# Rhetorical Question: Why?...



## NDTerminator

Why is it in ND we can legally hunt with use to aid the hunt....

* Spinner Decoys
* Spinner Decoys that work by remote control
* E-Callers
* Trail Cams 
* Trail Cams that wirelessly transmit real time photos to your computer
* Laser Range Finders
* Lighted Cross Hairs
* GPS
* Cell Phones
* Compound Bows with sights & releases
* Crossbows w/ Scopes (with a medical permit)

But we still can't use a magnifying scope on an in-line ML during ML Season?

NDGF, are you paying attention?


----------



## Chuck Smith

I am sure it has to do with the same answer in MN... The traditionalists. Some would like to see in-lines out lawed. So they go with the fact that not using a scope would make it still "primative" style of hunting.

That is what I have been told by my friends who work for the MN DNR. So it could be the same in ND.


----------



## AdamFisk

I am no "traditionalist". I don't even own a ML. Hell, I've never even shot a deer with a ML. But allowing high powers on the fancy new ML's available today would be the dumbest thing ever done. You might as well call it an extension of the rifle season.


----------



## NDTerminator

Taking into account you don't own or shoot a ML Adam, please elaborate your position with some facts why this whould not be allowed, at least something a bit more substantial than it being "the dumbest thing ever"...

If that's the case then by way of comparison, logically shouldn't compound bows with sights & releases be banned? Should not everyone who wants to bowhunt during Bow Season be forced to use recurves or longbows as they are traditional and what was available when bowhunting seasons were first implemented?

Or a more apt comparison, keep compounds legal but restrict modern advances/advantages such as let off percentages and ban sights & release use, as traditional archery does not use them? Should not modern archers be forced to shoot their tackle at the same performance/technology level of a bow built in the mid 1800's?

Or maybe allow them, but only if used during Firearms Season. Make bowhunting season only for "real" bowhunters using Trad bows?

This is an apt comparison as this is exactly what the minotity who choose traditional ML and the NDGF are forcing on the vast majority who choose modern ML.

*As of this season, ND is one of only 11 states left that don't allow a magnifying scope on a ML during ML season. Director Steinwand, I challenge you to support NDGF's position on this with an editorial in a major hunting magazine such as Outdoor Life or Eastman's Hunting Journal. *


----------



## AdamFisk

Sure, I can elaborate...... One reason for not wanting high powers on ML's would be, more people would take to the sport because it just got easy as a hooker on a Saturday night. I feel, that by allowing scopes, you would get a bunch of the yahoos you have running around during rifle season now applying for a muzzy tag. You have to admit, a scope takes a lot of hard work out of shooting a ML and greatly improves the odds of being successful. This will be attractive to the so called hunters who only hunt from their pickups 1 or 2 weekends a year...Which leads me to my next point, and my biggest reason for being against this scope thing.

We would have a much higher success rate correct? Obviously you dont know the answer to that, and neither do I. But one could make a fair assumption that that would be the case. If lucky enough to draw, a guy can harvest 3 bucks in a year. We have our gun season during peak rut, with our ML catching some of it (depending on the year) and going on through the post. We alreadly have a big enough advantage to shoot trophy bucks during rifle season, do you really think it's necessary to up a guys chances to shoot another trophy buck during a ML season a week later? Hey, if somebody can take 3 mature bucks in a year, great. More power to them. My problem lies with trying to make that feat easier to accomplish than it is right now......"Give a guy an inch, and he will take a mile".

Just call it like it is NDT, the muzzy season in our state is a late season trophy hunt and some of you basically want to make it an extension of rifle season. With the technology, powders, bullets, ect available today, putting a scope on a muzzy basically turns it into a scoped rifle, with smaller range limits of course. Which, if in a state where say our gun season isn't during the rut, or 16.5 days long, or you couldn't buy a bow tag over the counter, or you couldn't have the opportunity to shoot 3 bucks in a season, I wouldn't have a problem with it. ......"Give a guy an inch, and he will take a mile".

How many of your 39 states that allow high power scopes gives their residents an opporturnity to shoot 3 bucks in a year? In MN you can shoot 1 buck a year; be it archery, muzzy, shotgun, or whatever. In the case of MN, I would have no problem whatsoever if they were allowed to use scopes on ML's.

So, there are my thoughts on this. I tried to avoid the traditional vs modern thing the best I could, as I don't care whether you are a die hard traditionalist or an inline fan. I just feel with the current amount of opportunity we have in ND right now, we don't need to go and add to that..... Dare I say it, greed is what I see here.


----------



## NDTerminator

Thanks for the more thorough explanation of your position, I appreciate it and do respect your position. That being said...

I might suggest actually spending some time shooting and hunting with a ML, then assess how the reality compares to your current beliefs. You might be surprised to find ML hunting isn't the lead pipe cinch you apparently believe it is.

I think you night find as I did before near vision issues made shooting open sights unethical if not impossible for me, a good sidelock loaded with modern propellant and saboted bullet gives nothing away to an in-line out to a good 125-150 yards with open sights.

From actual experience I can advise the 1X scope actually penalizes someone like myself for who there is no other option as it makes the target appear much farther away than it actually is. It inhibits ANYONE'S ability to place an ethical killing shot.

The "trophy rifle season" argument is flawed in that NDGF regulates both the the number of buck tags issued in both ML and Firearms season, as well as the season length, based on scientific game management, to achieve the desired number of kills. 
The numbers of bucks anyone has a "right" to is a flawed argument for the same reason. You draw or you don't, GF regulates the number of tags available. You have every much as right to apply for available tags or buy a bow tag as the next guy.

If you can get any NDGF employee to actually talk about it (most prefer not to if a person brings it up) in my experience they tend to fall back on the old bit that an in-line with a scope isn't "traditional", another flawed argument that brings us back to the precedent already set by the compound/traditional bows...

The hard cold fact is that the manner in which NDGF's target number of bucks get deep-sixed is irrelevant to both the deer and game management goals...


----------



## AdamFisk

You know, I hadn't thought about a person with imparied vision, just the greedy fellow. Thanks for bringing that up. I would most defenitely support a permit for the visualy impaired, much like a crossbow permit. They must see a Doc, get a permit, the whole shibang. I don't see how anybody could argue with that. It makes sense.

With that said, I still feel most of the people who would push for a scoped ML season do it out of greed. They want to make it easier to shoot another deer, plain and simple. I feel people like my self and most others, who don't have vision problems, don't and shouldn't need the use of high power scopes during a ML season. We have more than enough deer hunting opportunites as it is right now. Also, I still feel that allowing scopes during the ML season would bring a lot of the people you and I, and most others on here despise, out of the woodwork for another 16.5 days. That I can live without.

Allow "handicap" permits or leave it like it is, but don't allow everybody to use scopes. That is my stance.


----------



## NDTerminator

The fact is that our hunting population (all of America, not just ND) is getting older, not younger. I think the last study I read put the median age somewhere around 44. This is roughly the age that most men begin experiencing unavoidable near vision issues. At 52 I can assure you this gets worse, not better, as a guy gets older.

So being, banning the use of magnifying scopes actually descriminates against many in the primary hunting core group...

Think of this in terms of rifles. If you drew a Firearms Buck tag issued by NDGF based on their management goal, and had a rifle cabable of say, 1.5MOA accuracy at 200 or 300 yards, would you be OK with it if NDGF mandated you could only use open sights on that rifle, thereby limiting it's effective range to 100 yards? Or if your eyes were such that the mandatory open sights were too blurry to shoot with, give you the options of a non-magnifying red dot optic, effective maybe out to 75 yards, or a 1X scope that makes that deer at 200 look like it's 400 yards away, making an ethical shot 50-75 yards tops?

This current reg not only discriminates against older hunters, it actually penalizes we who can't ethically shoot open sights.

Also like rifles, bear in mind not every in-line ML in productionis capable of the 1.5 MOA accuracy required to make that 200 yard shot even if you put the best optics in the world on it. In my experience there are a handful of the more top end models that can achieve this accuray, and if you want one you can lay out as much or more than you will for a Remington 700....


----------



## barebackjack

NDTerminator said:


> *As of this season, ND is one of only 11 states left that don't allow a magnifying scope on a ML during ML season. Director Steinwand, I challenge you to support NDGF's position on this with an editorial in a major hunting magazine such as Outdoor Life or Eastman's Hunting Journal. *


Sounds like thats right off Toby Bridges site (the biggest whore of a sell-out to ever walk the face of the earth). I remember when Toby was ALL about the traditional muzzleloader and had nothing but bad to say of inlines. Hmmmm, funny how his idea changes depending on whos cutting his check.

Why do they need to be legalized? Powered scopes that is.

What is the purpose of the season? Is it to allow a special standalone season for a more primitive weapon? In which case scopes would sort of dismiss the "more primitive" aspect of it. Does it exist as a "late season trophy hunt"? (which IMO it has pretty much become). If thats the case, why dont we just call it what it is (a late season trophy hunt) and make it any legal weapon.

Im not an inline guy, but I know inlines are here to stay. I have no problem with inlines, but leave the powered scopes, smokeless powders, electronic ignition systems, and the like out. Lets maintain some of the skill of hunting rather than shooting in the season.

Now, if you truly have trouble using open sights due to poor sight, im sure a waiver could be developed for using a scope (much like the shooting from a vehicle waiver) for those that qualify.

The muzzleloader season has become very popular, largely because "muzzleloaders", or inlines, have become so user friendly. (that and ND is producing more big bucks as of recent years, guys want one more crack at the big boy).

One big problem I see with allowing scopes, is the weekend warriors. Every year, I see guys at the range the week between gun and muzzy season shooting their brand new muzzleloader they got just because they finally drew a tag. Theyve never shot one before, they shoot a dozen or so rounds and call it good. They dont really try to determine what load their rifle likes best, or really practice to become truly proficient with their weapon. They really have no inkling just what their effective range (ballistically) is, hell, some of them can hardly load the thing. By allowing scopes, I think youll have a good number of guys out there taking potshots at animals far out of lethal range just because they can now see the target better. Not many guys will attempt a shot at a deer much over 150-200 yards with irons, but put a scope on, and theyll push it much farther. And even modern inlines, shooting heavy charges of sub powders and small caliber sabots are loosing alot of poop at 200+ yards. Sure, for every guy that would use a scope responsibly, there is another thats going to be slinging lead far past his weapons effective range. We already have 16.5 days of this do we need another season of it?

You have to draw the line somewhere.


----------



## NDTerminator

Whether vyou like Bridges or not, his reasearch is fact based & accurate. Not only that, but I can validate it with my own experience. When you get older BBJ, so will you...

The old "ML season was meant to be traditional" argument just doesn't hold water anymore. Not with the bow season precedent which is universal in every state (I bet you wouldn't dream of shooting your compounds barebow/fingers and would go bonkers if next year NDGF decreed you had to because sights & release aren't traditional), and the fact that the vast, vast, majority of all ML hunters choose the modern in-line over a traditional sidelock...

The weekend warrior argument is invalid as there's no possible way to regulate how often anyone practices with any legal hunting weapon. All a guy can do is take care of his own backyard, as my late mom used to say...

Seems to me that this debate is virtually identical to when compound bows came on the scene (I started shooting bow & bowhunting before compounds were made). They were going to make bowhunting so easy they would be the death of fledgling bow seasons, they should be allowed only in firearms seasons, and so on. Then 50% let off advanced to 60%, 70%, then the current standard of 80%. Along came releases, better sights became standard, and it was going to be the death of bowhunting because "anyone" could do it with minimal practice. In the late 80's, the internal debate was furious, P&Y even voted not accept entries shot with bows of more than 60% let off! they changed their tune when it became obvious that their position was no longer in line with what bowhunting was and what the vast majority of bowhunters were & wanted. Low & behold, eventually virtually all advances were universally accepted, and none were the death of bowhunting.

To the contrary, bowhunting thrived and became a stand alone sport, not a pastime that a chosen few "real bowhunters" were meant to enjoy.

Look around, muzzleloading has become a stand alone sport, not a pastime meant for the few traditionalists to enjoy & participate in.

As I said before, how the target number of bucks get dead is irrelevant to them and NDGF as far as management goes, and as management is science-based, "I personally don't like scopes" isn't a valid reason for Steinwand to oppose them...

In fact, I would be willing to bet $10 that Director Steinwand not only doesn't own a ML, he's likely never even shot an in-line with a scope. Again, he should publish an editorial in a major hunting magazine to clarify the reasons for his position and questions such as these...


----------



## barebackjack

But where do you draw the line NDT?

If you allow scopes, whats to stop the allowance of smokeless powder use (Savage makes a MLer capable of shooting it)? Or the use of electronic ignitions systems (they are out there)? Or whatever new thing is next to come down the pike? (Hey, wouldnt it be cool if all those loading components were just wrapped up in a handy container.....maybe made of brass? Wouldnt that be cool?) Im sure you see the point im getting at.

*Why do we have to try to make everything easier?* And yes, scopes DO make it easier. Thats why 99.9% of the centerfire rifles are equipped with them. They allow guys to shoot farther accurately, making hunting easier. If you were to make scopes illegal on centerfire rifles, it would cut their effective range by 50%, or more. Making hunting with them MUCH more challenging.

An inline with a powered scope atop it is VERY MUCH a modern weapon. Virtually weatherproof, ballisticaly equal in many cases to about a .30-30 (and in some cases better), VERY accurate and consistent (if youve done your homework), etc. The only limiting factor left on them is the sight system. We have a season for modern weapons, its called the regular gun season.

I would not be opposed to a handicapped permit allowing powered scope use for those that truly need it. I just see no need to allow every Tom, Dick, or Harry to use one when there is absolutely nothing wrong with their eyes. Just like I see no need for your average bowhunter to be allowed to use a crossbow. Most of the "want" for scopes on muzzleloaders comes from people wanting to make it easier. A little of it comes from the "my eyes arent what they used to be" crowd. In which case, make a concession for this group, but leave the rest out of it.
On the eye thing though. I had the privilege to attend a large muzzleloader shoot. All traditional. 99% shooters were of the "advanced" stages of life and corrective lenses of all shapes, sizes, and thickness were worn by most. I was flat out AMAZED and the level of accuracy and proficiency displayed by many of these guys, and at some downright OBSCENE ranges.

On one hand you preach how traditional archery is better than compound (and I agree, traditional guys have to be much more involved with their weapon to become proficient than compound guys), but than on the other, you want to seemingly allow every bit of technology into the muzzy season.


----------



## NDTerminator

I never preach or even have suggested Trad is better than compound. True I'm primarily a Trad Bow guy, but to each his own. I have a bunch of both kinds of bows and primarily shoot Trad or compound barebow fingers mostly because of the near vision issue and sights. I can shoot barebow with both eyes open and focused on the target downrange, where my 20/40 vision works. That's why I switched in the first place...

I was in tri-focals (BTW pray your eyes never get the point you need tri-focals, it pretty much makes using open sights impossible) before LASIK that corrected my eyes to 20/40. But like most old farts I have to use reading glasses. Prescription glasses that might allow effective use of open sights are not an option.

It's a real PITA. Just this morning I made a size 18 bold font call programming number reference card for my new Fox Pro caller so I can run the remote in the field w/o putting on reading glasses to see the little factory reference chart on it's back...

We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one, but like compound bows & attendent archery advances were, I believe it's a sooner or later thing...


----------



## barebackjack

NDTerminator said:


> We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one, but like compound bows & attendent archery advances were, I believe it's a sooner or later thing...


Your very likely right on the sooner or later thing. Just the fact of the number of guys who dont even give traditional gear (whether were talking archery or muzzleloaders its the same) a second thought. Eventually traditional gear will completely fade out.

But, where does the line get drawn? What if someone develops a muzzleloader capable of highly consistent 3,000 fps velocities? Does that get allowed too?

Thats my big question. Where does one draw a line on the equipment thats supposed to warrant a special season?


----------



## NDTerminator

Well, I think a 3000 FPS ML is a long way off, if even possible. BTW, I want NO PART of smokeless MLing, as there have been some horrid accidents with those Savage jobs! I'll stick with nice low pressure 777 or Black Horn 209.

I think many folks (not you, BBJ) don't understand what a ML can/can't do. They see an in-line with a scope and assume it'll perform like a scoped centerfire bolt action will. Lets face it, a 265-325 grain 45 caliber bullet at 1800-2100 FPS (from either a sidelock or an in-line) is hardly a 270 Wby Mag. Heck, it's not even a 30-30, as far as trajectory goes. Ballistically it's closer to a saboted shotgun slug or maybe a 45-70 than anything else.

As you observed yourself, a guy with good eyes who is familiar with his open sighted sidelock can match or beat the accuracy of an in-line out to surprisingly long range. Realistically, what a 2.5X or maybe 4X scope would allow me to do is place an accurate shot at the same distance as I used to with my sidelock, and I didn't spend much time shooting beyond 125 yards...


----------



## BROWNDOG

Good discusion, I would love to put a scope on my inline for the late season but I understand the reasoning behind not allowing it.

I don't think compairing the muzzy season to archery is very accurate, I don't believe the archery season was ever meant to be a primative or traditional hunt, just archery season. Recurves and longbows only became traditional after the invent of the compound.

Probably best to leave it as it is, in MN and ND...


----------



## NDTerminator

BROWNDOG said:


> Good discusion, I would love to put a scope on my inline for the late season but I understand the reasoning behind not allowing it.
> 
> I don't think compairing the muzzy season to archery is very accurate, I don't believe the archery season was ever meant to be a primative or traditional hunt, just archery season. Recurves and longbows only became traditional after the invent of the compound.
> 
> Probably best to leave it as it is, in MN and ND...


You should have been there in the day, BD. No one ever saw the compounds coming, I mean, never conceived of such a thing. When they got past the 6 wheel Allen design stage and actually evolved into an efficient 2 wheel hunting tool, you should have seen the internal fighting between the traditionalists and the compound guys! Everyone worshiped Fred Bear, but he quickly saw the writing on the wall & started building & hunting with compounds in addition to his recurves. There was a faction of traditional guys who felt absolutely betrayed, I thought there were going to be some lynch mobs heading to Grayling. By the late 80's, Bear was building probably 90% compounds and 10% recurves. Now days they make so few recurves that they are generally a special order item. I know as I've bought a couple...

(BTW, Fred used to take & make shots with recurves at distances that I wouldn't dream of trying with a compound with sights/release even today)

I think ML is very much the same thing. In the 70's-80's, the only ML around were sidelocks, no one ever concieved of anything else, so the few folks participating in fledgling ML seasons figured it was all their's forever...

Even the most rudimentary research shows that in-lines, BP substitutes, and scopes have done exactly what compounds with sights & release did, turn a minor sport practiced by relatively few into a major stand alone sport enjoyed by more & more outdoors-folk every year.


----------



## Ron Gilmore

NDT, I am a vision impaired ML hunter. I use a 1x scope and like many others find them to be lacking and reduce the field of view greatly, but also increase the effective range I can shoot my ML without it. That being said, last night while attending the last Advisory meeting the question arose about maybe changing the time for which ML season would or should be held.

A little back ground from the Deputy Director on how and why it was passed. First the ML season started out as simply a opportunity to get out and use something different. Back then in lines where not even known for the most part. We had cap or flint lock reproductions which is exactly what I used for my first ML hunt. A Hawken 54 cal I put together myself from a kit. The proponents of the ML season and its supporters agreed that the ML season should have a major impact upon bow hunters and also the rifle gun season which is the sacred cow of deer hunting in this state.

Very few people put in or applied for ML tags, most assumed it was simply because of the weapon. But that changed when the ML season went from doe only to buck and doe. In a short period of time two things happened. ML became more like center fire rifles with the in line designs, and again the interest in being able to hunt a buck increased interest. Now the impact of these two things have created a high demand for these tags especially the buck tag. High deer populations coupled with the ample supply of doe tags again like in the rifle lottery has almost 90% of all applicants seeking a buck tag!

Adding the ablity to put a magnified scope even of a fixed 4x power will increase demand for these tags reducing the chance for opportunity to use a ML in a stand alone season even more for everyone. I brought up at the meeting not so much because I am in favor of it, but to get people thinking outside the box as they say!

I asked if they had studied the impact of changing the current laws from a one only buck tag lottery which can be used in any open season. No more across the counter buck bow tags, no more gun rifle season or ML season only tag. Simply one buck tag or any tag for that matter to be used in any open season with appropriate weapon.

Based on the response from them if we went this way, an additional 2500 or more buck tags would go into the general lottery. Bow tags could still be used state wide, during gun season unit specific and ML stay the same as well. Extra tags would be limited to unit issued for obvious reasons just as they are now.

Then and only then would I support doing away with the optical sighting restrictions we have today on ML. The increase in optic magnification equates to higher success rates based on studies done in other states which have moved to them. So higher success rates would equate to two things happening and both deprive someone options or chances. Either total tags would be reduced for ML, or more tags would be taken from the gun season to allow for the increases for success.

Again, all factors need to be considered. Myself I would much rather have a 2.5x7 Leupold sitting on my in line than what I currently have, but having shot it and used it with Leupold or equivalent optic, I now can add at least a good 125 yards in competent accuracy to the weapon. It now becomes more efficient and affective than a 30-30 or 303 British out to 300 yards with the powder and bullet choices available today! I can and will shoot 3.5" groups at 250 yards with mine with little effort and have enough energy to put down any deer,elk, or moose I might encounter.

The ML season intent was never to add this type of efficient killing range on the deer herd.

So if we want improved optic options, we will have to give up something in return, and my guess is that would mean less buck tags which I doubt is what the majority of ML today would want!


----------



## AdamFisk

Spot on Ron.....That is what I was trying to point out also. That by allowing scopes you will increase interest and increase demand for ML tags. In turn, this will create ANOTHER 16.5 day circus. Greed for a big buck does funny things. Rifle season all over again.....

NDT, I think you agree with what we're saying also, with the increased demand and pressure comments. In your comment below, you give me that impression anyways, but you portray it as a positive thing. How many "venting" posts did you start during the rifle season? :wink: I find it hard to beleive you want another ****show.



NDTerminator said:


> Even the most rudimentary research shows that in-lines, BP substitutes, and scopes have done exactly what compounds with sights & release did, turn a minor sport practiced by relatively few into a major stand alone sport enjoyed by more & more outdoors-folk every year.


NDT, why not fight for "handicap" permits for people who truly have vision problems? I, and most others, see nothing bad coming from that, if they use common sense when setting the standards that is. Would you rather have everybody running around with scoped MLs, or just the people who truly need them? If yes to the first part, WHY???


----------



## barebackjack

NDTerminator said:


> Even the most rudimentary research shows that in-lines, BP substitutes, and scopes have done exactly what compounds with sights & release did, turn a minor sport practiced by relatively few into a major stand alone sport enjoyed by more & more outdoors-folk every year.


Your partly right, at least for ND.

In many states though, the popularity of inlines is simply because their the only game in town. IA and other middle America states only allow muzzleloaders or slug guns. Kind of forces them to be popular wouldnt you say?


----------



## barebackjack

Ron Gilmore said:


> Again, all factors need to be considered. Myself I would much rather have a 2.5x7 Leupold sitting on my in line than what I currently have, but having shot it and used it with Leupold or equivalent optic, *I now can add at least a good 125 yards in competent accuracy to the weapon.* It now becomes more efficient and affective than a 30-30 or 303 British out to 300 yards with the powder and bullet choices available today! I can and will shoot 3.5" groups at 250 yards with mine with little effort and have enough energy to put down any deer,elk, or moose I might encounter.


And that is EXACTLY why the vast majority of hunters want the scope to be legal. Increased range. Make it easier. Take more of the "hunt" out of hunting.

Modern inlines and components have the ballistics to do it at pretty considerable ranges if ones done their homework, they just dont have the sight system. Put a scope on them, and theyll have lost any vestige of "something different" from the regular gun season and in my opinion will completely negate the reason to hold a special stand alone season for them.


----------



## NDTerminator

That brings us back around to the "selfish" argument again. On this logic, Trad bowhunters should be able to dicate limitations on the compound sights/release crowd to discourage new participants as this tackle makes it too easy and too many people are participating. Either learn to shoot Trad instinctively, shoot your compound barebow/fingers, or forget it, you can't play. Bet that would go over big with the vast majority who choose the compound with sights/release!

Why in the world, with hunter numbers shrinking every generation, would we want to discourage those who want to participate in any aspect of hunting? That is truly cutting off our nose to spite our face.

To even suggest that near vision issues should require a handicapped permit is a mighty smug insult to not only a large percentage of hunters, but to folks who truly are handicapped and need them. It also implies that guys like me are motivated by personal selfishness, i.e., I got what I want for me, good luck if you can talk some eye doctor into writing a letter for you. Frankly, I resent the hell out of the implication...

There isn't even a remote question that modern ML has evolved into a stand alone sport and that the vast majority of ML choose in-lines and want magnifying scopes. Sooner or later NDGF will have no choice but to pull their collective heads out of the sand, accept this, and accomodate the wishes of the majority who participate...

LIke most forum debates, this is going nowhere. I'm out on this one...


----------



## AdamFisk

NDTerminator said:


> To even suggest that near vision issues should require a handicapped permit is a mighty smug insult to not only a large percentage of hunters, but to folks who truly are handicapped and need them. It also implies that guys like me are motivated by personal selfishness, i.e., I got what I want for me, good luck if you can talk some eye doctor into writing a letter for you. Frankly, I resent the hell out of the implication...
> LIke most forum debates, this is going nowhere. I'm out on this one...


Had to end it like that?????????????????

Come on NDT, you know damn well what I'm talking about with the "handicap" permits. NOTICE THE WORD HANDICAP IS IN QUOTES. Wasn't sure what word to use there so I went that route. Sorry I offended you. What would you call it? What do you think of people who get crossbow permits????? For future reference, what do I call them?
Thanks!


----------



## Ron Gilmore

> * For future reference, what do I call them?*


call us sight impared!!!!!!!! :rollin:


----------



## barebackjack

NDTerminator said:


> To even suggest that near vision issues should require a handicapped permit is a mighty smug insult to not only a large percentage of hunters, but to folks who truly are handicapped and need them. It also implies that guys like me are motivated by personal selfishness, i.e., I got what I want for me, good luck if you can talk some eye doctor into writing a letter for you. Frankly, I resent the hell out of the implication...


I think your the only one that interpreted it that way.

And by that reasoning, one can assume your implying that we better do away with crossbow permits and vehicle permits for the handica........I mean, impaired, I mean,........ we dont want to offend those that really need them or those that just want them by lumping them together so we may as well just make it legal for all!

Theres a difference between want and need. Some genuinely need, most just want.


----------



## Bobm

I wear reading glasses and agree they are a pain in the [email protected]$ but I support the true traditional iron sight only laws , a modern scoped inline is virtually the same as a single shot modern rifle IMO.

The point of muzzle loading season FOR ME is to make things a little more challenging so I can savor my success.

When the muzzleloading seasons were originally "pitched" as a special season it was with the intent of a "primitive" weapon.

Marketing as it is swiftly saw the profit and making it easy so they could sell many more "technically legal" guns that do not really represent the original intent of the special seasons.

I limit my shots to under 100 yards with my 54 sidelock and shoot a patched round ball because I enjoy doing the way it was done in the old days, same reason I bowhunt with a longbow. Athough a compond used ethically has no distance advantage IMO, once again thats marketing hype stessing ease of use to sell stuff.

Killing a deer is secondary to how I kill one, f it wasn't I would drive around and shoot one out the truck window, yes thats an exaggeration just to make a point, somewhere you have to draw a line.

One thing I've discovered is that while I need #3 reading glasses to read print, I can see iron sights and distance pretty well with just #1 reading glasses.


----------



## flintlock62

:bop: This topic was beat into the ground, so to speak. My eye sight is failing too, but I still support the "primitive" intent. Want to use a scope on a in-line. Do it during the regular gun season. Does that make sense?


----------



## maximini14

I tried to read all of this forum, but at 59 yrs my eyes would require additional optical assistance and my patience level would also need a severe boost. you guys are killin me


----------



## Bobm

flintlock62 said:


> :bop: This topic was beat into the ground, so to speak. My eye sight is failing too, but I still support the "primitive" intent. Want to use a scope on a in-line. Do it during the regular gun season. Does that make sense?


makes sense to me :beer:


----------



## duckmander

NDTerminator said:


> Why is it in ND we can legally hunt with use to aid the hunt....
> 
> * Spinner Decoys
> * Spinner Decoys that work by remote control
> * E-Callers
> * Trail Cams
> * Trail Cams that wirelessly transmit real time photos to your computer
> * Laser Range Finders
> * Lighted Cross Hairs
> * GPS
> * Cell Phones
> * Compound Bows with sights & releases
> * Crossbows w/ Scopes (with a medical permit)
> 
> But we still can't use a magnifying scope on an in-line ML during ML Season?
> 
> NDGF, are you paying attention?


NST. I say I have to agree with you on this. even though I live in OKLA. sort of the same reason I didnt think they should have opened up the crossbow with out a permit can of worms. in OKLA. now bow hutning is easy and everybody is out there with their "gun like " crossbow shooting at deer 75 and 100 yards away." its easy like shooting a gun. I dont agree with it. but it is now legal here. I do think traditional or not. it should be up to the individual. If I want to use a flint lock with iron sights, I should be allowed to. If I want to use a modern ML shooting modern powder powerbelt bullet and a scope It should be allowed. just because the traditionalist choose to handycap themselves dont mean everybody has to. If they want to regulate the number of deer taken by individuals each year. then put a limit number on that and let them hunt with the weapon of their choice. if they brake the rules and are cought then tax them heavily. It is not that different to put a scope on a ML then it is to hunt ML season with a center fire rifle. which im sure many do.

In short regulate the number af animals to be taken. dont handicap the hunter for wanting something better for himself.
Just because it is legal dont mean everybody has to use it. crossbows are legal here. and I am one of the few who does not own one. and has no want to own one.


----------



## Hunter_58346

flintlock62 said:


> :bop: This topic was beat into the ground, so to speak. My eye sight is failing too, but I still support the "primitive" intent. Want to use a scope on a in-line. Do it during the regular gun season. Does that make sense?


You are right, but when deer season was in its infancy here in North Dakota there were very few scopes, Archery season there were very few crossbows, no compound bows, no trail cameras, electronic feeders,,,,etc. How about we have a special season for all "gadgets" that were not intended for seasons as they were originally set. Want to use a compound bow? want to use a cross bow? want to use a baiting method? fine do it during this "special season"........Now does that make sense????


----------

