|
|
Post by greghopper on Apr 7, 2016 18:15:20 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by jjas on Apr 8, 2016 6:42:12 GMT -5
Here's another article by Brandon Butler on the subject that goes into a bit of detail about "how" this passed....
Indiana deer hunters can now use high-power rifles. The General Assembly recently passed House Bill 1231, which expands the calibers legal for deer hunting. Some of those include .243 Winchester, .30-30 Winchester, .300 AAC Blackout, and .30-06 Springfield. Public sentiment has been mixed.
Growing up my deer gun was a 20-gauge shotgun with a smoothbore barrel. It threw knuckleballs at best, and I was lucky to hit a paper plate at 50 yards. It took me four years to kill my first deer. At age 14 I finally took down a doe. It remains one of the proudest moments of my life.
Over time, my hunting firearms evolved with technology. First, I added a rifled barrel to my shotgun. Then, I moved to an inline muzzleloader. Lastly, I added a .44 caliber pistol-cartridge rifle to my mix. Each offered improved accuracy, with the muzzleloader providing the greatest advantage by extending my range to 200 yards. These high power rifles take accuracy and range to a whole new level.
Deer hunters are a passionate bunch. Some are very much in favor of this change, while others are vehemently against it. I fall somewhere in the realm of indifferent. My biggest concern was the legislature messing around with hunting regulations. After all, they did just vote to allow for the expansion of canned hunting, which is in my opinion the equivalent of flipping the bird to everyone who considers himself or herself a conservationist.
I needed to know why the legislature felt the need to take up an issue that is so squarely the business of the DNR. To find the answer, I called the bill sponsor, Representative Lloyd Arnold of the 74th District and asked him. His reasoning was fairly simple: inaction.
“I’m in my fourth year as a state representative, and this was an issue I was interested in when elected,” Rep. Arnold said. “My first year, I went to the DNR and told them I was considering filing this bill. Well, the DNR told me they were going to look at this administratively and asked I allow them to do so. I agreed. A couple of years went by, and the DNR had not made a decision.”
Representative Lloyd told me that he’s a big deer hunter, and that while waiting for the DNR to make the their decision, the overwhelming majority of the people he spoke with about the issue were in favor of using rifles for deer hunting. When the DNR came to him and told him they were not going to expand the list of legal rifles for deer hunting, he told them that he was going to move forward with his bill.
“This bill was voted on unanimously by the House, and that’s because there was no opposition to it as it moved through the process. No one testified against the version of the bill that passed. One guy testified against the Senate version, because he didn’t want to have to be 10 feet up a tree to hunt. Otherwise, there was no opposition.” Rep. Arnold said.
There is a growing contingent of deer hunters who are upset with the management of the state’s deer herd. They feel the population is crashing. There has been a rather steep decline in harvest in recent history, and we are still waiting on the official total of last year’s harvest. Some feel these rifles will cause the trend to continue.
The decline in deer population is complex. First and foremost, you have the liberal bonus doe tags. Go back in time 75 years; Indiana’s deer population was decimated. It took a long time to restore the herd. But once the population reached the correct carrying capacity for the landscape, the deer kept reproducing and the herd kept growing. In parts of the state, overpopulation became a major problem. To bring the number back down, the DNR began allowing the liberal harvest of does.
Then enter EHD (Epizootic Hemorrhagic Disease) into the equation. This devastating disease significantly affected the DNR deer management plan with severe outbreaks in 2012 and again in 2013 that led to a massive number of deer dying. This happened all over the Midwest.
EHD is primarily spread by a biting midge. These midges are found around water sources. They lay their eggs in muddy, marshy areas and spend their larva stage in water. The life cycle of these midges is approximately 4–5 weeks, so in years of intense hatches, the midge population becomes overly abundant. EHD outbreaks cause significant mortality.
Hunters were subtly seeing the results of the planned deer number reductions in certain areas, but when the most horrific outbreak of EHD in recorded history occurred, the reductions quickly went too far. Certain areas of the state lost a significant percentage of their herds. There was nothing that could be done to stop it. The good news is, EHD comes and goes. This isn’t a chronic disease, like CWD (Chronic Wasting Disease) that infiltrates a herd and slowly spreads, always leading to mortality. EHD is more like a plague. It hits hard and the results are devastating, but then it’s over. And hopefully conditions won’t lead to another severe outbreak in the near future.
In my opinion, Indiana needs to reduce the number of does hunters may harvest, and hunters need to take it upon themselves to not fill every available tag. And, all Hoosier deer enthusiasts need to cross their fingers and hope EHD doesn’t rear its ugly head again anytime soon. I personally don’t foresee allowing rifles to cause a dramatic impact on the deer population. Hunters can choose how many deer they kill.
While there is no denying that agriculture organizations and insurance companies are usually supportive of reducing deer populations, Representative Llyod said neither had any influence on his bill.
“Some people out there try to claim it had something to do with insurance lobbyists influencing legislators. I never spoke to a single insurance company lobbyist about this,” he said. “I filed this bill because hunters told me they wanted it.”
This fall, I’ll be in the woods with a wooden bow in my hand. If I don’t tag my buck during archery season, I’ll likely take to the field with my grandpa’s old Remington. Either way, I hope to fill my one buck tag.
|
|
|
|
Post by onebentarrow on Apr 8, 2016 9:43:34 GMT -5
Here's another article by Brandon Butler on the subject that goes into a bit of detail about "how" this passed.... Indiana deer hunters can now use high-power rifles. The General Assembly recently passed House Bill 1231, which expands the calibers legal for deer hunting. Some of those include .243 Winchester, .30-30 Winchester, .300 AAC Blackout, and .30-06 Springfield. Public sentiment has been mixed. Growing up my deer gun was a 20-gauge shotgun with a smoothbore barrel. It threw knuckleballs at best, and I was lucky to hit a paper plate at 50 yards. It took me four years to kill my first deer. At age 14 I finally took down a doe. It remains one of the proudest moments of my life. Over time, my hunting firearms evolved with technology. First, I added a rifled barrel to my shotgun. Then, I moved to an inline muzzleloader. Lastly, I added a .44 caliber pistol-cartridge rifle to my mix. Each offered improved accuracy, with the muzzleloader providing the greatest advantage by extending my range to 200 yards. These high power rifles take accuracy and range to a whole new level. Deer hunters are a passionate bunch. Some are very much in favor of this change, while others are vehemently against it. I fall somewhere in the realm of indifferent. My biggest concern was the legislature messing around with hunting regulations. After all, they did just vote to allow for the expansion of canned hunting, which is in my opinion the equivalent of flipping the bird to everyone who considers himself or herself a conservationist. I needed to know why the legislature felt the need to take up an issue that is so squarely the business of the DNR. To find the answer, I called the bill sponsor, Representative Lloyd Arnold of the 74th District and asked him. His reasoning was fairly simple: inaction. “I’m in my fourth year as a state representative, and this was an issue I was interested in when elected,” Rep. Arnold said. “My first year, I went to the DNR and told them I was considering filing this bill. Well, the DNR told me they were going to look at this administratively and asked I allow them to do so. I agreed. A couple of years went by, and the DNR had not made a decision.” Representative Lloyd told me that he’s a big deer hunter, and that while waiting for the DNR to make the their decision, the overwhelming majority of the people he spoke with about the issue were in favor of using rifles for deer hunting. When the DNR came to him and told him they were not going to expand the list of legal rifles for deer hunting, he told them that he was going to move forward with his bill. “This bill was voted on unanimously by the House, and that’s because there was no opposition to it as it moved through the process. No one testified against the version of the bill that passed. One guy testified against the Senate version, because he didn’t want to have to be 10 feet up a tree to hunt. Otherwise, there was no opposition.” Rep. Arnold said. There is a growing contingent of deer hunters who are upset with the management of the state’s deer herd. They feel the population is crashing. There has been a rather steep decline in harvest in recent history, and we are still waiting on the official total of last year’s harvest. Some feel these rifles will cause the trend to continue. The decline in deer population is complex. First and foremost, you have the liberal bonus doe tags. Go back in time 75 years; Indiana’s deer population was decimated. It took a long time to restore the herd. But once the population reached the correct carrying capacity for the landscape, the deer kept reproducing and the herd kept growing. In parts of the state, overpopulation became a major problem. To bring the number back down, the DNR began allowing the liberal harvest of does. Then enter EHD (Epizootic Hemorrhagic Disease) into the equation. This devastating disease significantly affected the DNR deer management plan with severe outbreaks in 2012 and again in 2013 that led to a massive number of deer dying. This happened all over the Midwest. EHD is primarily spread by a biting midge. These midges are found around water sources. They lay their eggs in muddy, marshy areas and spend their larva stage in water. The life cycle of these midges is approximately 4–5 weeks, so in years of intense hatches, the midge population becomes overly abundant. EHD outbreaks cause significant mortality. Hunters were subtly seeing the results of the planned deer number reductions in certain areas, but when the most horrific outbreak of EHD in recorded history occurred, the reductions quickly went too far. Certain areas of the state lost a significant percentage of their herds. There was nothing that could be done to stop it. The good news is, EHD comes and goes. This isn’t a chronic disease, like CWD (Chronic Wasting Disease) that infiltrates a herd and slowly spreads, always leading to mortality. EHD is more like a plague. It hits hard and the results are devastating, but then it’s over. And hopefully conditions won’t lead to another severe outbreak in the near future. In my opinion, Indiana needs to reduce the number of does hunters may harvest, and hunters need to take it upon themselves to not fill every available tag. And, all Hoosier deer enthusiasts need to cross their fingers and hope EHD doesn’t rear its ugly head again anytime soon. I personally don’t foresee allowing rifles to cause a dramatic impact on the deer population. Hunters can choose how many deer they kill. While there is no denying that agriculture organizations and insurance companies are usually supportive of reducing deer populations, Representative Llyod said neither had any influence on his bill. “Some people out there try to claim it had something to do with insurance lobbyists influencing legislators. I never spoke to a single insurance company lobbyist about this,” he said. “I filed this bill because hunters told me they wanted it.” This fall, I’ll be in the woods with a wooden bow in my hand. If I don’t tag my buck during archery season, I’ll likely take to the field with my grandpa’s old Remington. Either way, I hope to fill my one buck tag. First off let me say i like haveing the option to hunt with a hpr but Hunters are not biologists. There for just because they wanted or stated that they wanted to use rifles does not mean that some legistrater should submit a bill to make it so. I would still like to have a two buck limit.. but we know that is not gona happen UNLESS I can find a state represenitive that agrees with me.to wright a bill to make it happen. There are a lot of things that I might want to change that the biologist and dnr have instrumented to sustain different populations of game. But going around the dnr is not the way to do it. As I see it this is just what the anti hunters and anti gun groups do that we rase so much Cain over. They surcomvent the establishments that have the knolledge to implement "smart" legistrate on on the subject but now that we like the outcome it is, ok? Like I stated befor, I like the outcome. Was it dune corectly? I do not think so. I would have rather wated on the DNR to implant it then the legistrater and I think it would have a better outcome than the jumbled mess we got now Onebentarrow |
|
|
|
Post by throbak on Apr 8, 2016 12:52:31 GMT -5
I wonder if it's really that easy ? Get someone to wright it up Get it passed and its Law ,,You-All probably know where I'm going with this I Honestly don't Think That was all there was to it ; I really don't The biggest controversy for me is ; Is this how we do things now !! ?? And if you go through the NRC/DNR Rules Process All the next guy does is Go over the DNR to get it reversed This just isn't right
|
|
|
|
Post by stevein on Apr 8, 2016 15:39:11 GMT -5
I only attended the DNR hearing at Columbia City. It was probably 20 to 1 against HPR. I feel the interested parties had spoken loud and clear. What I understand is the other hearings were the same along with the written inputs.
With this and the canned shooting bill I can't wait for what other change will be made through the legislature in the future.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevein on Apr 8, 2016 15:50:06 GMT -5
I also think the media will have a field day come November. They will seek out those oposed to HPR and feature them on the news programs. They do not seem to get facts straight and want controversy to generate viewers. They do not seem to fact check most what is said, just pick and choose to suit their agenda.
I look at this as a huge wedge the antis will hammer on to divide hunters.
|
|
|
|
Post by M4Madness on Apr 8, 2016 16:09:38 GMT -5
I only attended the DNR hearing at Columbia City. It was probably 20 to 1 against HPR. I feel the interested parties had spoken loud and clear. What I understand is the other hearings were the same along with the written inputs. If I've learned one thing over the years, it's that many people won't bother to write in or attend meetings for something they SUPPORT. Opposition seems to have the bigger voice on most issues -- the squeaky wheel gets the grease and all that. I personally know dozens of people who wanted rifles legalized that wouldn't even take two minutes to e-mail a simple one-sentence comment saying so. I don't know if it was fear of having their name on public record, sheer laziness, or something else. Even I didn't bother attending a meeting, though I did send in my comments. |
|
|
|
Post by GS1 on Apr 8, 2016 16:14:36 GMT -5
I also think the media will have a field day come November. They will seek out those oposed to HPR and feature them on the news programs. They do not seem to get facts straight and want controversy to generate viewers. They do not seem to fact check most what is said, just pick and choose to suit their agenda. I look at this as a huge wedge the antis will hammer on to divide hunters. By "anti's" I'm pretty sure you mean anti-hunters, but I look for the anti-rifle crowd to be far more vocal than the anti hunters. |
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Apr 8, 2016 16:24:03 GMT -5
I only attended the DNR hearing at Columbia City. It was probably 20 to 1 against HPR. I feel the interested parties had spoken loud and clear. What I understand is the other hearings were the same along with the written inputs. . I personally know dozens of people who wanted rifles legalized that wouldn't even take two minutes to e-mail a simple one-sentence comment saying so. I don't know if it was fear of having their name on public record, sheer laziness, or something else. Even I didn't bother attending a meeting, though I did send in my comments. This is very true. You did the count more than halfway through and came up with a virtual tie on the inputs. Unless there was a overwhelming amount of negative comments after that I don't see how the DNR came up with their conclusion - unless local politicians got to them and they got cold feet. I understand that some of the local politicians said that they would institute "no discharge ordinances" if the HPR proposal passed. Not sure what will happen now with the legislature passing it? . |
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Apr 8, 2016 16:24:49 GMT -5
I also think the media will have a field day come November. They will seek out those oposed to HPR and feature them on the news programs. They do not seem to get facts straight and want controversy to generate viewers. They do not seem to fact check most what is said, just pick and choose to suit their agenda. I look at this as a huge wedge the antis will hammer on to divide hunters. By "anti's" I'm pretty sure you mean anti-hunters, but I look for the anti-rifle crowd to be far more vocal than the anti hunters. ^^^^ THIS |
|
|
|
Post by bullseye on Apr 8, 2016 16:38:48 GMT -5
I look at it different than most. I am glad the legislature did it. I am tired of the dnr's normal practice. They seem to only go with the public input. Over the years it seems the public comment sessions are only attended by bowhunters, trophy hunters and in the case of last year, anti hpr people. A lot of the bow hunters want nothing but traditional or compound bows and speak out against everything else. I don't believe hpr's are a safety issue, but the people that went to the meetings last year did and the DNR goes with public input even though they must have thought it was okay (they proposed it). I am glad the legislature took the bull by the horns and got it done.
I don't feel the number of deer killed will go up much. The facts are (and will be even with hpr's in my opinion) most hunters only hunt the first weekend of gun season. Most people kill one deer, a fairly large number kill 2 but the number of hunters that shoot more than two is small. An hpr is not going to change those statistics in my opinion, time spent in the woods change that which most people don't do.
I bowhunt again thanks to the crossbow (thank you legislature, I never realized until recently that was the legislature and not the DNR) and guees I will try my hpr's out now, thank you again legislature.
|
|
|
|
Post by throbak on Apr 8, 2016 17:08:32 GMT -5
We don't need Anti- Hunters to drive a wedge between us LOL; We are doing a pretty good job of that without help from anyone .
|
|
|
|
Post by stevein on Apr 8, 2016 17:13:25 GMT -5
I also think the media will have a field day come November. They will seek out those oposed to HPR and feature them on the news programs. They do not seem to get facts straight and want controversy to generate viewers. They do not seem to fact check most what is said, just pick and choose to suit their agenda. I look at this as a huge wedge the antis will hammer on to divide hunters. By "anti's" I'm pretty sure you mean anti-hunters, but I look for the anti-rifle crowd to be far more vocal than the anti hunters. I mean the anti-hunter crowd. I hope the hunters band together and do not get drawn into the "controversy". It makes it that much easier for the anti-hunting groups to fight small groups than one large united one. |
|
|
|
Post by greghopper on Apr 8, 2016 17:27:04 GMT -5
I look at it different than most. I am glad the legislature did it. I am tired of the dnr's normal practice. They seem to only go with the public input. Over the years it seems the public comment sessions are only attended by bowhunters, trophy hunters and in the case of last year, anti hpr people. A lot of the bow hunters want nothing but traditional or compound bows and speak out against everything else. I don't believe hpr's are a safety issue, but the people that went to the meetings last year did and the DNR goes with public input even though they must have thought it was okay (they proposed it). I am glad the legislature took the bull by the horns and got it done. I don't feel the number of deer killed will go up much. The facts are (and will be even with hpr's in my opinion) most hunters only hunt the first weekend of gun season. Most people kill one deer, a fairly large number kill 2 but the number of hunters that shoot more than two is small. An hpr is not going to change those statistics in my opinion, time spent in the woods change that which most people don't do. I bowhunt again thanks to the crossbow (thank you legislature, I never realized until recently that was the legislature and not the DNR) and guees I will try my hpr's out now, thank you again legislature. Public input is not just from who shows up at a meeting... where are you getting your info on what type of hunter shows up at a public meeting? Post that Data... |
|
|
|
Post by deadeer on Apr 8, 2016 17:39:13 GMT -5
I also think the media will have a field day come November. They will seek out those oposed to HPR and feature them on the news programs. They do not seem to get facts straight and want controversy to generate viewers. They do not seem to fact check most what is said, just pick and choose to suit their agenda. I look at this as a huge wedge the antis will hammer on to divide hunters. The South Bend Tribune had a front page article recently, saying the Governor signed a bill that will endanger Hoosiers. That is nothing new for them. |
|
|
|
Post by tynimiller on Apr 8, 2016 17:49:42 GMT -5
I've grown to appreciate what crossbows do for some, they will keep my father in the woods well beyond his compound bow years in his favorite time of the year October till gun season. He is slowly transitioning already to it, in that ground blind hunting he uses his past friends old old old (ancient really) crossbow.
I am deadset against legislatures doing things this way though personally, however I see your perspective bullseye for sure! I fear what this may lead to though. Something so split 50/50 amongst hunters was pushed through this avenue...what is next that may not make someone so happy? Time will tell.
|
|
|
|
Post by M4Madness on Apr 8, 2016 18:33:33 GMT -5
The key is to remain vigilant about what the legislature is doing. There is absolutely no excuse for any hunter in this state not knowing about a bill until it passes and is making news. Yet, here we have hunters who say that this bill was slipped through in the dead of night.
I figure if something terrible regarding hunting is introduced in bill form, the DNR will vehemently oppose it and rally hunters. Their silence on H.B. 1231 speaks volumes to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by greghopper on Apr 8, 2016 18:42:35 GMT -5
I figure if something terrible regarding hunting is introduced in bill form, the DNR will vehemently oppose it and rally hunters. Their silence on H.B. 1231 speaks volumes to me. Not sure the DNR is allowed to do that....Have you ever see that happen in the past? refresh my memory |
|
|
|
Post by jjas on Apr 8, 2016 18:55:55 GMT -5
By "anti's" I'm pretty sure you mean anti-hunters, but I look for the anti-rifle crowd to be far more vocal than the anti hunters. ^^^^ THIS I don't think it's just about being "anti-rifle" for many. I think they are "anti-firearms season" period. These people have been p*ssed off since the first proposal failed to pass 5 years ago and they are just itching to push their agenda of not only shortening the gun season, but moving it out of November completely. If some of them had their way, the gun season would be limited to does only and lumped in with the muzzleloader season. |
|
|
|
Post by M4Madness on Apr 8, 2016 18:59:02 GMT -5
I figure if something terrible regarding hunting is introduced in bill form, the DNR will vehemently oppose it and rally hunters. Their silence on H.B. 1231 speaks volumes to me. Not sure the DNR is allowed to do that....Have you ever see that happen in the past? refresh my memory I have no idea if they are forbidden from criticizing legislative bills or not, as I have no personal recollections of it ever occurring. I would like to think that if a legislator were to introduce a bill to restrict or outlaw hunting that the DNR would publicly oppose it. Maybe I'm too optimistic. Lol! |
|
