|
Post by trapperdave on Feb 4, 2017 22:12:29 GMT -5
That the DNR has asked them to implement a CDAC in six counties. Anyone prove or disprove this?
|
|
|
Post by boonechaser on Feb 5, 2017 0:36:49 GMT -5
According to DNR minutes from last meeting they rejected but let them go ahead at their own expense. Several groups supported DNR including IBA. Just what I read.
|
|
|
Post by greghopper on Feb 5, 2017 7:58:57 GMT -5
That the DNR has asked them to implement a CDAC in six counties. Anyone prove or disprove this? Here is "there" IDHMA press release... note it didn't come from the IDNR... or has the DNR and DFW used there own websites and social media to help organize the formation of the committees, and help inform the public of the committee meetings schedule..... as of Yet! hunt-indiana.com/thread/57422/iwdhm-press-release?page=1Dave, just email any of these folks if you want the TRUE FACTS.... Cameron Clark (DNR DIRECTOR), John Davis (DNR DEPUTY DIRECTOR), Mark Reiter (DFW DIRECTOR). Cameron Clark....CClark@dnr.IN.gov John Davis.......JDavis@dnr.IN.gov Mark Reiter......MREITER@dnr.IN.gov
|
|
|
Post by tynimiller on Feb 6, 2017 9:14:59 GMT -5
According to DNR minutes from last meeting they rejected but let them go ahead at their own expense. Several groups supported DNR including IBA. Just what I read. Precisely what I have heard and read as well. Honestly, love em or not it doesn't matter much. The DNR doesn't even need to have a discussion with them or "let them" go ahead with their test run of CDAC's. For the most part I feel their base is made up of fellas that are frustrated with their hunting for any number of factors or issues they may realize or may not realize. Organizing a County discussion group of collecting thoughts harms nothing IMO...how their built, constructed and reported could inflate or deflate claims made by anyone depending on the response and the amount of hunters within the "CDACs" for any given county. I have much bigger issues to worry about like my fruit trees coming that need tubes and fencing...summer brush hogging planned...clover frost seeded...perhaps even switchgrass too here soon...food plot design....logger called and scheduled visit...not too mention hundreds of other things!
|
|
|
Post by steiny on Feb 6, 2017 9:52:29 GMT -5
Hey, sidetracking this conversations slightly. Who would one contact at the DNR or other to suggest rule changes regarding the centerfire rifles for deer hunting?
Looks like they are here to stay so may as well make some logical caliber / cartridge restrictions rather than hand picking a few individual cartridges. I think something like a min & max cal with max case length makes a whole lot more sense.
|
|
|
Post by tynimiller on Feb 6, 2017 10:05:15 GMT -5
Hey, sidetracking this conversations slightly. Who would one contact at the DNR or other to suggest rule changes regarding the centerfire rifles for deer hunting? Looks like they are here to stay so may as well make some logical caliber / cartridge restrictions rather than hand picking a few individual cartridges. I think something like a min & max cal with max case length makes a whole lot more sense. Granted this has no doubt been told to them, remember they didn't make the rule the legislators did. The DNR website has contact them options or you can even find your district's page on Facebook and contact them this way anymore.
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Feb 6, 2017 13:57:47 GMT -5
Ask them why the .270 isn't legal .... I bet they've never been asked before
|
|
|
Post by hatchetjack on Feb 6, 2017 14:03:47 GMT -5
You may want to start following HB1415 which passed the House Natural Resources Committee this morning. Am amendment was offered to change the wording on rifles to .243 and above. Should be posted with the update one day soon.
So to answer Seiny's question you should encourage your local Representative and Senator to support the bill.
HJ
|
|
|
Post by firstwd on Feb 6, 2017 14:21:54 GMT -5
You may want to start following HB1415 which passed the House Natural Resources Committee this morning. Am amendment was offered to change the wording on rifles to .243 and above. Should be posted with the update one day soon. So to answer Seiny's question you should encourage your local Representative and Senator to support the bill. HJ Will it also amend the sunset date?
|
|
|
Post by tynimiller on Feb 6, 2017 14:24:49 GMT -5
You may want to start following HB1415 which passed the House Natural Resources Committee this morning. Am amendment was offered to change the wording on rifles to .243 and above. Should be posted with the update one day soon. So to answer Seiny's question you should encourage your local Representative and Senator to support the bill. HJ Will it also amend the sunset date? Came to my mind as well...
|
|
|
Post by M4Madness on Feb 6, 2017 19:31:11 GMT -5
An amendment was offered to change the wording on rifles to .243 and above. I was just getting ready to post that the simplest wording would be to match the pistol regs -- .243" and up. Can't get any simpler than that. That's how the bill started out before it became a convoluted mess.
|
|
|
Post by jjas on Feb 6, 2017 19:41:00 GMT -5
An amendment was offered to change the wording on rifles to .243 and above. I was just getting ready to post that the simplest wording would be to match the pistol regs -- .243" and up. Can't get any simpler than that. That's how the bill started out before it became a convoluted mess. Looks like the bill's language changed the caliber list to .243 and up, and it still will sunset in 2020....if it passes as written.
|
|
|
Post by steiny on Feb 6, 2017 19:54:11 GMT -5
I was just getting ready to post that the simplest wording would be to match the pistol regs -- .243" and up. Can't get any simpler than that. This doesn't quite cut it. Need to have a max allowable also, or some knucklehead will think it's OK to hunt with .50 BMG or similar type cannons.
|
|
|
Post by esshup on Feb 6, 2017 20:05:04 GMT -5
This doesn't quite cut it. Need to have a max allowable also, or some knucklehead will think it's OK to hunt with .50 BMG or similar type cannons. That's the way it is with pistols! There are some pretty amazing dedicated long range pistols out there if one was to look. Ever think any big game animal could be harvested at over 1,000 yds with a pistol? Yep, it has been done..... Instead of making another convoluted mess, lets use the KISS principle.
|
|
|
Post by hatchetjack on Feb 6, 2017 22:30:13 GMT -5
You may want to start following HB1415 which passed the House Natural Resources Committee this morning. Am amendment was offered to change the wording on rifles to .243 and above. Should be posted with the update one day soon. So to answer Seiny's question you should encourage your local Representative and Senator to support the bill. HJ Will it also amend the sunset date? I don't think so...may need more research...
|
|
|
Post by hatchetjack on Feb 6, 2017 22:32:01 GMT -5
This doesn't quite cut it. Need to have a max allowable also, or some knucklehead will think it's OK to hunt with .50 BMG or similar type cannons. I testified to that effect last year...someone else can complain this time...
|
|
|
Post by hatchetjack on Feb 6, 2017 22:33:15 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by medic22 on Feb 6, 2017 23:29:50 GMT -5
And once again I will not support legislators doing DNRs job. They continue to screw it up.
|
|
|
Post by M4Madness on Feb 7, 2017 6:08:26 GMT -5
This doesn't quite cut it. Need to have a max allowable also, or some knucklehead will think it's OK to hunt with .50 BMG or similar type cannons. They can already hunt with a 50 BMG pistol: youtu.be/nMkiDguYtGwBefore you say, "Well, that's impractical", so is packing a 25+ pound rifle into the field. If someone wants to spend thousands on such a rifle and pack the heavy thing out there, so be it. What's the difference between them shooting at paper and deer with it? Any safety concerns are there either way. The .300 Win Mag is already legal, is a pretty potent round itself, and is way more prevalent than a .50 BMG.
|
|
|
Post by lawrencecountyhunter on Feb 7, 2017 6:26:28 GMT -5
The caliber clarification is a little bit better, the rest of the mess still exists w/private vs. public, limits on how many rounds you can have in your possession, etc. We're a long way from keeping it simple.
|
|