|
Post by jimstc on May 14, 2015 18:08:48 GMT -5
Woody, would it be possible to divide the state into two zones and have different firearms tags? Where you were allowed to only buy a firearms tag for one zone. Possible but not likely.. Definitely not with this proposal. Why would we need two different licenses for different areas? One problem I could foresee is the hunter accessibility would get tougher as the centerfires boys from the north would want to come south to use it. Great point Woody. My thought of classifying different areas of the state was poorly conceived. I expected DNR to recommend approval for the potential revenues from non resident hunters who currently don't hunt here. Oh well, wrong again.....
|
|
|
Post by GS1 on May 14, 2015 18:57:19 GMT -5
Woody, would it be possible to divide the state into two zones and have different firearms tags? Where you were allowed to only buy a firearms tag for one zone. Possible but not likely.. Definitely not with this proposal. Why would we need two different licenses for different areas? One problem I could foresee is the hunter accessibility would get tougher as the centerfires boys from the north would want to come south to use it. I'm just being selfish for the reason that you mentioned.
|
|
|
Post by steiny on May 15, 2015 6:13:58 GMT -5
Glad to see this initiative has lost its steam. Don't need any more "make deer hunting easier" rule changes. Too many in place already.
|
|
|
Post by Boilermaker on May 15, 2015 7:53:01 GMT -5
Glad to see this initiative has lost its steam. Don't need any more "make deer hunting easier" rule changes. Too many in place already. I'm going to go out on a limb and say you're a bow-only type of hunter? I don't think the intention of this change was to "make deer hunting easier". That's an awfully narrow-minded point of view.
|
|
|
Post by thecommissioner on May 15, 2015 7:56:10 GMT -5
Glad to see this initiative has lost its steam. Don't need any more "make deer hunting easier" rule changes. Too many in place already. How is having a HPR going to make deer hunting "easier?" The operative word here is hunting. Are the deer less afraid of hunters with HPR's? Will they come closer or show themselves? Does a deer's sense of smell diminish with HPR's in the woods? Will bucks quit going nocturnal because I have a HPR in my lap? In the eyes of the State of Indiana, they sell licenses to people to harvest the deer, i.e. 'thin the herd.' If venison was declared a carcinogen, the State would be hiring sharpshooters (with HPR's no less!) to do what 'hunters' would refuse to do. So, if the REAL reason for 'hunting' is removing deer from field from the State's POV, doesn't it make sense for the State to make it "easier" to shoot them?
|
|
|
Post by jimstc on May 15, 2015 8:38:05 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by lawrencecountyhunter on May 15, 2015 10:07:09 GMT -5
I don't really care either way.
I agree that it's silly to be able to hunt with the same round out of a handgun but not a rifle, it's silly that you can use a rifle to shoot a coyote and not a deer, and that certain wildcats are OK but not a standard rifle caliber. I can deer hunt with my .450 Bushmaster, but not my Model 94 .30/30. Makes no sense.
On the other hand, I've never felt that my current Indiana guns were inadequate. I like deer hunting with a shotgun. I've used the same H&R since I was a kid (not exclusively), and would still hunt with it some regardless. I like sitting against the same tree with the same gun in my lap year after year. I have a handful of other guns I rotate in and out now, but I always have that H&R with me on opening day.
I see no valid reason that they shouldn't be allowed, but life will go on either way...
|
|
|
Post by Jamie Brooks 1John5:13 on May 15, 2015 10:21:03 GMT -5
Nice article Jim. Thanks for posting it.
|
|
|
Post by Jamie Brooks 1John5:13 on May 15, 2015 10:32:28 GMT -5
So is it mostly a political decision for rifles to not be legal for deer in Indiana? Possibly most decisions are political???
Seeing my new hunting area, I can see why one might not want to see HPR legal there. However the land manager would have the last say on his property. They do not allow does to be taken with a firearm, and I believe it's the way that land is laid out. I could be wrong, but I'm thinking they have plenty of does running around there. I think it's a safety rule in this area and probably a good one.
I see no reason why it shouldn't be legal for private land. I'd venture to say that plenty of private land owners do what they want anyway.
|
|
|
Post by steiny on May 15, 2015 10:35:15 GMT -5
I'm going to go out on a limb and say you're a bow-only type of hunter? I don't think the intention of this change was to "make deer hunting easier". That's an awfully narrow-minded point of view.
Nope, hunt with all weapons, including HPR's in other states, been doing so for 40+ years. Might be narrow minded, but I don't like the direction IN has taken with all of these changes in last couple decades; extended seasons, crossbows, centerfires, pistols, huge bag limits, etc. I see the quality of hunting declining due to this approach.
How is having a HPR going to make deer hunting "easier?" The operative word here is hunting.
Are the deer less afraid of hunters with HPR's? Will they come closer or show themselves? Does a deer's sense of smell diminish with HPR's in the woods? Will bucks quit going nocturnal because I have a HPR in my lap?
I guess it doesn't make hunting easier, but it sure makes killing easier. If you truly don't believe the choice of weapon makes hunting or killing easier, I encourage you to take a 12ga slug gun dall sheep hunting and let us know how that works out.
|
|
|
Post by Jamie Brooks 1John5:13 on May 15, 2015 10:42:18 GMT -5
On my little hunting spot, any deer that I could shoot with my HPR, I could shoot with my slug gun. I hope someday for this to change.
Accuracy is better with HPR, but not much at my 75yd long shot in the woods.
|
|
|
Post by thecommissioner on May 15, 2015 11:07:53 GMT -5
How is having a HPR going to make deer hunting "easier?" The operative word here is hunting. Are the deer less afraid of hunters with HPR's? Will they come closer or show themselves? Does a deer's sense of smell diminish with HPR's in the woods? Will bucks quit going nocturnal because I have a HPR in my lap? I guess it doesn't make hunting easier, but it sure makes killing easier. If you truly don't believe the choice of weapon makes hunting or killing easier, I encourage you to take a 12ga slug gun dall sheep hunting and let us know how that works out. Once again, you confuse hunting with shooting. Playing along with your apples and oranges approach, do people ever hunt dall sheep with archery equipment? How does that work out? The license we buy from the State is essentially a license to kill. None of us needs a license to take to the woods and shoot all the photographs of deer we want. Killing is really what the State has in mind. Why make it harder? Read the chuckhawks.com article linked above if you are wondering what weapon is best for shooting deer.
|
|
|
Post by lawrencecountyhunter on May 15, 2015 11:11:29 GMT -5
IMO, if the DNR wants to increase or decrease harvest, that's what bag limits are for. Not that I think HPRs would really have much of an effect on harvest #s.
|
|
|
Post by jjas on May 15, 2015 12:24:01 GMT -5
I think this proposal met with more resistance from hunters and landowners than many (myself included) thought it would. Many that I spoke with felt that enough changes had been made recently and that it was time to see what those changes (along with herd reduction) would bring over the next few seasons.
Will hpr inclusion be brought back up in some other form and pass then? I have no idea.....
Regardless, (unless I've already tagged out) opening day of firearms season will find me sitting in a blind or stand with my .44 mag rifle and life will go on.....
|
|
|
Post by jimstc on May 15, 2015 12:35:20 GMT -5
These quotes from the article cite I posted say it all: "The 12 gauge Core-Lokt Ultra sabot bullet is a .50 caliber, 385 grain HP semi-spitzer. The catalog MV is 1900 fps and the 100 yard velocity is 1648 fps. The ME is given as 3086 ft. lbs. and the remaining energy at 100 yards is 2325 ft. lbs. The trajectory of that load looks like this: .8" at 50 yards, +2.4" at 100 yards, and +/- 0" at 150 yards. As I wrote at the outset, this are similar to the ballistics obtainable with high performance, .50 caliber, inline muzzleloading rifles. Accuracy is apparently not quite as good as the best muzzleloaders, as Remington claims consistent 2 1/2" 5-shot groups at 100 yards. But that is impressive accuracy from any kind of shotgun--even if it is really a rifle! Clearly, the use of these sabot bullet loads completely negates the rationale behind the "shotgun only" deer hunts. Not only are these shotguns with rifled barrels technically rifles, they shoot like rifles. In fact, they equal traditional big game rifle cartridges such as the .45-70 and .38-55." Evidently DNR and many of those who oppose the HPR proposal aren't aware of this. Then Chuck concludes: "I have primarily concentrated on slug loads for hunting, for which purpose I feel that they are most appropriate. Even so, they are a stop gap alternative to a rifle, primarily useful where rifles are banned for political reasons. Shotgun slug loads intended to be fired from smooth bore barrels manage to combine the worst properties of any hunting projectile: marginal accuracy, low velocity, low sectional density, low ballistic coefficient, rainbow trajectory, and heavy recoil. Nearly the worst of all possible worlds! If you can legally hunt with a rifle, you owe it to both yourself and your quarry to do so. If not, but the law allows the use of fully rifled "shotgun" barrels and saboted projectiles, that is what you should use." In my opinion, very, very well stated.....
|
|
|
Post by jimstc on May 15, 2015 12:42:09 GMT -5
As to the safety issue Chuck's comments are:
"Some jurisdictions in the U.S. forbid the use of rifles and mandate the use of shotgun slugs for deer hunting, allegedly for "safety" in crowded hunting areas. I am sure that this is what keeps rifled slugs viable as a sporting proposition. (They are also used in police "riot" guns, of course.)
This is actually kind of funny in an ironic way, as the one thing slugs do really well is penetrate brush. Rifled slugs are probably the most dangerous type of ammunition to use in a wooded area crowded with hunters and other humans, as they plow through visually impenetrable brush, leaves, and small tree limbs with aplomb. A high velocity rifle with a frangible bullet would be far safer in such an environment. I have, for instance, seen .22 varmint bullets fired at very high velocity turn into a puff of blue smoke on a blade of grass!"
|
|
|
Post by steiny on May 15, 2015 12:46:07 GMT -5
Once again, you confuse hunting with shooting. Playing along with your apples and oranges approach, do people ever hunt dall sheep with archery equipment? How does that work out?
Didn't really think I was confused. Most of us go "hunting" with the end goal being to make a kill. Certain weapons make inherently easier to kill with.
As stated, I'm glad this initiative lost it's steam, and we don't have to agree.
|
|
|
Post by trophyparadise on May 15, 2015 13:03:44 GMT -5
I think what steiny may be trying to say is that rifles allow a hunter to be effective at a greater distance, and such being the case there is the potential to have a negative impact on the whitetail herd in Indiana due to increased harvest. I don't know that I would use the word "easier." Harvest reports from states that allow rifles are indicative that higher numbers of deer are taken. I'm glad the propsal was shot down too. My concerns have nothing to do with safety....It's the impact on the quality and quantity of deer we have to hunt in the future I'm worried about. I will actually be speaking about the proposal today just after 5pm on a radio program out of south bend. Trophy Paradise Habitat Consulting "Trophies are built from the ground up" m.facebook.com/profile.php?id=852914431431752
|
|
|
Post by greghopper on May 15, 2015 14:11:03 GMT -5
I think what steiny may be trying to say is that rifles allow a hunter to be effective at a greater distance, and such being the case there is the potential to have a negative impact on the whitetail herd in Indiana due to increased harvest. I don't know that I would use the word "easier." Harvest reports from states that allow rifles are indicative that higher numbers of deer are taken. I'm glad the propsal was shot down too. My concerns have nothing to do with safety....It's the impact on the quality and quantity of deer we have to hunt in the future I'm worried about. I will actually be speaking about the proposal today just after 5pm on a radio program out of south bend. Trophy Paradise Habitat Consulting "Trophies are built from the ground up" m.facebook.com/profile.php?id=852914431431752So your saying folks will be more successful using a RIFLE(long range tool) which in turns drives the Harvest up!!! Do you believe this is happening now with CROSSBOWS?
|
|
|
Post by trophyparadise on May 15, 2015 14:30:18 GMT -5
I think what steiny may be trying to say is that rifles allow a hunter to be effective at a greater distance, and such being the case there is the potential to have a negative impact on the whitetail herd in Indiana due to increased harvest. I don't know that I would use the word "easier." Harvest reports from states that allow rifles are indicative that higher numbers of deer are taken. I'm glad the propsal was shot down too. My concerns have nothing to do with safety....It's the impact on the quality and quantity of deer we have to hunt in the future I'm worried about. I will actually be speaking about the proposal today just after 5pm on a radio program out of south bend. Trophy Paradise Habitat Consulting "Trophies are built from the ground up" m.facebook.com/profile.php?id=852914431431752So your saying folks will be more successful using a RIFLE(long range tool) which in turns drives the Harvest up!!! Do you believe this is happening now with CROSSBOWS? In saying folks have the potential to be more successful because they will be confident in taking longer shots than they would have otherwise. I'm not naive to the harvest numbers. No crossbows are not doing that now. I have no issue with crossbows....I don't care for them personally, but I would hardly consider them a long range tool. I can outshoot a buddy of mine with my compound at 60 & 70 yards Trophy Paradise Habitat Consulting "Trophies are built from the ground up" m.facebook.com/profile.php?id=852914431431752
|
|