FYI...... This one has me pulling my hair out.
------------------------------------------
The North American Muzzleloading Hunting Association has filed a civil
rights complaint alleging discrimination against the fish and game
departments of fifteen states that do not permit the use of "sight
correcting magnification" (riflescopes) during their special
muzzleloader hunting seasons.
According to the complaint, big game hunters in the United States are
becoming older as a group. With that maturation, NAMHA holds, there is a
natural deterioration of vision. Due to that accepted fact, it should be
only reasonable that older hunters be provided the equipment to see more
clearly.
In fifteen jurisdictions across the United States, however,
muzzleloading hunters are prohibited from using optical sights, despite
the fact that center-fire rifles, handguns and slug-loaded shotguns
permit optical sights. This, NAMHA holds, is discrimination against
muzzleloading hunters - discrimination that is due to age and sight
deterioration- items covered under the Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA).
In a July 16 letter of complaint to Secretary of the Interior Dirk
Kempthorne NAMHA founder Toby Bridges pointed out, "If modern firearms
hunters in these states are given the right to hunt with a magnifying
telescopic rifle sight (scope), then the muzzleloading hunter has the
right to use the same sighting aid during a season established for
muzzle-loaded guns. For these states to deny that right is a clear cut
case of discrimination - due to age, due to sight disability and due to
segregation."
The July 27th reply from the Department of the Interior says: "We have
accepted your complaint for investigation under the authority of section
504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, and Title II of the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Section 504 prohibits
discrimination on the basis of disability in programs or activities
receiving Federal financial assistance. Title II of the ADA prohibits
discrimination on the basis of disability in programs and activities
conducted by public entities whether or not they receive Federal
financial assistance. Each of the 15 Wildlife Agencies is subject to the
nondiscrimination requirements of both of these Federal laws. Under
separate cover, we have asked the FWS (Fish & Wildlife Service) to
investigate your complaint."
Since filing the complaint, the NAMHA says it has been contacted by
several of the named departments. Their reasoning for the no-scope
regulations are characterized by NAMHA as "the same old rhetoric and
reasoning that has been shot down and proven wrong in other states, "
from a potential over-harvest of game to the temptation to take longer
shots. In response, the Association says that precise shot placement is
key to a quick, clean and humane harvest, not a ban on optics.
Further, the NAMHA says game departments "haven't a clue" as to how much
game is lost to poor shot placement due to their open sights only
requirements.
The game agencies listed in the complaint are the Alaska Department of
Fish and Game; California Department of Fish and Game; Colorado Division
of Wildlife; Georgia Department of Natural Resources; Idaho Department
of Fish and Game; Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks; Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources; Nebraska Game and Parks Commission;
Nevada Department of Wildlife; North Dakota Department of Game and Fish;
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife; South Dakota Department of Game,
Fish and Parks; Utah Division of Wildlife Resources; Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife; and the Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources.
