# Virginia, look at this



## Moon (Jul 16, 2006)

It is reported that Louisiana, following Mississippi's lead, is changing their muzzle loading season to primitive arms season by allowing 45/70 single shot rifles in addition to muzzle loaders. I say why not in Virginia? Makes sense to me.


----------



## Stringwacker (Aug 1, 2004)

Interesting topic...

Mississippi just modified their regulation to allow youth under 16 to shoot 'any' weapon during the primitive weapon season. Primitive weapons definition for anyone over 16 has been changed to include any caliber .35 or larger fired from a hammer exposed single shot rifle. The state has stated that they want a 'single' season format with a 'choice' of any weapon. These changes are taking place as there are no efforts from any organization opposes it.

Basically it is just a state sponsored conditioning of the public away from special season formats. At the moment the state wants to sell a primitive weapon license but have a * primitive* season (that really isn't primitive) to support it. Polls show that the majority of hunters oppose these regualtions. These things didn't happen over night as the state has been loosening the equipment restrictions on primitive weapons for a number of years. It just finally got to the oint that it "jumped" the black powder barrier. So much for those who said..these changes are fine as long as the weapon is front loaded with black powder. The state didn't recognize that as 'anything' special.

That is why I don't think the crossbow is a good fit here unless a one season choice format is desirable.


----------



## BigBirdVA (Nov 5, 2002)

*Primitive has left the building.............*

Why not just let dogs and the orange army come on in 2 weeks early too? They need to take the word primitive out of it. It died long ago.


----------



## Stringwacker (Aug 1, 2004)

That's pretty much the consensus of the hunting public. The primitive weapon season is in it's final death throes in Mississippi; a victim of "user expectation" season parameters and a state willing to make it happen.


----------



## aceoky (Mar 17, 2006)

> That is why I don't think the crossbow is a good fit here unless a one season choice format is desirable.


That statement is Very confusing (to me at least)

HOW is another bow in Public Archery seasons, "anything like" a "one season choice "???

IMO opposing such obvious things (choice of another bow in bow seasons) works toward losing a bow ONLY season in most states, not the "other way around" and obviously more bow hunters give Bow hunting a Much Stronger Voice to protect and preserve it......

Also compound bows certainly are not "primitive" in the least.....


----------



## Stringwacker (Aug 1, 2004)

I don't know how I can make it more clear. When the biological factors at play tend to negate the controlled harvest benefits of special seasons...the state has no need to support them anymore. We certainly know that more people hunt with modern firearms than any other group...so why wouldn't the DNR support their right of choice? We have had this conversation before and the evidence continues to pile up that my premise is correct.

When the inline muzzleloader hit the market in Mississippi, hunters gobbled them up. Tradtionilist within the sport were told that the higher participation numbers was good for the sport. When hunters wanted scopes on those inlines...the traditionilist were told that as long as it shot black powder they shouldn't be concerned. It was a matter of choice and that questioning anothers hunting preference was wrong. Sabots, pellitized powder, electronic ignition all followed. Eventually the state recognized that hunters just wanted to kill and given the wildlife agency needed more harvest, they just decided to allow centerfire rifles in certain calibers. Where were the masses to protect the sport...I can tell you; they all wanted to use their 30-06! The state just made it legal for kids to use any weapon they want in the 'primitive weapon season. Progession theory is alive and well. There the actual proof that adding numbers didn't protect the season becuase they all demanded more each passing year.

Crossbows? I think the argument is often made that more 'crossbow' hunters equal protection. It didn't happen that way in Virginia. It didn't happen that way in Georgia where archery participation has fallen after crossbow legalization while firearm numbers have grown. It hasn't happen that way in Alabama where numbers have fallen after the crossbow. At the same time, Mississippi archery numbers are increasing without the crossbow. Strange stuff that I don't have the answers far. 

Where biological constraints are loose, user demand sets the season. Just because a hunter picks up a crossbow doesn't mean that he/she gives up the loyalty to the rifle. At the very least, it's human nature never to be satisfied as we always want more than what we have.


----------

