|
Post by medic22 on Mar 2, 2016 16:46:21 GMT -5
Do you feel safe knowing that there are hunters out there using those same HPR's for varmints? Maybe the people that are on the "for" side of the fence should look at the bills passing in a different light. When it's proven that there isn't a massacre of the deer herd in the southern part of the state, and when it's shown that there are massive hunter die offs from being shot by dangerous HPR's, then that will open the door for it to become legal in the rest of the state. For me personally? I'm happy that it passed for no other reason than if it's signed into law it will mean that purple paint will be legal to use to mark property boundaries. Since I don't hunt the southern part of the state, the other parts of the bill doesn't pertain to me. Now I'll go continue the research on a specialty pistol that I can use on the few private properties that I can hunt. For all the rest of my "firearm" deer hunting I will continue to use my Savage Muzzleloader. I am also not in the southern part of the state. This will not immediately affect me. I like that people are willing to roll the dice and see if accidents or property damage occur before deciding if HPRs should be legalized. That makes total sense. I don't think you will see a massacre of deer in the southern half of the state like you would in the northern. The majority of the southern half of the state has a higher percentage of wooded area. Obviously rifles aren't any better in the woods. However, here a deer runs to the other side of the field and now it is no longer safe at 400 yards or further. I don't judge people for wanting this and I won't be an I told you so either but I strongly feel that this is a major mistake. Why isnt a 400 yard shot safe? I drive by cornfields everyday that are 4000 yards long or more in the very southernmost portion of the state. A 400 yard shot with the right weapon is an easy, and ethical shot. Youre beating a dead horse when trying to argue safety. Weve essentially been using high powered rifles for years with no increase in accidents.
|
|
|
Post by M4Madness on Mar 2, 2016 17:36:30 GMT -5
Percentages shouldn't even be a consideration on a fair chase social issue. If it harms no one or the herd, pass it. Okay so if a bill was put forth or the DNR decided to cut the firearm season in half....you'd support it? It doesn't harm anyone or the herd so pass it? It does do harm when you are reducing someone's enjoyment. Your example is TAKING AWAY, while mine is ADDING TO. My using a rifle should have no social effect on another hunter -- and the social impact is the only thing the DNR considered. I'll provide a little info about myself. I opposed full inclusion of crossbows vehemently, probably more than anyone on this site. And you know what? I'm man enough today to publicly admit that allowing them has had zero affect on my hunting. I consider myself a pretty hardcore bowhunter. I'm not to the point of hunting with a bow during firearms season, as there is something magical about packing a firearm on opening morning. But I prefer archery season and would not lose a moment's sleep if Indiana suddenly allowed only archery and prohibited firearms -- except for my compassion for those who do gun hunt. I try my best annually to be tagged out before firearms season. Last year I bowhunted early archery and packed a muzzleloader for the first day and a half of firearms and called it a year. In fact, any firearms hunting I've done for the last five years or so has been with a muzzleloader. Even though I prefer archery, I am still open-minded enough to want to expand opportunity by allowing HPR's. No one can ever accuse me of being a bowhunting elitist.
|
|
|
Post by boman on Mar 2, 2016 17:56:55 GMT -5
I wonder how many nays (if any) can be attributed to the various amendments and how many just didn't like the bill at all. I know of one "nay" that believed that the HPRs useage should not even be talked about in the legislature.. It should be left up to the DNR and NRC through the Administrative Rules Process... I can see at least two who would have voted for it without the amendments. Also, FWIW here's an e-mail with reply I sent. Dear Mr. Bowman, Thank you for contacting me regarding HB 1231, hunting and property management. A number of changes were made to the bill on the Senate floor. I have also been told by the author that this bill will go to a conference committee for major changes to simplify the measure. Thank you again for your e-mail. Sincerely, Jim Tomes Indiana State Senator District 49 -----Original Message----- From: stephen bowman [mailto:sabowman@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2016 7:20 PM To: Senate District49 Subject: Contact Us Form <APP>CUSTOM <MSG> I have been following the progress of hb1231 and was in favor of it until the senate natural resources committee added amendments excluding the changes from northern Indiana and added a 10 foot height requirement. If it passes as amended I will no longer be able to hunt with my currently legal rifle in Tippecanoe County, where i have permission on a private farm. You see, I am handicapped: below knee amputee, and have extreme difficulty climbing stairs let alone get in a tree stand. I urge you to delete lines 6 thru 14 on page 2 if possible so I can continue to hunt.
|
|
|
Post by M4Madness on Mar 2, 2016 17:58:27 GMT -5
How many of you guys drive down the road and see a truck or more parked on every piece of property and can see orange hats from the road on opening weekend? It may very well be like that in your area, but it isn't in mine. I can't recall seeing orange hats while hunting or driving either, but then again, its all forest down here. I can count on one hand the number of crop fields within 5 miles of my home. There is the gist of it right there -- hunters worrying about other hunters shooting "their" deer. No one is forcing anyone to use a HPR if they do not want to, and farmers/landowners have every right to prohibit them on their property if they feel that there are safety concerns.
|
|
|
Post by hornzilla on Mar 2, 2016 18:10:41 GMT -5
How many of you guys drive down the road and see a truck or more parked on every piece of property and can see orange hats from the road on opening weekend? It may very well be like that in your area, but it isn't in mine. I can't recall seeing orange hats while hunting or driving either, but then again, its all forest down here. I can count on one hand the number of crop fields within 5 miles of my home. There is the gist of it right there -- hunters worrying about other hunters shooting "their" deer. No one is forcing anyone to use a HPR if they do not want to, and farmers/landowners have every right to prohibit them on their property if they feel that there are safety concerns. Very well said.
|
|
|
Post by tynimiller on Mar 2, 2016 20:57:25 GMT -5
Okay so if a bill was put forth or the DNR decided to cut the firearm season in half....you'd support it? It doesn't harm anyone or the herd so pass it? It does do harm when you are reducing someone's enjoyment. Your example is TAKING AWAY, while mine is ADDING TO. My using a rifle should have no social effect on another hunter -- and the social impact is the only thing the DNR considered. I'll provide a little info about myself. I opposed full inclusion of crossbows vehemently, probably more than anyone on this site. And you know what? I'm man enough today to publicly admit that allowing them has had zero affect on my hunting. I consider myself a pretty hardcore bowhunter. I'm not to the point of hunting with a bow during firearms season, as there is something magical about packing a firearm on opening morning. But I prefer archery season and would not lose a moment's sleep if Indiana suddenly allowed only archery and prohibited firearms -- except for my compassion for those who do gun hunt. I try my best annually to be tagged out before firearms season. Last year I bowhunted early archery and packed a muzzleloader for the first day and a half of firearms and called it a year. In fact, any firearms hunting I've done for the last five years or so has been with a muzzleloader. Even though I prefer archery, I am still open-minded enough to want to expand opportunity by allowing HPR's. No one can ever accuse me of being a bowhunting elitist. Okay I got ya. So just to be sure I understand something like baiting you would be for as well? I can respect what you said and don't disagree for the most part.
|
|
|
Post by M4Madness on Mar 2, 2016 21:04:49 GMT -5
My opinion is that baiting does harm to the herd.
|
|
|
Post by firstwd on Mar 2, 2016 21:10:52 GMT -5
My opinion is that baiting does harm to the herd. Personally, I think all the exotic food plot seeds that have flooded the market are doing harm. At the very least the effects of these plants are unknown.
|
|
|
Post by M4Madness on Mar 2, 2016 21:13:17 GMT -5
My opinion is that baiting does harm to the herd. Personally, I think all the exotic food plot seeds that have flooded the market are doing harm. At the very least the effects of these plants are unknown. Perhaps. I've never really thought about it, since I do not utilize foid plots.
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Mar 2, 2016 21:58:30 GMT -5
Every new hunting tool legalized we have always heard that there will be a big spike in accidents.
First handguns, then PCRs (The anti-PCRs called us John Waynes)and even crossbows. I heard many of times "I'll be afraid to walk in the deer woods with that gunner turned crossbower sitting up there with a cocked and ready to shoot crossbow".
Someone keeps asking for data.. OK.. Please show us where any introduction of any new hunting tool has caused a spike in hunting accidents that are attributed to that new hunting tool..
|
|
|
Post by hatchetjack on Mar 2, 2016 22:12:05 GMT -5
Deer stands...
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Mar 2, 2016 22:17:38 GMT -5
True, but they have always been legal in Indiana. How about hunting tools that go twang or bang?
|
|
|
Post by ms660 on Mar 2, 2016 22:18:05 GMT -5
Especially the old Baker climbing stands. I slid down many trees with a blood curdling scream and in need of a change of underwear. I was young and dumb back then and never got hurt to bad,now days it would kill me. LOl
|
|
|
Post by bart1533 on Mar 2, 2016 23:35:48 GMT -5
Every new hunting tool legalized we have always heard that there will be a big spike in accidents. First handguns, then PCRs (The anti-PCRs called us John Waynes)and even crossbows. I heard many of times "I'll be afraid to walk in the deer woods with that gunner turned crossbower sitting up there with a cocked and ready to shoot crossbow". Someone keeps asking for data.. OK.. Please show us where any introduction of any new hunting tool has caused a spike in hunting accidents that are attributed to that new hunting tool.. ..very true..
|
|
|
Post by esshup on Mar 3, 2016 2:54:15 GMT -5
How many of you guys drive down the road and see a truck or more parked on every piece of property and can see orange hats from the road on opening weekend? Now picture 75% of those hunters with larger caliber rifles. How is that not raising the risks of property damage or some sort of accident? You guys are the blind ones. You see a new rifle in your hand and can picture shooting that trophy and 8 does in your county from 300+ yards. Well maybe you are a responsible hunter and you are aware of the shot and anything that could possibly be behind your target. You are in the minority i promise. The majority people don't have a clue what is beyond their target. This is what worries me. I live in the country. I have livestock. Our properties average about 50-100 acres of mostly flat ground per owner with multiple hunters on each. I am not trying to steer anyone from whatever side of the fence you are on but instead expressing concerns. No one is concerned about the hunters and landowners. Their concerns are only increasing money flow from more sales and decreasing the deer population so there are less accidents with cars. Try going deer hunting in Wisconsin on opening day of the firearms season and tell me how many people you see, and how close they are together. Here's why I really think that argument is not valid. The DNR sold 612,377 9-day gun deer licenses in 2015. Sure, not all used a rifle. BUT, how many did? In comparison, how many firearm licenses were sold in Indiana for 2015?
|
|
|
Post by drs on Mar 3, 2016 5:25:06 GMT -5
Percentages shouldn't even be a consideration on a fair chase social issue. If it harms no one or the herd, pass it. Okay so if a bill was put forth or the DNR decided to cut the firearm season in half....you'd support it? It doesn't harm anyone or the herd so pass it? I get them stating it was a social issue concern..they should have said their consitituents are too split to change anything on the subject of HPRs in my opinion. I've said all along though the DNR made this bed though by allowing HPRs through handguns but not long guns and allowing wildcat rounds which are equivalent...How True!!
|
|
|
Post by dbd870 on Mar 3, 2016 7:25:44 GMT -5
Have you actually done any research into HPR's, or are just just assuming they are so much more dangerous? Are you aware of the results of the study PA commissioned several years back? Are you aware of the terrain in Pennsylvania. Yes, It is not the same as here. I don't think you can compare us to them or even kentucky to us. Those seem to be the go to. Our area is much flatter which means a bullet will fly much further before hitting an object and coming to rest. Also, open hard dirt can and will cause a bullet on a flat trajectory to deflect. You need to find that study and read it. Ricochet's are one of the bigger issues for ML's and Sabotted slugs compared to HPR's
|
|
|
Post by medic22 on Mar 3, 2016 9:15:54 GMT -5
So with this current wording, i still cant put my 300 blackout upper on my SBR'd lower cause this wording states 16" barrel.
|
|
|
Post by M4Madness on Mar 3, 2016 9:32:18 GMT -5
So with this current wording, i still cant put my 300 blackout upper on my SBR'd lower cause this wording states 16" barrel. Exactly. I have no idea why they added the definition of a standard rifle in the bill.
|
|
|
Post by tynimiller on Mar 3, 2016 9:47:51 GMT -5
So with this current wording, i still cant put my 300 blackout upper on my SBR'd lower cause this wording states 16" barrel. Exactly. I have no idea why they added the definition of a standard rifle in the bill. Because they're legislatures not outdoorsman....atleast the DNR is "closer" arguably...and even they've proven to not think things through fully. But IMO much better than state lawmakers.
|
|