To ask the same question you did, if there isn't significant difference between 209 primers and caps then why should anyone care?   Especially other hunters....sticking together on hunting issues is more beneficial to all hunters.   Someday you may need the voice or vote of someone who hunts with a different weapon than you do.

[JDHasty]

I voted no. Many reasons why! One would be that it is a more consistent ignition system even in the elements thus the amount of kills would greatly increase. That takes away from the idea of the muzzle loader. Its bad enough that the muzzy guys and gals are skirting the law by putting plastic and tape over their caps.. which technically is illegal because that means the cap wasnt exposed to the elements at all times. When i think muzzle loader hunting i think like my old hawkens .50 cal with a side hammer or even older muzzle loader rifles. If you are good you can hit targets at 100 yards with a round ball. These modern inline muzzle loaders using saboted rounds and such can shoot 150-200 yards no problem. If there is no significant difference between the 209 primers and caps then why push so hard for the 209’s? Doesnt make sense.

So by your thinking you would rather see possible hang fires and wounded animals?   The limitations that muzzleloader hunters have has more to do with open sights and having one shot available until they can reload.    I'm guessing with practice someone might get that done in 15-20 seconds, but most people will not.   You could make the same argument regarding compound bows versus traditional bows.   To ask the same question you did, if there isn't significant difference between 209 primers and caps then why should anyone care?   Especially other hunters....sticking together on hunting issues is more beneficial to all hunters.   Someday you may need the voice or vote of someone who hunts with a different weapon than you do.

So why does this demand they accept your position and not compel you to come their way?

[Kazekurt]

A sad reality in this country is that people are very willing to vote or advocate away the rights of other people; or vote  them into a position of disadvantage simply because they have little to no skin in the game  or perceive that they will gain some sort of benefit at no cost to them personally.   This is very flawed thinking  because it almost always eventually comes calling.  People who are not gun owners will almost always vote to legislate guns,  people who do not own property will almost always vote to raise property taxes, etc.  I honestly believe the vast majority of the people who would be against this are people who believe it would somehow disadvantage them in someway.  It's just like the illuminated Knocks, mechanical broadheads, etc.  I have no doubt if you were to take a survey of only muzzle loader or bow hunters and ask them if they would be willing to ban scopes on rifles that a majority would do it.   Do you guys honestly believe that changing the ignition system is going to cause a monumental shift in The harvest statistics?  I don't,  and it's because as a previous poster said, you are still limited to no optics and a single shot.   Unfortunately, rifle hunters are the biggest user group, and they almost always gang up on the other user groups with help  from traditionalists who want to drive as many people out of their user group as possible so they can hunt alone.   My philosophy is to live and let live. If it isn't something that will monumentally affect safety in an adverse way or devastate herds then let it be.   I have a neighbor that works for the WDFW  and he told me long ago that there are some very selfish hunters in this state that make it hard to do the right thing a lot of the time.  One example I will site is that we do very little for youth hunters compared to other states and  my neighbor said every time they discuss lengthening the season for youth, letting them start earlier, or letting them shoot animals that others cannot, people throw a fit.  Heaven forbid, somebody else might get someone's buck, and at the end of the day that is what drives all of these  decisions.  The day will come when the antis will vote away our right to hunt and  we will largely have our own self to blame because we seem to do our darndest to discourage other hunters from hunting by making it it as difficult on them as possible.

[Sabotloader]

A sad reality in this country is that people are very willing to vote or advocate away the rights of other people; or vote  them into a position of disadvantage simply because they have little to no skin in the game  or perceive that they will gain some sort of benefit at no cost to them personally.   This is very flawed thinking  because it almost always eventually comes calling.  People who are not gun owners will almost always vote to legislate guns,  people who do not own property will almost always vote to raise property taxes, etc.  I honestly believe the vast majority of the people who would be against this are people who believe it would somehow disadvantage them in someway.  It's just like the illuminated Knocks, mechanical broadheads, etc.  I have no doubt if you were to take a survey of only muzzle loader or bow hunters and ask them if they would be willing to ban scopes on rifles that a majority would do it.   Do you guys honestly believe that changing the ignition system is going to cause a monumental shift in The harvest statistics?  I don't,  and it's because as a previous poster said, you are still limited to no optics and a single shot.   Unfortunately, rifle hunters are the biggest user group, and they almost always gang up on the other user groups with help  from traditionalists who want to drive as many people out of their user group as possible so they can hunt alone.   My philosophy is to live and let live. If it isn't something that will monumentally affect safety in an adverse way or devastate herds then let it be.   I have a neighbor that works for the WDFW  and he told me long ago that there are some very selfish hunters in this state that make it hard to do the right thing a lot of the time.  One example I will site is that we do very little for youth hunters compared to other states and  my neighbor said every time they discuss lengthening the season for youth, letting them start earlier, or letting them shoot animals that others cannot, people throw a fit.  Heaven forbid, somebody else might get someone's buck, and at the end of the day that is what drives all of these  decisions.  The day will come when the antis will vote away our right to hunt and  we will largely have our own self to blame because we seem to do our darndest to discourage other hunters from hunting by making it it as difficult on them as possible.

Al-Right 

[JDHasty]

A sad reality in this country is that people are very willing to vote or advocate away the rights of other people; or vote  them into a position of disadvantage simply because they have little to no skin in the game  or perceive that they will gain some sort of benefit at no cost to them personally.   This is very flawed thinking  because it almost always eventually comes calling.  People who are not gun owners will almost always vote to legislate guns,  people who do not own property will almost always vote to raise property taxes, etc.  I honestly believe the vast majority of the people who would be against this are people who believe it would somehow disadvantage them in someway.  It's just like the illuminated Knocks, mechanical broadheads, etc.  I have no doubt if you were to take a survey of only muzzle loader or bow hunters and ask them if they would be willing to ban scopes on rifles that a majority would do it.   Do you guys honestly believe that changing the ignition system is going to cause a monumental shift in The harvest statistics?  I don't,  and it's because as a previous poster said, you are still limited to no optics and a single shot.   Unfortunately, rifle hunters are the biggest user group, and they almost always gang up on the other user groups with help  from traditionalists who want to drive as many people out of their user group as possible so they can hunt alone.   My philosophy is to live and let live. If it isn't something that will monumentally affect safety in an adverse way or devastate herds then let it be.   I have a neighbor that works for the WDFW  and he told me long ago that there are some very selfish hunters in this state that make it hard to do the right thing a lot of the time.  One example I will site is that we do very little for youth hunters compared to other states and  my neighbor said every time they discuss lengthening the season for youth, letting them start earlier, or letting them shoot animals that others cannot, people throw a fit.  Heaven forbid, somebody else might get someone's buck, and at the end of the day that is what drives all of these  decisions.  The day will come when the antis will vote away our right to hunt and  we will largely have our own self to blame because we seem to do our darndest to discourage other hunters from hunting by making it it as difficult on them as possible.

I hunt ML and I am in favor of not changing the restriction. 

[Bob33]

Those opposed to making 209 primers legal aren't voting away anyone's rights. First, they are not legal currently so there is no right to take away. Second, there is no vote. Those opposed are satisfied with the status quo. Those who want to make them legal are the ones who want change.  It's ok to disagree. Disparaging others you don't agree with doesn't accomplish anything constructive.

[JDHasty]

Those opposed to making 209 primers legal aren't voting away anyone's rights. First, they are not legal currently so there is no right to take away. Second, there is no vote. Those opposed are satisfied with the status quo. Those who want to make them legal are the ones who want change.  It's ok to disagree. Disparaging others you don't agree with doesn't accomplish anything constructive.

Thank you for putting our point in context so concisely.

[Kazekurt]

My question is why oppose it?  If it is something that others want, why restrict them for no good reason?  I've killed deer with all three weapons,  so I probably have a unique insight into hunting with all three weapons, and I just can't see any solid reason to oppose it and most of the reasons I have seen presented in this thread so far come across as self-serving or derive from a parinia that somehow their own hunting experience will be adversely affected by the change.  I'm just asking you guys if you would be in favor of similar(but not the same) limitations being extended across the board. If that is not the case, then you are cherry picking  because I feel some of those arguing against would flip real fast  if the shoe were on the other foot.    I'm just asking people to be open minded and consistent.  This is not meant to disparage any particular individual, it's just a trend that I commonly see in our country at this point.

[Kazekurt]

I probably hunt with a ML the least of the three but I really enjoy it when I do.  I just feel that allowing a change in the ignition system of a muzzleloader, is far less advantageous than  allowing compounds to archers, or allowing magazines and optics to modern hunters,  all of which I am in favor of.   If you personally don't want to hunt with a modern ignition system, don't. But why restrict others?

[JimmyHoffa]

So, where does the line get drawn at?

[Kazekurt]

So, where does the line get drawn at?

 That is the million dollar question.    I feel that the majority  of the people who are against this change, feel that allowing it would be making a muzzleloader too much like a modern rifle.  To me, that is crazy,  since modern hunters are allowed magazines and scopes which are clearly a much bigger advantage then a full proof ignition.   Then there is a small group of muzzleloader hunters, who probably are mainly traditionalist, who just don't like the fact that somebody  is using a superior weapon.  I spent much of my youth hunting with a recurve, full well knowing that my chances at success would be much better with a compound, but I still never begrudged anyone from hunting with a compound.   I chose to hunt with a recruit because I enjoyed it, and like the challenge, but I didn't feel the need to hold others to my standard.   There are some things I definitely feel must be regulated for the good of the herd. Ariel spotting, drones, etc but if it doesn't drastically shift harvest trends To an unsustainable point, then I'm just not in favor of over regulating others.

[Lefty315]

I voted no. Many reasons why! One would be that it is a more consistent ignition system even in the elements thus the amount of kills would greatly increase. That takes away from the idea of the muzzle loader. Its bad enough that the muzzy guys and gals are skirting the law by putting plastic and tape over their caps.. which technically is illegal because that means the cap wasnt exposed to the elements at all times. When i think muzzle loader hunting i think like my old hawkens .50 cal with a side hammer or even older muzzle loader rifles. If you are good you can hit targets at 100 yards with a round ball. These modern inline muzzle loaders using saboted rounds and such can shoot 150-200 yards no problem. If there is no significant difference between the 209 primers and caps then why push so hard for the 209’s? Doesnt make sense.

So by your thinking you would rather see possible hang fires and wounded animals?   The limitations that muzzleloader hunters have has more to do with open sights and having one shot available until they can reload.    I'm guessing with practice someone might get that done in 15-20 seconds, but most people will not.   You could make the same argument regarding compound bows versus traditional bows.   To ask the same question you did, if there isn't significant difference between 209 primers and caps then why should anyone care?   Especially other hunters....sticking together on hunting issues is more beneficial to all hunters.   Someday you may need the voice or vote of someone who hunts with a different weapon than you do.

So why does this demand they accept your position and not compel you to come their way?

It doesn't demand they accept my position.   I currently use a musket cap and wouldn't change a thing with my muzzleloader.   But I would not care if they allowed 209 primers either.   It's still a single shot muzzleloader with open sights.  It's not giving anyone a huge advantage and if it did I would be afforded the same advantage.   It's my choice to use it or not.   When I bowhunt it's with a recurve but I don't care if my neighbor uses a compound either.

[Sitka_Blacktail]

While I agree that if 209 primers were allowed it wouldn't make a huge difference if everything else stayed the same, (a potentially big if that I'll get to in a moment) you cn't argue that it won't make a difference, then argue that there will be less hang fires and less wounded deer. That argument essentially says that it will make a difference.

But the big "IF" is, IF muzzleloaders become more efficient, more people would be willing to hunt with them. That has the potential to be both bad and good. The bad would be more crowded woods during muzzleloader seasons. And muzzleloaders already have the worst seasons and least area to hunt of the weapon choices.  So it's understandable some diehards would be a little touchy about more competition in a limited season.

We've seen it with bow hunting. There is no doubt that compound bows have made it easier for many people to use a bow to harvest an animal. And it led to more people hunting with a bow and more animals harvested with a bow. Back in the 60s and early 70s before the proliferation of compounds, you didn't see a lot of people hunting with bows even though you could hunt any season you wanted. Pulling a 60# + bow and holding it for a good shot wasn't something everyone could do. and most shots were probably 25 yards or less. With compounds, I regularly read about shots being made out to 100 yards and beyond. I'm not going to tell you what I think of that. I'm just going to say that compounds made bowhunting more attractive to more hunters. Add in longer seasons, earlier season, and rut seasons and archery hunting has boomed.

If there were still just the few archery units and shorter seasons from back then, it would make for some miserable hunting now that you are stuck hunting with one weapon. But what happened was, archers got more political pull because there were more of them. Even though they were more efficient, they got more time and more area and rut hunts because they still argue that they aren't that efficient and need an advantage in time and area to be successful. In reality, archers today are every bit as efficient as a muzzy hunter.  I'd even argue that they can get off more shots than a blackpowder hunter.  About the only advantage a muzzleloader has over a bow is being able to shoot through brush without messing up your shot. I know there are guys who will take longer shots with a bow than I will take with my muzzy.

Who knows, maybe if there were more black powder hunters, there would be more and better seasons? Right now all they get is table scraps except in a few instances.