|
Post by Woody Williams on Dec 18, 2014 21:52:11 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by M4Madness on Dec 19, 2014 6:41:46 GMT -5
That may have been the reason in other states, but my understanding is that this wasn't the reason Indiana prohibited them.
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Dec 19, 2014 6:56:00 GMT -5
I think that the "problem" was that the uninformed public has been sold that "high powered rifles" can shoot a country mile and are dangerous. The DNR had to go against that public perception. Plus when the original deer seasons started in Indiana very few hunters owner a centerfire rifle, but every hunter had a shotgun.
IMO - What they have done is piece mealed in centerfires a little at a time to lessen the impact. Boiling frogs, if you will
|
|
|
Post by M4Madness on Dec 19, 2014 8:06:36 GMT -5
Old myths die hard. I don't know how it got started, but I've heard lots of people erroneously state that rifles were prohibited "because Indiana is flat and has too many people".
You know the old adage: "Tell a lie enough times and it becomes the truth."
|
|
|
Post by greghopper on Dec 19, 2014 8:09:15 GMT -5
Old myths die hard. I don't know how it got started, but I've heard lots of people erroneously state that rifles were prohibited "because Indiana is flat and has too many people". You know the old adage: "Tell a lie enough times and it becomes the truth." So why do you think they where disallowed in the past??
|
|
|
Post by M4Madness on Dec 19, 2014 8:46:01 GMT -5
Because herd numbers were a far cry less back in the 50's than they are now. It was a harvest issue. Think about the topography and population of Indiana back in the 50's.
|
|
|
Post by tynimiller on Dec 19, 2014 8:47:58 GMT -5
They do hold more potential for long distance dangers...however like studies have shown slugs are actually more dangerous and form sustaining upon ricochets. I'm done being against it and just want it to happen...as long as people aren't idiots with long range field shots (they are already doing this they simply will keep doing this) I'm fine with it. Ethical and good shot choices and hunting by only legal means is all I care about anymore...what you use is of no concern for me if legal anymore.
|
|
|
Post by greghopper on Dec 19, 2014 8:53:58 GMT -5
Because herd numbers were a far cry less back in the 50's than they are now. It was a harvest issue. Think about the topography and population of Indiana back in the 50's. So in reality it has a affect on the Deer harvest in your words!!! Thanks......
|
|
|
Post by M4Madness on Dec 19, 2014 8:55:48 GMT -5
Yes, they probably thought so at the time. You'll note that I never agreed with their premise.
Back then, the deer to hunter ratio was much, much worse, with hunters outnumbering the herd.
|
|
|
Post by dbd870 on Dec 19, 2014 10:45:19 GMT -5
Old myths die hard. I don't know how it got started, but I've heard lots of people erroneously state that rifles were prohibited "because Indiana is flat and has too many people". You know the old adage: "Tell a lie enough times and it becomes the truth." So why do you think they where disallowed in the past?? To limit the harvest numbers; how much did really limit it, that's a different question. May well have made somewhat of a difference back then, but with what is available today; the impact wouldn't be nearly that much.
|
|
|
Post by greghopper on Dec 19, 2014 10:54:03 GMT -5
So why do you think they where disallowed in the past?? To limit the harvest numbers; how much did really limit it, that's a different question. May well have made somewhat of a difference back then, but with what is available today; the impact wouldn't be nearly that much. So I guess it canbe agreed it has a affect on the Harvest numbers in some way!!!
|
|
|
Post by M4Madness on Dec 19, 2014 11:09:04 GMT -5
Crossbows had a bigger affect on the harvest than rifles ever will.
|
|
|
Post by Boilermaker on Dec 19, 2014 11:15:21 GMT -5
No, it can't be agreed that this will affect harvest numbers. I still have the same opportunity to kill 1 buck and 4 does in my county now and that won't change if they make HPRs legal. Why do you think that people are going to shoot more deer because the cartridge they are shooting has changed?!
A dead deer is a dead deer no matter what you made it dead with. To claim that deer numbers will decrease according to what weapons we use is like saying the food on my plate decreases by whether I can use a spoon or fork to eat. It all depends on the provisions (food, deer, etc.) available. We could kill every deer in the state with a bow or shotgun if there were no bag limits.
|
|
|
Post by greghopper on Dec 19, 2014 11:28:00 GMT -5
Folks maybe able to meet there qouta with a more efficient tool....... But that can also be adjusted with bag limits!!!
So yes the Harvest can be affected!!!
|
|
|
Post by M4Madness on Dec 19, 2014 11:49:32 GMT -5
But that can also be adjusted with bag limits. Exactly. That's why the DNR said in the proposal that they manage the herd with antlerless tags and not weapon choice. I'd support legalizing rifles and cutting all counties' antlerless quotas in half.
|
|
|
Post by GS1 on Dec 19, 2014 11:52:52 GMT -5
Because herd numbers were a far cry less back in the 50's than they are now. It was a harvest issue. Think about the topography and population of Indiana back in the 50's. So in reality it has a affect on the Deer harvest in your words!!! Thanks...... I'm pretty sure allowing rifles IN THE 50'S would have had a greater impact on the harvest numbers than it's going too now. You're not using a muzzleloader or slugs developed in the 50's are you???
|
|
|
Post by greghopper on Dec 19, 2014 11:56:04 GMT -5
So in reality it has a affect on the Deer harvest in your words!!! Thanks...... I'm pretty sure allowing rifles IN THE 50'S would have had a greater impact on the harvest numbers than it's going too now. You're not using a muzzleloader or slugs developed in the 50's are you??? Modern ammo is much more efficient in any weapon.... You know that.....and effective though out not just certain tools
|
|
|
Post by dbd870 on Dec 19, 2014 11:58:22 GMT -5
To limit the harvest numbers; how much did really limit it, that's a different question. May well have made somewhat of a difference back then, but with what is available today; the impact wouldn't be nearly that much. So I guess it canbe agreed it has a affect on the Harvest numbers in some way!!! I would think it would; I just think it will be pretty minimal.
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Dec 19, 2014 12:06:15 GMT -5
But that can also be adjusted with bag limits. Exactly. That's why the DNR said in the proposal that they manage the herd with antlerless tags and not weapon choice. I'd support legalizing rifles and cutting all counties' antlerless quotas in half. ^^^^ THIS The only folks that would bother are the ones that take a BUNCH of deer every year. I'd bet that 99% of the deer hunters take WAY less than their county's quota.
|
|
|
Post by tynimiller on Dec 19, 2014 13:27:54 GMT -5
Exactly. That's why the DNR said in the proposal that they manage the herd with antlerless tags and not weapon choice. I'd support legalizing rifles and cutting all counties' antlerless quotas in half. ^^^^ THIS The only folks that would bother are the ones that take a BUNCH of deer every year. I'd bet that 99% of the deer hunters take WAY less than their county's quota. I honestly don't hunt large enough doe families to consider taking more than 1 or 2 out a year at each property...it's all about keeping them in check but not decimated.
|
|