|
Post by drs on Jan 12, 2015 5:23:31 GMT -5
Regardless the truth is that what we use now does not compete with what we likely be using especially in the whole range vs accuracy as well as pure energy .An that is still the point HPRs in many cals are a better choice for the job .Those arguing those facts are just showing how the rally do not get what the advantages and ballistics really mean to the average hunter who will set up a HPR at 1.5 inches high and be zero at 200 -275 yds depending what they are shooting in most cases .And still be packing around 1000 FTP 400-500 yards out and that is more than 44! has at 25 yards or the BBL in most cases . Must inform you that all these posts regarding "Ballistics" of various cartridges have no meaning or hold weight with the IDNR, when deciding on allow HPR. I found this out when I first wrote them back in 1987 when I tried to explain to them that a 12 or 20 gauge sabot "Rifled" shotgun or even a sabot firing M/L; is on the same level as a .44 Magnum & other cartridges in this class. Anything I told them or showing them tables of ballistics fell on deaf ears. Took a little over 20 years for them to finally realize this fact of comparison, which is when they legalized PCRs.
|
|
|
Post by drs on Jan 12, 2015 6:00:24 GMT -5
Very interesting information guys, but what does it have to do with "Current data on the public input"? All this discussion concerning "ballistics" means nothing to the general public and their input commits. Most of those individuals have "Zero" knowledge of cartridge ballistics, so it is a non-issue to them. I believe most of those individuals against HPRs for Deer live mainly in the larger cities or in Counties with a high population of people, concerned about the safety of HPRs. They hear about High Powered cartridges like the .270 or even .30-30 and hunting accidents then link the two together.
|
|
|
Post by M4Madness on Jan 12, 2015 6:17:47 GMT -5
I'm sorry, but I chuckled when I read this. The DNR won't reverse them since they've already been legalized.
|
|
|
Post by firstwd on Jan 12, 2015 6:22:16 GMT -5
460 308 Looks like 460 is a poor choice... IMHO Your .460 S&W is not anything like a .308. However it is legal in Indiana, and it will still take a Deer, just like a .308 will, which is NOT permitted in Indiana for Deer. Why do you need a cartridge like the .308 or .270 to take a Deer at normal hunting ranges when either the .44 Magnum or .460 S&W will do just as well. If you guy hunting aren't careful; you might find that even the "PCRs" will be banned and you'll be back to using shotgun slugs & Muzzle Loaders. Too much noise being made on this HPR issue, which might lead to another look at PCR safety which some official in the IDNR. In this you are wrong. A 308 is currently legal in Indiana for deer as long as the gun has a short barrel and doesn't have a shoulder stock. Which to me is reason enough to allow long guns.
|
|
|
Post by drs on Jan 12, 2015 6:36:52 GMT -5
Your .460 S&W is not anything like a .308. However it is legal in Indiana, and it will still take a Deer, just like a .308 will, which is NOT permitted in Indiana for Deer. Why do you need a cartridge like the .308 or .270 to take a Deer at normal hunting ranges when either the .44 Magnum or .460 S&W will do just as well. If you guy hunting aren't careful; you might find that even the "PCRs" will be banned and you'll be back to using shotgun slugs & Muzzle Loaders. Too much noise being made on this HPR issue, which might lead to another look at PCR safety which some official in the IDNR. In this you are wrong. A 308 is currently legal in Indiana for deer as long as the gun has a short barrel and doesn't have a shoulder stock. Which to me is reason enough to allow long guns. I already knew about this. I was referring to a .308 being fired in a regular rifle, as this has been the case for several years. Such cartridges like the .308 fired from a handgun normally have only one shot and is used at shorter ranges vs a rifle which would permit & encourage longer shots. Personally, I think it sort of stupid using a .308 in a handgun. Don't believe many hunters use .308 in a handgun for hunting Deer. Just my observation.
|
|
|
Post by drs on Jan 12, 2015 6:38:40 GMT -5
I'm sorry, but I chuckled when I read this. The DNR won't reverse them since they've already been legalized. I Don't think they would do that either.
|
|
|
Post by GS1 on Jan 12, 2015 7:25:45 GMT -5
Why do you need a cartridge like the .308 or .270 to take a Deer at normal hunting ranges when either the .44 Magnum or .460 S&W will do just as well. If you guy hunting aren't careful; you might find that even the "PCRs" will be banned and you'll be back to using shotgun slugs & Muzzle Loaders. Too much noise being made on this HPR issue, which might lead to another look at PCR safety which some official in the IDNR. Why does anyone need a .308 or .270 to take deer? Why does Kentucky allow HPR'S? Why is it safe to use a HPR 3 miles from my house, but not on the property I hunt which is one mile from my house? Why are you so concerned about hunting in Indiana when you do not live here and have not hunted here in how long?
|
|
|
Post by realhunter on Jan 12, 2015 7:43:18 GMT -5
Why do you need a cartridge like the .308 or .270 to take a Deer at normal hunting ranges when either the .44 Magnum or .460 S&W will do just as well. If you guy hunting aren't careful; you might find that even the "PCRs" will be banned and you'll be back to using shotgun slugs & Muzzle Loaders. Too much noise being made on this HPR issue, which might lead to another look at PCR safety which some official in the IDNR. Why does anyone need a .308 or .270 to take deer? Why does Kentucky allow HPR'S? Why is it safe to use a HPR 3 miles from my house, but not on the property I hunt which is one mile from my house? Why are you so concerned about hunting in Indiana when you do not live here and have not hunted here in how long?
|
|
|
Post by drs on Jan 12, 2015 8:02:47 GMT -5
Why does anyone need a .308 or .270 to take Deer?
Good question, for those living in Indiana. Deer Hunter now don't have much problem harvesting Deer with current legal equipment.
Why does Kentucky allow High powered rifles?
Because we have less "people" population, strip malls, housing developments & urban sprawl, in our Rural Counties, then in Indiana. Also our terrain is more hilly, with mountains, so it's safer in this type terrain, than mostly flat Indiana. Some wildlife areas in Ky only allow Shotgun or M/L.
Why is it safe to use a HPR 3 miles from my home, but not on the property I hunt which is one mile from my house?
Most likely due to the population density in your area. I am uncertain why it's safe to use HPRs 3-miles from you home unless it is a target range, or you live three miles from Ky.
Why are you so concerned about hunting in Indiana when you do not live here and have not hunted here in how long?
I grew-up in Indiana, learned to hunt in Indiana, as it is my home state. I moved to Kentucky because Indiana is becoming too crowded and is continues to grow in population. Also, I became sick & tired of seeing valuable farms & wild natural areas being developed into Housing Developments & Strip Mall with a Walmart on every corner. Urban Sprawl is getting out-of-control in Indiana, as I personally lost several Hunting sports up there due to this Sprawl. So, I moved here to Ky, back in July of 2008; to get out of that situation, and bought my own land (83 acres) with a new home built on it. I walk to my Hunting area now instead of driving miles to one in Indiana and worrying about it being gone the next Hunting Season.
|
|
|
Post by hornzilla on Jan 12, 2015 8:16:50 GMT -5
In this you are wrong. A 308 is currently legal in Indiana for deer as long as the gun has a short barrel and doesn't have a shoulder stock. Which to me is reason enough to allow long guns. I already knew about this. I was referring to a .308 being fired in a regular rifle, as this has been the case for several years. Such cartridges like the .308 fired from a handgun normally have only one shot and is used at shorter ranges vs a rifle which would permit & encourage longer shots. Personally, I think it sort of stupid using a .308 in a handgun. Don't believe many hunters use .308 in a handgun for hunting Deer. Just my observation. I use a 308 in a handgun. Doesn't seem stupid to me.
|
|
|
Post by drs on Jan 12, 2015 8:31:27 GMT -5
I already knew about this. I was referring to a .308 being fired in a regular rifle, as this has been the case for several years. Such cartridges like the .308 fired from a handgun normally have only one shot and is used at shorter ranges vs a rifle which would permit & encourage longer shots. Personally, I think it sort of stupid using a .308 in a handgun. Don't believe many hunters use .308 in a handgun for hunting Deer. Just my observation. I use a 308 in a handgun. Doesn't seem stupid to me. Whatever "floats-your-boat"......Be sure to wear ear protection.
|
|
|
Post by steve46511 on Jan 12, 2015 9:17:50 GMT -5
I really do wish everyone would understand that "NEED" has absolutely NOTHING to do with anything in the hunting world, including this proposal.
We don't NEED to hunt at all, nor did we "need" rifled slug barrels, 3 and 3.5 inch shells for slugs, treestands (which were NOT always the norm), food plots, either P&Y or B&C clubs, a measuring system for antlers, compounds, crossbows, every deer hunting gimmick anyone has bought, higher BC bullets, and on........and on..........and on.
Deer would have still been hunted and successfully taken without any of them.
Perhaps a few handicapped hunters have a true need for something to hunt at all but that's about it but again, hunting is a privilege and one only has to look elsewhere in the world to realize it CAN BE taken away. We can all (me included) feel that could never happen but if the fed and state government found a way to keep the same income flow it can happen. One only has to look back in life at what the US population was when we first kissed this rock to now to realize that there is only ONE ultimate ending down the road. Animals have been driven out of certain states for centuries due to increased population driven further and further into the mountains or off the beaten track. Sooner or later, with the population unchecked, there will only be "room" for animals on protected ground...period.
We have all mourned the habitat loss seen in life but stop and view that for what it is. It's humans wanting what they feel THEY need....phooey on the animal population.
EVERY single thing introduced to the hunting population in decades has one basic theme. "This will increase your odds of success". That's what advertising says it does and why people buy them....any of them. Why the use of HPR is looked at any other way is much of a surprise to me.
I will admit that AT FIRST safety seemed an issue but thinking on this for months and months I realize the idiots in whose hands they will be unsafe...are unsafe NOW with any other weapon. People get shot with ARCHERY equipment for heaven's sake!! (HOW that happens is true migraine material to me.) Let's face it every single one of us feel "a HPR is safe in my hands. I pay attention. I don't take risky shots".
ARE you and I not a great cross section of the hunters in Indiana? Does not that same cross section feel THEY will be safe using them? You bet. There will be FEW hunters not taking advantage of what the superior range these rifles offer...."needed" or not. If nothing else it's a "what if" decision. "What IF that monster buck steps out at 250-300 yards!!"
I have no proof but I do have an opinion and little sways me away from it too as to why now the HPR proposal has come. If any recall, or look back, you will see me publicly stating "I just don't ever see that happening in Indiana". It had nothing to do with desire. I like hunting with or have liked, all hunting weapons of choice.
Where I think MUCH of this is coming from is nothing more complicated than....access. The number of deer HUNTERS is very high and appears such wont deteriorate any anytime soon. Look closely and pay attention to the posts about "finding a place to hunt" and how RAPIDLY such has came upon us. It matters not one iota if YOU don't have problems finding ANY place to hunt but there is a LARGE number of hunters or hunters to be that want to hunt and have little or no where to go unless it's the TYPE of area few hunters would want or ever dream of hunting. In short, we as hunters are quickly reaching out OWN "carrying capacity". There is only so many of us that will fit in a certain size area and this is the REASON buying property to hunt on or leasing has become SOP in our state in ONLY about 2 decades. Where will we be in another two decades?
The HPR will open up areas to feasible and possibly successful hunting efforts. Thousands of acres of it too. The rolling cornfield along the 1000 yards of creek where trees were stripped by the land owner with 80 acres of swamp on the other side one cannot hunt........will all of a sudden be a logical hunting spot. I've sat and watched DOZENS of deer annually cross that field without a tree within 300 yards of them. The field on the West end of a property I just lost to family has had deer come across it for literally 45 years, too far from anyplace to sit with the standard black powder gun or slug gun (and have a SENSIBLE shot). The winding but only having a few scrub trees along creek SE of that area I've also watched untold numbers come across from a block or two away (country block) and sat hoping they would turn my way instead of going on through.
Access. A HPR will open up land to hunt with a reasonable expectation of a reasonable shot. In fact in MY areas of hunting ground there will be MORE AREA ( by a LOT) to hunt that fits that description THAN the precious few acres of woodland and creekbottom. SURELY the powers that be have taken this into consideration. Do they think such will increase sales? I don't know, but they have to realize this and I'M WAGERING.....it is on the table, somewhere, as "another reason this is a great idea".
In ending, I am going to agree on one thing that I see repeated by "a lot" but not all.
There will be few who say now that they do not wish for HPR to becomes legal (standard ones, not the wildcats).....that wont be using one a year or two down the road should they become part of Indiana's deer hunting. Yes. Some love the weapons they use now and will continue. Not at all odd. I've several friends who have never ever picked up a compound for the same reason.
God Bless
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Jan 12, 2015 9:25:03 GMT -5
I just counted through all of the e-mailed comments -- it took me 2 1/2 hours! My wife talked to me a few times and I was concerned about losing count, so TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE the following are correct: YES: 774 Yes with stipulations (such as magazine restrictions, county, etc.): 155 NO: 773 I thought it was hilarious that I came up with a single, solid 1 vote lead for the 100% "yes" category. LOL! Adding in the "yes with restrictions crowd puts it at 929 supporting and 773 opposed. Not that any of this matters, as the NRC isn't considering the majority when voting anyway. 1000 could be against and 1 for and it still pass. Adding in the mailed in comments .... No: 64 (included a petition style entry with 33 signatures on it) Yes with stipulations: 1 Yes: 2
|
|
|
Post by M4Madness on Jan 12, 2015 9:33:35 GMT -5
I didn't figure any of the mailed in ones would be a "yes". Lol!
I guess I need to go door to door in my area and get "yes" signatures on a petition. Or put one down at the local check station. Heck, I could get 30+ just here at work from non-hunters who could care less either way. LOL!
|
|
|
Post by lawrencecountyhunter on Jan 12, 2015 9:37:10 GMT -5
I honestly think I am dumber now, having read through this entire thread If nothing else, it will be interesting to see the final decision compared to the sum of the yeas/nays.
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Jan 12, 2015 9:45:00 GMT -5
I didn't figure any of the mailed in ones would be a "yes". Lol! I guess I need to go door to door in my area and get "yes" signatures on a petition. Or put one down at the local check station. Heck, I could get 30+ just here at work from non-hunters who could care less either way. LOL! I wonder if the NRC considers that particular entry as a single piece of input or if they consider each of those 33 signatures individually ..... In the future these public comment sections are liable to really expand with input ... some of the organizations are getting better at getting word out that input is happening ... input is needed ... and how to properly go about adding input. Currently it is still flawed ... and it is still a very small percentage of us hunters first and foremost but an even smaller percentage of the "public".
|
|
|
Post by M4Madness on Jan 12, 2015 9:59:02 GMT -5
The biggest question is who should be allowed to comment? Should it only be hunters? Or those who live in areas where hunting takes place? Or some 80-year old woman who lives smack dab in the middle of Indianapolis and will never encounter a hunter let alone a projectile he fires?
|
|
|
Post by drs on Jan 12, 2015 10:13:12 GMT -5
The biggest question is who should be allowed to comment? Should it only be hunters? Or those who live in areas where hunting takes place? Or some 80-year old woman who lives smack dab in the middle of Indianapolis and will never encounter a hunter let alone a projectile he fires? Why not just place this proposal on the ballot so folks could vote on it?
|
|
|
Post by M4Madness on Jan 12, 2015 10:20:02 GMT -5
The biggest question is who should be allowed to comment? Should it only be hunters? Or those who live in areas where hunting takes place? Or some 80-year old woman who lives smack dab in the middle of Indianapolis and will never encounter a hunter let alone a projectile he fires? Why not just place this proposal on the ballot so folks could vote on it? That's exactly the point I was trying to make. Do we really want to include the opinions of those who aren't directly affected by the proposal? I saw one comment from an anti-hunter in the comments -- you can't miss the all capital letters and rant. LOL! I suspect that there are many more in there, only more subtle and hidden.
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Jan 12, 2015 10:47:13 GMT -5
The states resources are the property of all citizens .... or so the story goes. You have to allow comment from everyone.
There is no good reason they are needed. There is no good reason they are not needed. Let the public comment, as hap hazard as that process may be, decide.
If they dont let public comment decide in a decision like this then they shouldn't even ask for the comment.
|
|