|
Post by JohnSmiles on Apr 17, 2007 14:14:51 GMT -5
While they may or may not want less Indiana hunters, they want the firearms hunters so restricted that they can lease up large chunks of real estate and import OOS'rs. No they do not care about Indiana hunters in general. They want it their way or get out of the way. Oh, I think you would be surprised. Some think that there should be a lot more rules and laws passed to thin out the 'horde'. "The only person demanding more laws is the fool who assumes they will only affect others. . ."
|
|
|
Post by Decatur on Apr 17, 2007 19:44:09 GMT -5
I think the "group" we are all talking about has a hidden agenda regarding outfitters in Indiana. They can surely see the money states like Illinois brings in as a result of their "monster" bucks, and they want the same here. Whether they plan to make their fortune as outfitters, guides or they have some scheme to lease up large chunks of land remains to be seen, but hide and watch, they will show their true colors eventually. It's a shame that these people want to make hunting a sport of the royals like it was in Europe. My $.02
|
|
|
Post by tbgrindlay on Apr 17, 2007 19:49:11 GMT -5
If you plug them for 3 shells I'll support PCR's.
|
|
|
Post by Old Ironsights on Apr 17, 2007 19:51:39 GMT -5
If you plug them for 3 shells I'll support PCR's. Anyone who wants to plug theirs can do so... just like they can plug their 1100. Same same.
|
|
|
Post by Decatur on Apr 17, 2007 19:52:25 GMT -5
If you plug them for 3 shells I'll support PCR's. Why? Shotguns aren't plugged. I see some guys that run deer have extended tubes on their shotguns. No offense, but that's just silly!
|
|
|
Post by tmarsh83 on Apr 17, 2007 21:56:48 GMT -5
Why PCR now? If what Woody is saying is to be true, then why the PCR now?? There is currently a handfull of people willing to go to any lengths to get trophy bucks behind every tree. These same people do not care about the average hunter, or in fact MOST hunters outside their little sphere. They do NOT want MORE hunters, they in fact want LESS hunters, and less competition out there. They have condensed the deer hunters into either 'them' or the 'orange horde'. You are either 'of them', or you really do not deserve to hunt anyway. The less hunters, and the shorter they can make the seasons, the better. For them, that is. On some boards, they are still crying gloom and doom and 'woe unto the herd, and to the poor, misguided deer hunters who supported this' . . . . Yeah, it has 'ruined' so many other states, hasn't it?[/quote] I think that a person can have an opinion without being attacked for it everytime they voice it. That is number one. Second, these people who you speak of, you seem to know rather well. I assume that you have taken the time to sit down with those people and discuss every possible aspect of everything that has to do with what you are discussing. Otherwise, you are just making assumptions, and we all know what happens when anyone assumes. lastly...as to how many states have been ruined by PCR's, I pose a question much the same. How many states have been ruined by the OBR? I don't care either way about the PCR, I just want the state to be consistant about its regs, or quit saying that they are being consistant. I'm sure they will be adopted and little will change. But I'm sick of the state claiming they are short to medium range, in regards to DEER HUNTING, when they allow LONG range weapons in the woods every gun opener. THAT is, and has been my only REAL beef with the PCR from day one.
|
|
|
Post by JohnSmiles on Apr 17, 2007 22:48:23 GMT -5
Why PCR now? If what Woody is saying is to be true, then why the PCR now?? There is currently a handful of people willing to go to any lengths to get trophy bucks behind every tree. These same people do not care about the average hunter, or in fact MOST hunters outside their little sphere. They do NOT want MORE hunters, they in fact want LESS hunters, and less competition out there. They have condensed the deer hunters into either 'them' or the 'orange horde'. You are either 'of them', or you really do not deserve to hunt anyway. The less hunters, and the shorter they can make the seasons, the better. For them, that is. On some boards, they are still crying gloom and doom and 'woe unto the herd, and to the poor, misguided deer hunters who supported this' . . . . Yeah, it has 'ruined' so many other states, hasn't it?[/quote] I think that a person can have an opinion without being attacked for it everytime they voice it. That is number one. Apparently you do NOT actually think this, or I would not be posting over here now. It was you and your friends constant attacks on my posts that convinced me to leave. Funny how you could make such a statement. Second, these people who you speak of, you seem to know rather well. I assume that you have taken the time to sit down with those people and discuss every possible aspect of everything that has to do with what you are discussing. Otherwise, you are just making assumptions, and we all know what happens when anyone assumes. Actually no, I am basing my opinions on what they post on public boards. In the same fashion as everyone else has done towards most of those who post. I post who I am, what I think, and how I hunt. I am, I suppose, 'assuming' everyone else does mostly the same. But if a person constantly comes off as an ill tempered, basic a-hole who thinks only of themselves, that is exactly how I am going to see them. While their are MISconceptions galore here, there are also very insightful posts made. What you say here overall does equate to who you really are. [lastly...as to how many states have been ruined by PCR's, I pose a question much the same. How many states have been ruined by the OBR? I don't care either way about the PCR, I just want the state to be consistant about its regs, or quit saying that they are being consistant. I'm sure they will be adopted and little will change. But I'm sick of the state claiming they are short to medium range, in regards to DEER HUNTING, when they allow LONG range weapons in the woods every gun opener. THAT is, and has been my only REAL beef with the PCR from day one. I doubt any have been ruined by a OBR, since you asked. I myself could care less about the OBR, but I do not think it is fair to many hunters. What satisfaction is actually achieved if a big buck is taken by artificially enhancing the herd? Now, you have stated several times you have no beef with the PCR, and are only wanting the state to fix the pistol discrepancy. . . why? It has caused you no harm, and has not caused you to lose any measurable chances at a buck has it? I was once very much against this also, but the truth is nothing bad has happened over it. While it is a discrepancy of sorts, it has harmed no one and THAT is what should be taken into account here. Two months ago I would have agreed with you. But in the same way a simple question ended my posting over on your board, a simple question also ended my concerns over HP pistols. I was asked why I kept posting where I would never be welcome. There was no good answer to that, so I left. In similar fashion, I was also asked why I was fighting something that has proven itself NOT to be a problem in any manner in all the years it has been legal. I came to the same conclusion. To continue to be against it would only prove me too hard headed to realize when I was simply wrong. Which, while it would make me one of many suffering from this affliction, I think there are enough of those already.
|
|
|
Post by tmarsh83 on Apr 18, 2007 7:27:17 GMT -5
OK, to dig up the old berries first, it isn't ever your opinion that I don't care for John. I love a good discussion. It is your matter of fact, if you dont think like I do, tone. I can disagree with you, for my own reasons, I don't have to justify it. Belittling me because I think other than you, well that is some sort of -ism that nobody should have to put up with. I think you add alot to a discussion, and I appreciate your message. But there are times that you state things in a fashion that make them more personal than they need be.
Again, while the HPP issue seems to be a none issue to many people, I detest inconsistancy. The use of HPP's is a huge inconsistancy on the part of the state, who claims to be pursuing a more "consistant" slate of regulations. They are talking out of both sides of their face. It muddys waters that need not be muddied. Be consistant, if you (the state) aren't going to be consistant, stop telling me that is what you are trying to do.
|
|
|
Post by drs on Apr 18, 2007 7:35:49 GMT -5
All I know is that if it's okay to use Pistols that fire .30-06 ammunition, to hunt Deer here in Indiana; then we should be allowed to use PCR's. Once again, the range/safety of PCR's is similar to Sabot loaded shotgun or M/L ammo. John has proven this time & time again with links relating to this fact.
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Apr 18, 2007 7:39:47 GMT -5
I agree - The DNR statement of short to medium range deer hunting tools is inconsistant - now. Laying that statement aside the PCRs should stand or fall on their own merit - not what is and what isn't legal now. Back a little over a year ago a DRAFT administrative rules proposal was leaked. In that leaked draft it had the PCRs for legalization and the HP handuns to be modified back to real pistiol cartridges -as was the orginal intent.. The DNR went forward on the PCRs and did not on the HP handgun modification proposal. Now, one can guess why all day long. Possibly thhe DNR read this board and saw that the two would be hopelessly intertwined and thought to address them one at a time beginning with the legalization of PCRs. It is very possible that the DNR will address the HP rifle cartridges in the future after the PCRs decision is made. Then again, maybe not. If they do not address the HP handguin then they do need to stop using the term "short to medium ranges". IMO - of course.
|
|
|
Post by js2397 on Apr 18, 2007 7:41:31 GMT -5
HPP are a medium range weapon. They may fire bullets that have long range capabilities but they are not long range weapons.
|
|
|
Post by tmarsh83 on Apr 18, 2007 8:02:18 GMT -5
So, with a scope and a rest I can't shoot a HPP 300 yards? I hear people braggin about that all the time...don't kid yourself...these are long range weapons...
|
|
|
Post by drs on Apr 18, 2007 8:04:49 GMT -5
HPP are a medium range weapon. They may fire bullets that have long range capabilities but they are not long range weapons. I've read several articles, on the subject of "HPP's" and their effective ranges. I've read where users of these type pistols have taken game at regular rifle ranges using Savage Strickers and similar pistols chambered in rifle calibers.
|
|
|
Post by tmarsh83 on Apr 18, 2007 8:10:04 GMT -5
HPP are a medium range weapon. They may fire bullets that have long range capabilities but they are not long range weapons. I've read several articles, on the subject of "HPP's" and their effective ranges. I've read where users of these type pistols have taken game at regular rifle ranges using Savage Strickers and similar pistols chambered in rifle calibers. Good post, David.
|
|
|
Post by js2397 on Apr 18, 2007 8:19:11 GMT -5
I have read stories of people shooting muzzleloaders and taking game in ranges in excess of 300 yards also. I saw a guy shoot I think it was a .357 free handed and hit a target 250 yards away. In the hands of most hunters, they fit the criteria established by the DNR. There is always the exception.
|
|
|
Post by drs on Apr 18, 2007 8:30:58 GMT -5
I've read several articles, on the subject of "HPP's" and their effective ranges. I've read where users of these type pistols have taken game at regular rifle ranges using Savage Strickers and similar pistols chambered in rifle calibers. Good post, David. Thanks
|
|
|
Post by JohnSmiles on Apr 19, 2007 21:07:25 GMT -5
Long range? You mean like shooting deer at 340 yards with a pistol long range? Now, who would shoot at a deer at 340 yeards with a pistol?
|
|
|
Post by JohnSmiles on Apr 19, 2007 22:39:28 GMT -5
OK, to dig up the old berries first, it isn't ever your opinion that I don't care for John. I love a good discussion. It is your matter of fact, if you dont think like I do, tone. I can disagree with you, for my own reasons, I don't have to justify it. Belittling me because I think other than you, well that is some sort of -ism that nobody should have to put up with. I think you add alot to a discussion, and I appreciate your message. But there are times that you state things in a fashion that make them more personal than they need be. Again, while the HPP issue seems to be a none issue to many people, I detest inconsistancy. The use of HPP's is a huge inconsistancy on the part of the state, who claims to be pursuing a more "consistant" slate of regulations. They are talking out of both sides of their face. It muddys waters that need not be muddied. Be consistant, if you (the state) aren't going to be consistant, stop telling me that is what you are trying to do. PM sent. Not going there again on the forum. . . . However, . . . .as for fighting the PCR proposal, NOT because you are in any way against it, but because you don't like the 'inconsistant' pistol laws is about as muddy as you can make something without making mud. . .
|
|