|
Post by lawrencecountyhunter on Sept 2, 2014 19:01:39 GMT -5
Did I miss something? What's with all the hog hunting stuff? I've never seen a wild hog in Indiana and have never talked to anyone who has? Is this like the badger and the porcupine? Why am I so behind on these critters??? East Fork White River, Jackson, Lawrence, Washington counties.
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Sept 2, 2014 19:03:53 GMT -5
Did I miss something? What's with all the hog hunting stuff? I've never seen a wild hog in Indiana and have never talked to anyone who has? Is this like the badger and the porcupine? Why am I so behind on these critters??? We had quite a bunch in Northern Warrick county for awhile. War was declared on them and they were trapped and killed any which way folks could. I have not seen any or sign of any for maybe 7 or 8 years.. Right now can kill them on sight. I think what the DNR doesn't want is established commercial hunting of them? Thus the "no dogs" proposal.... But I could be wrong.
|
|
|
Post by lawrencecountyhunter on Sept 2, 2014 19:10:56 GMT -5
Did I miss something? What's with all the hog hunting stuff? I've never seen a wild hog in Indiana and have never talked to anyone who has? Is this like the badger and the porcupine? Why am I so behind on these critters??? We had quite a bunch in Northern Warrick county for awhile. War was declared on them and they were trapped and killed any which way folks could. I have not seen any or sign of any for maybe 7 or 8 years.. Right now can kill them on sight. I think what the DNR doesn't want is established commercial hunting of them? Thus the "no dogs" proposal.... But I could be wrong. I don't hog dog, so no skin off my back. I just don't want this to be a first step towards an outright ban. Woody, how many of those hogs in Warrick County you reckon the DNR took out? Sounds like you guys hit 'em hard and fast, before they could become well established. If it were illegal to shoot one, I'd bet they'd still be running around those areas.
|
|
|
Post by barton174 on Sept 2, 2014 19:21:12 GMT -5
You saw what I saw Tyn as long as it meet the minimum case length and 243 Cal. its legal I don't like it either and that's not up for debate as far as I am concerned so there's two 100% against I'm also 100% for us being able to use real rifles! Been waiting on that for years! Mike
|
|
|
Post by mkfrench on Sept 2, 2014 19:36:29 GMT -5
I'm not opposed to or for the addition of rifles (.243 or bigger) for deer. Guess I'd lean towards being against if I had to choose. What I do like about the proposed changes is what I am sure it's doing to another "nameless" indiana hunting forum. I'm sure they have went apesh-- over this. Wish I could log on to that site and antagonize them and listen to their absurd reasons for opposing anything but their own preferences. Unfortunately tho I've been banned:( I quit posting there long ago, but I do sneak in once in a while to take a peak. Oh, are they in a tizzy over this!!! "Slob this"..."Joe Sixpack that"..."buying guns the day before season and sitting out the next day with a case of beer and calling it hunting...blah blah blah"...same old tired song. It is a good reminder why I don't hang around there any more. Oh, I can imagine. LOL. Going to try to log back on to see if I can get out of the corner and participate with the keyboard cowboys again.
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Sept 2, 2014 19:37:42 GMT -5
We had quite a bunch in Northern Warrick county for awhile. War was declared on them and they were trapped and killed any which way folks could. I have not seen any or sign of any for maybe 7 or 8 years.. Right now can kill them on sight. I think what the DNR doesn't want is established commercial hunting of them? Thus the "no dogs" proposal.... But I could be wrong. I don't hog dog, so no skin off my back. I just don't want this to be a first step towards an outright ban. Woody, how many of those hogs in Warrick County you reckon the DNR took out? Sounds like you guys hit 'em hard and fast, before they could become well established. If it were illegal to shoot one, I'd bet they'd still be running around those areas. The county COs might have shot a couple three.. Most were trapped and disposed of... I don't think the DNR is proposing that you cant shoot them, just that you cant use dogs to do it? Not sure what would happen if a rabbit dog kicked one up and the rabbit hunter blasted it? They were well established. They are like cock roaches. If you see one, you can bet on dozens more..
|
|
|
Post by lawrencecountyhunter on Sept 2, 2014 19:55:38 GMT -5
Nope, just running with dogs right now. I think, though, from my conversations with the local COs and DNR and USDA biologists, that the consensus within that group is that hog hunters are more trouble than the hogs themselves.
We had a close call a year or 2 back, where spotlighting was proposed to be banned except for hunting furbearers. The majority of hogs killed, other than incidentally while deer hunting, are out in cut cornfields at night.
Seems like every time new proposals come out, there is something in there to make it more difficult to kill hogs.
|
|
|
Post by GS1 on Sept 3, 2014 5:00:00 GMT -5
Woody, how many of those hogs in Warrick County you reckon the DNR took out? Sounds like you guys hit 'em hard and fast, before they could become well established. If it were illegal to shoot one, I'd bet they'd still be running around those areas. It was 6-8 years after they were first reported that I saw the first one. There were several shot, but I would bet more were trapped or caught with dogs and relocated. I miss them.
|
|
|
Post by 76chevy on Sept 3, 2014 5:36:22 GMT -5
I support the changes.
|
|
|
Post by 76chevy on Sept 3, 2014 5:37:56 GMT -5
I like the change in coyote permission requirements.
312 IAC 9-3-12: Allow coyotes to be taken year-round without written permission of the landowner. Coyotes can be taken during the hunting and trapping season (October 15-March 15) or year-round on private land with written permission of the landowner. Removing the requirement for written permission would make it easier for individuals to remove nuisance coyotes at anytime. Permission of the landowner or tenant would still be required, but it would not have to be in writing.
|
|
|
Post by dbd870 on Sept 3, 2014 6:34:56 GMT -5
Only read the hunting part of it. Looks good to me, my only comment is if pushing the hogs in to new territory by using dogs is a problem then it is a problem no matter who is doing it.
|
|
|
Post by trapperdave on Sept 3, 2014 7:05:51 GMT -5
I'm not opposed to or for the addition of rifles (.243 or bigger) for deer. Guess I'd lean towards being against if I had to choose. What I do like about the proposed changes is what I am sure it's doing to another "nameless" indiana hunting forum. I'm sure they have went apesh-- over this. Wish I could log on to that site and antagonize them and listen to their absurd reasons for opposing anything but their own preferences. Unfortunately tho I've been banned:( I quit posting there long ago, but I do sneak in once in a while to take a peak. Oh, are they in a tizzy over this!!! "Slob this"..."Joe Sixpack that"..."buying guns the day before season and sitting out the next day with a case of beer and calling it hunting...blah blah blah"...same old tired song. It is a good reminder why I don't hang around there any more. It all starts with their ring leader. Tried to get him to define his "real deer Hunter" comment. He didn't want to play. Lol
|
|
|
Post by lawrencecountyhunter on Sept 3, 2014 7:32:34 GMT -5
I like the change in coyote permission requirements. 312 IAC 9-3-12: Allow coyotes to be taken year-round without written permission of the landowner. Coyotes can be taken during the hunting and trapping season (October 15-March 15) or year-round on private land with written permission of the landowner. Removing the requirement for written permission would make it easier for individuals to remove nuisance coyotes at anytime. Permission of the landowner or tenant would still be required, but it would not have to be in writing. I liked that too. Many states allow coyote hunting year round, public and private land, some even without a license. I would like to see Indiana move more in that direction.
|
|
|
Post by omegahunter on Sept 3, 2014 10:38:56 GMT -5
I like the change in coyote permission requirements. 312 IAC 9-3-12: Allow coyotes to be taken year-round without written permission of the landowner. Coyotes can be taken during the hunting and trapping season (October 15-March 15) or year-round on private land with written permission of the landowner. Removing the requirement for written permission would make it easier for individuals to remove nuisance coyotes at anytime. Permission of the landowner or tenant would still be required, but it would not have to be in writing. There is no change in permission requirements being proposed, just changing the requirement for documentation of permission. That I don't agree with. If you have permission, there should be no trouble getting it in writing.
|
|
|
Post by sharps45120 on Sept 3, 2014 12:06:14 GMT -5
What I do not see on who can legally hunt deer is landowner. Are we losing the landowner rights to harvest a deer on your own land without purchasing a license?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2014 12:24:31 GMT -5
The idea of High Powered Rifles in Indiana can be controversial. A lot of people in Indiana think Indiana is too developed to allow HP Rifles. In some areas this may be true.
Many people in states that do not allow HP Rifles seem to think that in states that do allow HP Rifles the hunters are hunting miles and miles away from houses and roads. This is simply not true at all.
What a lot of people in Indiana may not understand is in states that allow HP Rifles, most hunters hunt fairly close to houses, and roads just like in any state. In Kentucky and Tennessee every year tens of thousands of hunters hunt with HP Rifles, and thousands of them hunt within just a few hundred yards of houses, and roads.
If millions of hunters in other states can hunt with High Powered Rifles within just a few hundreds yards of houses and roads in other states every year, than one could say it would seem fair to allow Indiana Hunters to use HP Rifles in certain rural areas of Indiana.
|
|
|
Post by cedarthicket on Sept 3, 2014 12:24:45 GMT -5
What I do not see on who can legally hunt deer is landowner. Are we losing the landowner rights to harvest a deer on your own land without purchasing a license? NO. This proposal package concerns rule (regulation) changes, not Indiana Code (the law) changes. The Indiana Code regarding landowner rights is not proposed to be changed.
|
|
|
Post by cedarthicket on Sept 3, 2014 12:31:35 GMT -5
We are not losing landowner rights. This proposal package concerns rule (regulation) changes, not Indiana Code (the law) changes. The Indiana Code regarding landowner rights is not proposed to be changed.
|
|