Attention all Muzzleloaders - House Bill 4554

by one_shot

Michigan House Bill 4554

In regard to House Bill 4554, which seeks to amend 1994 PA 451, by adding section 40113c:

  "The people of the state of Michigan Enact:  Sec. 40113C.  Neither the department nor the commission shall prohibit the use of a smokeless powder rifle to take game in the circumstances in which a black powder rifle may be used to take game."

     This legislation, introduced by State Representative Brian Calley, has gone before the Outdoor Recreation and Natural Resources committee for review.

     Public comment is always welcomed by the committee members.  I attended the meeting, and testified in support of House Bill 4554.  Also in attendance to speak on the subject were Rodney Stokes, Alan Marble and Dan Eichinger, representing the Michigan Department of Natural Resources, testifying in opposition.  Lastly, Jason Dinsmore, representing the Michigan United Conservation Clubs, testified in opposition as well.

You can browse the committee's meeting minutes at their website.

     Minutes from the 6/28/07 committee meeting are available from the committee's web site, however, the minutes do not include detailed testimony from those present.  In the absence of such minutes, I'll do my best to accurately summarize the testimony provided by those present.

     To begin, Representative Calley introduced the bill and took questions from the committee. As expected, the majority of the questions revolved around the perceived "extended range" gained by using smokeless powder.  Given that the majority of hunters today hunt in Zone 3, the "shotgun zone", it was speculated that longer range muzzleloaders may circumvent the spirit of such safety zones.  A few of the committee members were hunters, though not really muzzleloader hunters, and had questions that were ballistics related - muzzle velocity, etc, as it relates to range. Rep. Calley had some information, though he's not an expert on the subject, and willingly admitted that he's bringing the bill at the request of his constituents.  In light of such a noble endeavor, I was able to overlook some of the gaps in his muzzleloading knowledge.  He of course, recorded such questions that he was not immediately able to answer with the intent of answering them at a later date.  I took notes on such points, and addressed them during my testimony.

     Next, the three representatives from the DNR testified - all from law enforcement. They testified in opposition. Of course, they cited the same safety concerns - primarily the extended range that smokeless powder provides, but they also expressed concern that the general muzzleloading public may be at risk - that somehow the legalization of smokeless powder would be taken as an endorsement to use smokeless powder in all muzzleloaders.  Certainly, using smokeless powder in a firearm not designed for such could have disastrous results.  In this respect, they re-enforced the stereotype that smokeless powder was much higher pressure than black powder or black powder substitutes.  When questioned about the "extended" range provided by smokeless powder, all admitted that they were not familiar with the ballistics of the weapons. (Indeed, none of the three hunted with muzzleloaders.) However, they commented that they have had many encounters with friends and other hunters who do hunt with muzzleloaders, and had received comment from them.  Based on this anecdotal evidence, they arbitrarily set the range for black powder and black powder substitutes at 150 yards, and smokeless powder at 250 yards.

     In reality, it’s apparent that the DNR believes this should reside under their domain, beyond the grasp of the state legislature.  Proposition G, voted on by the public in the mid 1990's, gave the DNR authority to set rules "for the taking of game".  This, I believe, is the primary source of their opposition.

     I'm not a legal expert, but in subsequent e-mail conversations with Representative Calley's office, I've been assured that the legislature is well within their rights to pursue such laws.

     On a personal note, I'd like a little explanation from the DNR as to why they would oppose for safety reasons, when all three people who testified had no ballistic evidence to offer.  Simply testifying that "I don't hunt with a muzzleloader, but I have friends that do and this is what they think" simply doesn't cut it for me.  I would expect that a State Department opposing the bill for ballistics reasons would proffer some actual ballistic evidence supporting their claims.

     Then Mr. Dinsmore, representing the MUCC (Michigan United Conservation Club) testified. He indicated that the MUCC's official stance was in opposition because they too believed that the decision should fall under the domain of the DNR.  He then addressed his personal stance, in opposition, as well.  He informed the committee that he hunts with a primitive weapon (side lock and round ball) and doesn't hunt with an inline muzzleloader.  Though he had no ballistic information to comment on, he thought the 150/250 yard range given by the DNR was reasonable.  He openly expressed his personal desire to see Michigan as a primitive muzzleloader state.  Of course, Michigan has a "muzzleloader" season - it's never been considered a "primitive" season.  The thought of a primitive muzzleloader season should give all hunters pause - given the overwhelming sales of inline muzzleloaders.  The vast majority of muzzleloaders that see the field today are inline muzzleloaders.  Mr. Dinsmore went on to say that at a recent annual MUCC meeting, there was "lively" debate from members on both sides of the issue.  He indicated that discussion included not only muzzleloaders, but archery, where the same "modern" vs. "primitive" issues arise.  He did not indicate that there was a consensus, or majority among their membership.

     It was then my turn to testify.  Apparently, I was the only one present that has fired my muzzleloader over a chronograph and paired the muzzle velocity and bullet information to ballistic charts.  Many of the points that I made in my testimony can be found in my article entitled:  "Modern Muzzleloading Misconceptions".  I'll refrain from reposting those comments here. 

     The experience thus far has been enlightening.  I have no credentials to offer other than an immense amount of time at the range with my muzzleloader and many days in the field hunting.  I was contacted by Rep. Brian Calley's office after emailing them in support of the bill.  I'm encouraged that there are lawmakers in Lansing that are willing to listen to their constituents (though I do not reside in Mr. Calley's district).  I'm also encouraged to see that everyday people can make an impact.  I was disappointed to find opposition from respected sources, without any facts to substantiate their claims.  The committee members can't be expected to be experts in all of these subjects, and I'm sure that testimony from sources such as the DNR and the MUCC carry weight with them.  It's disheartening to know that many such decisions could be made on opinion and hearsay.  We'd serve each other well to keep an eye on the bills introduced and seek public comment on them when possible.  I know I'll be watching a little closer now.  For those interested, check out the Michigan Legislature's website.

From there, one can browse the House / Senate web pages, find your district / representative, view current legislation and its status, see the different committees and their calendars, etc.  I strongly encourage people, especially our dwindling hunting population, to keep a close eye on the activities of our lawmakers.