No Optics on ML in NM 2023

[Hammsolo]

It would be much better, and more effective if they had targeted the projectile instead of the targeting system, but better that than nothing.

I don’t hunt muzzy, and really haven’t thought about this. Where are you headed with this? I believe you’re referencing pushing back toward a round ball? What do you think about in-lines? Aren’t they basically a single-shot modern rifle any more?

Archery hunters get the best season because it is the most limited weapon. Muzzy in the middle and so on. Hunting elk in the rut with a bow is a challenge, but late season with a bow would be harder than hell.

Hunting is hard, and it should stay that way.

Also, “I’ve always felt it was my job as a hunter to make the most accurate shot producing the cleanest kill possible. I feel i owe it to the animal. I use the best equipment available to do that” is interesting to ponder. I agree with wanting a clean kill for the animals sake. I want it to be a quick death with as little pain as possible. I think it’s critical to consider the season and maintaining fair chase within it.

 

[hank4elk]

I don’t hunt muzzy, and really haven’t thought about this. Where are you headed with this? I believe you’re referencing pushing back toward a round ball? What do you think about in-lines? Aren’t they basically a single-shot modern rifle any more?

Archery hunters get the best season because it is the most limited weapon. Muzzy in the middle and so on. Hunting elk in the rut with a bow is a challenge, but late season with a bow would be harder than hell.

Hunting is hard, and it should stay that way.

Also, “I’ve always felt it was my job as a hunter to make the most accurate shot producing the cleanest kill possible. I feel i owe it to the animal. I use the best equipment available to do that” is interesting to ponder. I agree with wanting a clean kill for the animals sake. I want it to be a quick death with as little pain as possible. I think it’s critical to consider the season and maintaining fair chase within it.

I don't see the modern bows as primitive either. I quit in 1978 and was using a Bear recurve after the Pearson straight.

 

[TXLonghorn]

I don't see the modern bows as primitive either. I quit in 1978 and was using a Bear recurve after the Pearson straight.

Excellent point.
Modern bows are far from primitive. Archery hunters use the best modern technology they can find to make the modern bow as effective as it can be.
If your not launching a stick from a cedar limb strung up with some gut, its not primitive.
Next they'll want rocks and clubs.

 

[beginnerhunter]

It really depends on what the management goals are. In my state there isn't much limited entry. We have a long rifle season. Tons of tags. All this because we have too many deer for the amount of habitat (and cwd). Many eastern states are like that. For ML season u can use pretty much any new technology. Why not?

In the West u are balancing limited entry w/ harvest success rates w/ game populations, etc. So it makes sense to decrease success rates a bit to gain or maintain opportunity. Otherwise we could just eliminate ML or archery and just have rifle only and waaaay fewer tags available (less opportunity). Altho I'm not crazy about some of the primitive powder/ignition stuff because it creates too much unpredictability which may lead to more wounding. U can practice with a trad bow and know u can make that 20 yard shot NP. U can practice and practice with flintlock and get a 20 yard shot and oopsie poopsie must've got wet at some point now ur elk is wounded. But u can absolutely take scopes off muzzleloaders and ban pelletized powder and be predictably handicapped.

I'd like to see some regulation on rifles too. Cap the mag at 10x. Go straight wall only idgaf lol. Make people get close to animals.

 

[Mustangs Rule]

I don't see the modern bows as primitive either. I quit in 1978 and was using a Bear recurve after the Pearson straight.

When Elvis Presley died in 1977, I had a subscription to “Rolling Stone” magazine. They dedicated that entire issue to Elvis. In it they wrote something I never forgot!

“All products of America go crazy. The purer the products of America are, the crazier they will become. Elvis was the purest America product ever”!

Not far behind in terms of being pure products of America are, hunting on public land and the choices of firearms ( and archery gear) we hunt with.

The primitive weapons seasons were supposed to be just that, primitive. Having scoped ML’s that can shoot 500 plus yards is just plain “crazy”,

It is so far beyond the original intention that it is obscene.

It is just another example of commercialization gone awry and uncontrolled by F and Game Departments.

I praise this new law by NM Fish and Game.

And while I am at it, look what has happened to Archery gear. Beyond the super high tech Archery gear, at least one state allows the use of Scoped Crossbows during archery season, (which will shoot about as far as an old iron-sighted model 94 30-30),,,and other states are wanting to follow suit.

MR

 

[Bullshot]

I am only deer and bear hunting this upcoming season here with my open sighted T/C caplock and a patched round ball. By choice! Leaving the inline, scopes, or slug guns at home. Havn’t been this excited to hunt around here in years.

 

[Hammsolo]

Excellent point.
Modern bows are far from primitive. Archery hunters use the best modern technology they can find to make the modern bow as effective as it can be.
If your not launching a stick from a cedar limb strung up with some gut, its not primitive.
Next they'll want rocks and clubs.

I think it is headed that way, and will require more and more regulation. The huge deal in archery advancements is rangefinding sights.

What should be the limits for each tool? It really comes down to limiting effective range. Bow ~50? Muzzy ~150? I know this can’t be regulated exactly, but a rough expectation.

 

[jt13]

PA has the only flintlock only deer season in the country that starts the day after Christmas and ends mid-January. If they ever try and add scoped inlines to that season, the diehards will riot in the streets-- buckskin jackets and all.

I'm a fan of what new mexico is doing. In some if the technological aspects of hunting we have strayed too far from the light.

 

[BrentD]

Yep, me and a Hawken is like 40 yards all day long....missing.

Well, you could fix that, you know. Learning to shoot with irons isn't really that hard.

 

[BrentD]

I don’t hunt muzzy, and really haven’t thought about this. Where are you headed with this? I believe you’re referencing pushing back toward a round ball? What do you think about in-lines? Aren’t they basically a single-shot modern rifle any more?

Archery hunters get the best season because it is the most limited weapon. Muzzy in the middle and so on. Hunting elk in the rut with a bow is a challenge, but late season with a bow would be harder than hell.

Hunting is hard, and it should stay that way.

Also, “I’ve always felt it was my job as a hunter to make the most accurate shot producing the cleanest kill possible. I feel i owe it to the animal. I use the best equipment available to do that” is interesting to ponder. I agree with wanting a clean kill for the animals sake. I want it to be a quick death with as little pain as possible. I think it’s critical to consider the season and maintaining fair chase within it.

Most people, for some odd reason, think scopes are the range-limiting factor. And higher power scopes will allow you to shoot further. But that's not really where it works. For 150 yrs, people have been shooting muzzleloaders to 1000 yds with astounding accuracy and iron sights. So the technology has always been there, but few of us learned about it. If the intension is to reduce a hunter's effective kill range, then iron sights won't do it, at least for those with younger eyes (<60 yrs).

When muzzleloader seasons were introduced, the idea was a short range rifle. Roundballs certainly, but mini and maxi balls were also basically 100-150 yr projectiles. They lost energy fast, and the trajectory was enough that most people couldn't and wouldn't shoot them much further. A hunter with 100-yd kill radius leaves a lot more animals in the woods than a hunter with a 200-yd radius, which covers 4x more territory. I believe Colorado requires that projectiles be no longer than 2x bore diameter (and eliminate sabots). If that is correct, it puts limits on effective range that are going to be in the 100-150 yd limit. Bigger calibers will carry better, but there are limits to what hunters can carry and recoil they can withstand, so no one is likely build a 200, must less 300 yd capable rifle that uses short-for-caliber bullets.

The same goes for archery. Above someone say bows should be limited to 50 yds! Make everyone shoot a recurve or longbow and it falls to 25, maybe 30 yds, again cutting the kill range by 75% or so.

And last of all, part of hunting was being skillful with one's tools. I shot thousands of arrows back when I was a kid and bowhunting with a recurve. Not only did I enjoy that, I got good at it. Today, few can be troubled to do more than sight in their rifle (maybe) or the bow at the range once or twice and they are good to go. Crossbows - god help us - are even worse that way.

With the huge number of hunters/acre of land, the acceleration of technology has to result in fewer tags and/or shorter seasons. I don't know about the rest of you, but I would like my seasons to be long and tags to be available. If we got back to the spirit of hunting in ways that our ancestors did at least when hunting seasons were first conceived, then maybe we could all be out there longer, more often, and get more time in the timber.

Anyway, the short bullet limits range much better than iron sights. If you really want to pull in hunters' kill radii, deal with projectiles, not sighting systems.

How many elk tags would there be to go around if everyone had 25 yd bows, 100 yd muzzleloaders, and 200 yds rifles? It is interesting (at least to me) to contemplate.

 

[hank4elk]

Well, you could fix that, you know. Learning to shoot with irons isn't really that hard.

I was trained with iron sights.
I have to admit I got into the inline w/scope because one could draw those tags. And they can shoot farther than I can throw. Several of the NM mz hunts were close to 100% draw, even for a NR. I filled tags. Never farther than 100 yards.
Ah the good ole days...15 years ago.

Same as most folks with the bow at 1st,IMHO. They could draw tags because no one hunted with a bow then.
Now all tags are tough.

I'd rather have the reloader for the -06.

 

[bullbugle307]

It would be much better, and more effective if they had targeted the projectile instead of the targeting system, but better that than nothing.

Yep. A modern bullet with modern smokeless powders that’s stuffed down the muzzle is still going to be a problem regardless of optics.

 

[David58]

Saw a post here of someone bragging that he and his buddy got bulls at 350 yards with their MLs. At that, if we believe his rangefinder and reporting, there is no handicap in the muzzleloader choice than speed of reload. And at those longer distances, reloading speed might be the one handicap we don't want to limit since the need for followup shots is likely to be needed at those distances.

Now I read of bow hunters that, with today's technology, can shoot and kill at 100 yards.

The whole purpose of archery and ML seasons was to make allowance for the handicap of the chosen tool. If technology is reducing or eliminating that handicap, why the special seasons? Why do we see archery seasons lasting weeks during the rut, where ML and rifle hunters get days in the field (I am not an archer, so my sympathies are somewhat limited, so there's my bias).

Muzzleloaders, if I were king, would be open iron sights, patched round ball, and "side lock" type of ignition (I'd be fine with flintlock, but since I am king for the moment we'll go ahead and allow percussion). Now, mind you, this is for special ML seasons - if you want to use your scoped ML, use it during general rifle season, that's ok. And as stated above, the outcome could be more hunting opportunities for ML hunters (harvest % driven down by weapon regulation, so more hunters could be allowed in the woods).

Again, living in NM and often hunting with a traditional muzzleloader, and definitely so biased, I am fine with the rule change. In fact, I am kind of thrilled by it.

David
NM

 

[hank4elk]

This was also enacted to deal with the extremely high success rates in unit 15 the last few years.
This unit was originally called a primitive weapon only unit. 13 was similar but the deer hunts went rifle .
15 is still the only bow and mz unit only, I can think of.

I'm good with the change. I never could draw 15 , and it's in my back yard.

 

[TXLonghorn]

Everyone seems to be in favor of limiting the technology.
I’ve said it before, limiting the technology will be to the detriment of the game.
Everyone knows, whether or not you want to admit it, that hunters will still attempt those long shots without with the proper tool or skill to make it. Its going to happen.
Now you have animals shot in the legs or guts but not killed outright escape the immediate area and die somewhere else unrecovered.
It won’t be any different than dead animals with arrows sticking out that were never recovered.
The thought of that truly makes me sick.
But people will do it.
If the goal is to lower the number of animals taken, then simply lower the number of tags sold.
But, that will cut into the income of the state.
One cannot assume that only hunters skilled in shooting a muzzle loader and know their limit, and will not exceed it, will be the only ones hunting in these units.
But in the end its a done deal. So we will all just have to watch and see what happens.
I’ll still be shootin em, I’ll just be doing it a lot closer.

 

[Bluffgruff]

Excellent point.
Modern bows are far from primitive. Archery hunters use the best modern technology they can find to make the modern bow as effective as it can be.
If your not launching a stick from a cedar limb strung up with some gut, its not primitive.
Next they'll want rocks and clubs.

I'm not really sympathetic to your slippery slope. I think the goal is providing opportunity for people who will put the time in to learn their weapons, not making the hunting easy. Open sight guns require practice. Hand drawn bows require practice to be consistent as well. If the greater good in New Mexico hunting is served by you having to stop muzzleloader hunting or getting a new muzzleloader, I don't think you can argue against the change except that it inconveniences you.

 

[TXLonghorn]

I'm not really sympathetic to your slippery slope. I think the goal is providing opportunity for people who will put the time in to learn their weapons, not making the hunting easy. Open sight guns require practice. Hand drawn bows require practice to be consistent as well. If the greater good in New Mexico hunting is served by you having to stop muzzleloader hunting or getting a new muzzleloader, I don't think you can argue against the change except that it inconveniences you.

HahahaYES! Thats what i was looking for, YOUR sympathies!

The body of your text are valid points.
But rest assured my friend, I will not be inconvenienced.

Thanks for caring.

 

[BrentD]

Everyone seems to be in favor of limiting the technology.
I’ve said it before, limiting the technology will be to the detriment of the game.
Everyone knows, whether or not you want to admit it, that hunters will still attempt those long shots without with the proper tool or skill to make it. Its going to happen.
Now you have animals shot in the legs or guts but not killed outright escape the immediate area and die somewhere else unrecovered.
It won’t be any different than dead animals with arrows sticking out that were never recovered.
The thought of that truly makes me sick.
But people will do it.
If the goal is to lower the number of animals taken, then simply lower the number of tags sold.
But, that will cut into the income of the state.
One cannot assume that only hunters skilled in shooting a muzzle loader and know their limit, and will not exceed it, will be the only ones hunting in these units.
But in the end its a done deal. So we will all just have to watch and see what happens.
I’ll still be shootin em, I’ll just be doing it a lot closer.

you think this doesn't happen now? It does, but it's 50-70 yds archery elk instead of 30-40 yds, it's 200-300yd muzzleloader elk instead of 100-150 yds, and it's 300-700 rifle elk instead of 200-300 yds. With the greater ranges of F-UPs in today's world, there are many more opportunities - hence, even more F-UPs.

In the end, some guys will always push the envelope. The idea here is to restrict the size of the envelope that's all. Doing so will benefit everyone.

 

[Khunter]

You guys think this is a good move?

I’ve always felt it was my job as a hunter to make the most accurate shot producing the cleanest kill possible. I feel i owe it to the animal.
I use the best equipment available to do that.

Yes, removing scopes is a good move.

“Cleanest kill possible”. Get close to the animal. done deal.

 

[Bluffgruff]

HahahaYES! Thats what i was looking for, YOUR sympathies!

The body of your text are valid points.
But rest assured my friend, I will not be inconvenienced.

Thanks for caring.

I think you were looking for a bunch of people to agree with you on muzzy scopes and were disappointed when they didn't. Then you went for a common philosophical falacy. Sorry for pointing out the truth.

No scopes on muzzies = good.