|
Post by ms660 on Sept 3, 2014 11:46:38 GMT -5
How many against are strictly bow hunters? From feedback I've been seeing this is where most of the opposition is coming from. There are many bowhunters that are for this, They are thinking opening up high powered rifles will lead to a shorter gun season and moving it out of the rut which is what they have always wanted since prop 1 of the original rule changes was all about. There are those that can't sleep at night knowing that a firearm hunter may kill one of (their) bucks.
|
|
|
Post by boonechaser on Sept 3, 2014 11:58:11 GMT -5
I'm more opposed to it as a safety concern. I doubt the state will pick up many more hunter's just because it offer's rifle's as weapon to hunt with. I suspect some gun hunter's will opt to use rifle's instead of shotgun's. And doubt that many more deer will be taken as hunter's that hunted with firearm anyways are just using a different weapon. My concern's again are purely safety as rifle cartridges simply will fly furthur. Gun season is bad enough the way it is currently.
|
|
|
Post by dbd870 on Sept 3, 2014 12:01:03 GMT -5
I'm more opposed to it as a safety concern. I doubt the state will pick up many more hunter's just because it offer's rifle's as weapon to hunt with. I suspect some gun hunter's will opt to use rifle's instead of shotgun's. And doubt that many more deer will be taken as hunter's that hunted with firearm anyways are just using a different weapon. My concern's again are purely safety as rifle cartridges simply will fly furthur. Gun season is bad enough the way it is currently. There really is not much of a safety difference as has been pointed out.
|
|
|
Post by 36fan on Sept 3, 2014 12:03:02 GMT -5
NOBODY wanted to BAN crossbows. Crossbows were not a legal weapon to hunt deer in Indiana for decades and decades, since the inception of deer hunting regulations in fact. No one needed to ban them, they were never legal for regular hunters other than those with handicap permits. I've only been hunting for ~10 yrs, but crossbows have been legal equipment for ANYONE DURING THE LATE ARCHERY SEASON in that time, along with handicap hunters the entire season.
|
|
|
Post by boonechaser on Sept 3, 2014 12:24:09 GMT -5
Have a park hunt with everyone using high powered rifle's......lol, Not interested. I would strongly disagree that there are not safety concern's. Indiana is comprised of mostly smaller woodlot's and acreage. Not to many area's of state where 400 plus yard shot's are needed. (maybe northern counties)Indiana also has alot of urban inhabited area's, hence a bullet capable of traveling in excess of 500 yard's should be of concern. I would agree it all come's back to the person being responsible with his/her weapon, but there are alot of irresponsible people out there. I guess my question would be. Why do we need this?? Again I don't think it will have any, if not very little effect on deer harvest number's. And for the record. 11 year's ago some irresponsible hunter sent 3 - 12 quage deer slug's through the wall of our house laundry room. So safety is always a concern to me with any type of firearm. I just don't see the need for long range weapon's in Indiana. JMO
|
|
|
Post by dbd870 on Sept 3, 2014 13:48:54 GMT -5
If you are worried about something traveling too far then you better get rid of all firearms. 500yds is nothing for a what is legal now. The PA study done several years ago with a muzzleloader, Sabotted shotgun and 30-06 proved that. There is this idea that somehow going to a HPR is all of a sudden make things so much more dangerous and it has been proven not to be so, but old myths die hard.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2014 14:06:32 GMT -5
The way I see it, the biggest difference in HPR is the flatter trajectory over distances. I would guess that has precious little to do with safety. But I'm the furthest thing from a gun or ballistics expert. But I do have an opinion, two armpits and a butt hole.
|
|
|
Post by span870 on Sept 3, 2014 14:21:09 GMT -5
These safety concerns are again in everyone's mind. As has been pointed out there have been several studies, the one in Pennsylvania being quoted the most, that this is not a concern. As far as distance yes a hpr does have more distance than some non hpr rounds. But what happens after that round has been fired is the difference. Why does everyone keeps bringing up the safety concern when there is no difference between the two? A heavy 30/30 bullet isn't going to go a whole heck of a lot farther than a sabot coming out of a muzzle loader behind 150 grains of powder. If we are talking about distance of a mile than you are referring to the rifle being fired at an optimal angle of 90 degrees. Why is that even in the discussion? Who does that and aren't they going to do idiotic stuff like that with a slug or a muzzleloader? A 30/06 loaded as hot as can be is not going to travel a mile parallel to the ground. Idiots are going to be idiots anyway and most are probably using rifle illegally now.
|
|
|
Post by span870 on Sept 3, 2014 14:25:40 GMT -5
And 99% of arguments over sports could be avoided if scores weren't kept and records weren't recorded. Competition is a fact of life in most areas. Like it or not...... But Ivr never had a friend that played baseball and football try to make rules to shorten the time I could play or what equipment I could use playing that sport
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Sept 3, 2014 14:30:29 GMT -5
Then you never played the sports .... there are all kind of rules about what equipment you can and cannot use and lengths of the game change depending on what age group we are talking.
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Sept 3, 2014 14:31:24 GMT -5
But that wasnt really my point .....
|
|
|
Post by 76chevy on Sept 3, 2014 15:17:21 GMT -5
andd this is a negative?? They are also cheaper to buy...
|
|
|
Post by 76chevy on Sept 3, 2014 15:20:19 GMT -5
I have hunted around amish also. Good people who follow the laws and will help you when you need it. I would gladly hunt with or around them. I've lived around Amish all my life. From schuylkill county in Pennsylvania with argueably to highest concentration of Amish anywhere in the U.S. to where I live now in Lawrence county. They don't kill anymore deer than the DNR allows them to. They are not slob hunters and they don't willy nilly just throw lead anymore than the average English hunter. What they do is kill deer that feed there family throughout the year. Unlike shot of English hunters who shot a deer don't want it and give it away for "charity". I feed my beagles all running season on meat from hunters freezers that went to waste. If you have a problem with the Amish killing too many deer talk to the DNR. They aren't breaking any rules that the DNR has set for legal chase. Do they drive hunt. Yep. Is it legal. Yep. Or is it the fact that most are a brown and down and not trophy hunters? Is sorry for the rant but I get sick of hearing the bashing of the Amish every year on this subject when they are some of the nicest most giving people I have ever had the priveledge of knowing. Maybe if us " English" would adobt some of there ideas and living our world wouldn't be in the state it is. I say until you take a long bow with no sight and arrows you made with flint tips and stalked deer on the ground and killed it don't complain to anyone about the purity of your weapon or the ease of someone elses Every good post. I agree one hundred percent.
|
|
|
Post by scrobertson on Sept 3, 2014 15:45:31 GMT -5
andd this is a negative?? They are also cheaper to buy... ...yes. read title of thread. Cheaper compared to wildcat.
|
|
|
Post by shouldernuke on Sept 3, 2014 16:21:53 GMT -5
I wonder how many of these bow-only hunters are also the same ones that want to ban crossbows? And of those, I wonder how many would vehemently oppose a ban on compound bows - forcing them to only use long bows or recurves? Selfishness is going to bring about the downfall of hunting as a sport. Just give it time. NOBODY wanted to BAN crossbows. Crossbows were not a legal weapon to hunt deer in Indiana for decades and decades, since the inception of deer hunting regulations in fact. No one needed to ban them, they were never legal for regular hunters other than those with handicap permits. Now any one can use the same weapons only the handicapped could use before. w Apparently it's still not enough for this generation of lame wannabees to kill a deer. They are in for a surprise though. It may seem like a good idea now but by the year after they still won't be able to kill anything they can't kill now. What will be left for them to cry and whine over then? Oh, I guess they could want to carry a bucket of corn out there. You are exactly on the money about selfishness destroying the sport. It's come a long way toward and I pretty much expect the resource to be destroyed and unhuntable with in 5 years. We are several years in to programs for slob hunters to have an excuse for killing deer they don't even want. Most of them pretty much kill twice as many or more than they tag and shoot ten times as many bullets in the field than deer they tag. At least, and that's with their "more accurate" weapons. Just you average run of the mill hunter today is about the most offensive slob hunter imaginable by standards of just 20 years ago. I am all for someone to have an opinion on any subject and argue it as an opinion .That said this post wreeks of the same old hunt the way and with what I hunt with that older cloistered hunters or hunters worried about who might kill his deer ,always fall back on and its tired to say the least .You have no facts to prove anything you wrote here no scientific data nothing but its not the way I like to hunt and others should not hunt with those things .This is nothing but ANTI hunting at its finest and screams of Elitism . Thats the problem in this sport the Elite who place what they do and what they feel on a pedestal . FYI Rifles are no less safe than any other modern gun shotgun or ML. Second does it hurt some guys feelings that the xbows made shooting accurately easier for bowhunters that shoot like crap and knew it so they changed to a better weapon rather than loose and wound game Guys the fact that the same numbers of hunters we have today would decide to use rifles rather than shotguns or pcrs or ML will not change the harvest in a negative way it will likely as in most states that use them reduce wounding and loss of deer .Now those things have been studied and proven over and over .So will the gun harvest go up ?? I believe it will do I think more deer will actually die from being shot in gun seasons Nope I think not I think most will likely be found with better accuracy and less recoil than Shotguns have that cause flinching at the shot and thus poor hits. FYI you will one day soon see hunting over bait here why not we already do it we just grow it pal .Man you dont get you want it all in degrees you call ok . So I say bring on the Buckets of corn its cheeper than food plots /Shot plots and will put deer where hunters will know exactly where they are like 20 yards not I think hes at 25 yards oops !!! I guess it was 30 yards Darn I hit him low and back .. Awww shucks its just another wounded deer .
|
|
|
Post by throbak on Sept 3, 2014 17:01:37 GMT -5
You guys must have a different bunch of amish. Thats not like they are here You do realize they have 10 kids to feed for the most part LOL amish bought the farm next to me last year I found 5 Bucks killed and not retrieved FROM THE ROAD on their Property Never seen that before they moved in you wont find anyone speak like you do around here for the most part they are environmentally bankrupt
|
|
|
Post by span870 on Sept 3, 2014 17:13:39 GMT -5
You guys must have a different bunch of amish. Thats not like they are here You do realize they have 10 kids to feed for the most part LOL amish bought the farm next to me last year I found 5 Bucks killed and not retrieved FROM THE ROAD on their Property Never seen that before they moved in you wont find anyone speak like you do around here for the most part they are environmentally bankrupt And you know it was them that shot the deer? As far as environmentaly bankrupt. They are better stewards of the land than 95% of farmers I know. Have you ever hunted with the Amish or is this just what you've heard or been told?
|
|
|
Post by beermaker on Sept 3, 2014 17:24:06 GMT -5
Jack, I must take exception with your ridiculous rant. So I am a "wannabe" for using a crossbow? How about this...I was a dedicated bow hunter for years until family and professional obligations got in the way. I came to realize that I could not practice enough to be what I would consider as a great shot. I did not feel like I was proficient enough to be confident in making ethical kills. So, I traded the bow for a crossbow. Yes, it is easier to shoot well and is very accurate, but you still have to be in effective range. Also, if I have the time to be away from my family and be in the stand, I am going to give myself the best chance possible to bring home some meat. My entire family enjoys venison and NONE goes to waste.
As for the new calibers, I don't really have a concern. I went from a 12 gauge to a Marlin .44 just because I can afford to practice with it and not have a sore shoulder when done. I believe in diligent practice and sabot slugs at $3.00 +/- each is not affordable. I can shoot a box of .44's for $40 and be confident with my weapon. The same amount of shooting with a shotgun would be well over $100 and my shoulder would never be the same. The Marlin is also my more friendly to navigate the woods with. Anyway, I don't hunt areas where the added range capabilities would be a benefit. My .44 is accurate to 100 yards, which is much farther than dense hardwood forests in the southern part of the state allow.
I will not be buying a longer range gun just because it is legal, nor will I care if someone else chooses to.
|
|
|
Post by firstwd on Sept 3, 2014 17:28:21 GMT -5
People doing wrong in the woods mow will do wrong no matter what firearms are legal.
Maybe rifles will lessen the number of deer making it to neighboring property after the shot.
I would love to use center fire rifles on State Park hunts. It would help drop deer where they are and keep people from walking around looking for one. Plus, I've seen a total of 3 hunters that were not in my group over 5 years of hunting a particular spot.
|
|
|
Post by jackryan on Sept 3, 2014 17:36:48 GMT -5
I wonder what the outcry would be if the state passed a new fluorescent orange reg? Say something like Wisconsin where 50% of the clothing above the waist must be fluro orange. Oh BTW, they (Wi.) dropped the "shotgun only" requirement for their southern counties. Now CF rifles can be used statewide. Oh they will. Soon as some moron shoots another kid they'll be whining for more and more orange. If won't take long once they've got the incompetent slob hunters missing more than ever before with bullets going further than any shot gun slug ever did. And when Slob Bob still can't kill a deer he'll want to quit pretending and just flat out make it legal to bait like the other states. When Bob the Slob still can't kill a deer over a corn pile with a 30-06 then he'll want to allow party hunting like Wisconsin. After all, all the same slogans fit. Dead is dead. We are in reduction mode. I paid for a license what difference does it make who fills it. They do it in name your state. Farmers are already doing it for free when they get depredation permits and hand them out to their friends to slaughter the resource with HP rifles. Wa wa wa, I don't see why... boo hoo.
|
|