|
Post by Woody Williams on May 4, 2017 16:11:56 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by M4Madness on May 4, 2017 17:01:10 GMT -5
I agree that the Legislature has no business ever getting involved in hunting issues that have a direct effect on the biological aspects of a game species (bag limits, season dates, etc.) That said, legalizing certain "tools" for hunting falls outside of that parameter as long as the fair chase clause remains intact.
|
|
|
Post by subzero350 on May 4, 2017 18:57:49 GMT -5
I agree that the Legislature has no business ever getting involved in hunting issues that have a direct effect on the biological aspects of a game species (bag limits, season dates, etc.) That said, legalizing certain "tools" for hunting falls outside of that parameter as long as the fair chase clause remains intact.
|
|
|
Post by greghopper on May 4, 2017 20:01:02 GMT -5
I agree that the Legislature has no business ever getting involved in hunting issues that have a direct effect on the biological aspects of a game species (bag limits, season dates, etc.) That said, legalizing certain "tools" for hunting falls outside of that parameter as long as the fair chase clause remains intact. -1....
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on May 5, 2017 5:55:28 GMT -5
I agree that the Legislature has no business ever getting involved in hunting issues that have a direct effect on the biological aspects of a game species (bag limits, season dates, etc.) That said, legalizing certain "tools" for hunting falls outside of that parameter as long as the fair chase clause remains intact. Where can I find this "fair chase clause"?
|
|
|
Post by jjas on May 5, 2017 8:51:22 GMT -5
Some would say this was inevitable. There is so much money involved in deer hunting that I'm honestly not shocked by any of this.
|
|
|
Post by boonechaser on May 5, 2017 10:27:34 GMT -5
Hasn't it always been this way? Isn't the Deer Biologist position a appointed position by the Governor??? So whatever party in charge does the hiring and firing and answer's to the power above.
|
|
|
Post by jackryan on May 5, 2017 10:37:05 GMT -5
You say that like it's something new? It started so long ago we now have a generation of people who've never seen any thing different.
|
|
|
Post by greghopper on May 5, 2017 12:20:02 GMT -5
You say that like it's something new? It started so long ago we now have a generation of people who've never seen any thing different. So what management rules do we have in place now that came through politics? Give some examples please!
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on May 5, 2017 14:24:51 GMT -5
Hasn't it always been this way? Isn't the Deer Biologist position a appointed position by the Governor??? So whatever party in charge does the hiring and firing and answer's to the power above. No. The DNR Director is an appointed position. If the Democrats had got the governorship there would have been a change at the top, not the biologists. All biologists are hired by the Director of Fish and Wildlife.
|
|
|
Post by M4Madness on May 5, 2017 17:05:33 GMT -5
I agree that the Legislature has no business ever getting involved in hunting issues that have a direct effect on the biological aspects of a game species (bag limits, season dates, etc.) That said, legalizing certain "tools" for hunting falls outside of that parameter as long as the fair chase clause remains intact. Where can I find this "fair chase clause"? Approximately 1/4 of the way down the page: www.eregulations.com/indiana/hunting/deer/The actual IAC section: (e) The use or aid of: (1) a food product that is transported and placed for consumption; (2) salt; (3) mineral blocks; (4) prepared solid or liquid intended for ingestion (herein called bait); (5) snares; (6) dogs; or (7) other domesticated animals; to take deer is prohibited. A person must not hunt by the aid of bait or on or over a baited area. An area is considered baited for ten (10) days after the removal of the bait or the baited soil. Hunting an orchard or another area, which may be attractive to deer as the result of normal agricultural activity, is not prohibited. The use of manufactured scents and lures or similar chemical or natural attractants is not prohibited
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on May 5, 2017 18:05:15 GMT -5
Where can I find this "fair chase clause"? Approximately 1/4 of the way down the page: www.eregulations.com/indiana/hunting/deer/The actual IAC section: (e) The use or aid of: (1) a food product that is transported and placed for consumption; (2) salt; (3) mineral blocks; (4) prepared solid or liquid intended for ingestion (herein called bait); (5) snares; (6) dogs; or (7) other domesticated animals; to take deer is prohibited. A person must not hunt by the aid of bait or on or over a baited area. An area is considered baited for ten (10) days after the removal of the bait or the baited soil. Hunting an orchard or another area, which may be attractive to deer as the result of normal agricultural activity, is not prohibited. The use of manufactured scents and lures or similar chemical or natural attractants is not prohibited\ That's all there is to a "fair chase clause"? Anything else goes?
|
|
|
Post by M4Madness on May 5, 2017 18:25:02 GMT -5
Approximately 1/4 of the way down the page: www.eregulations.com/indiana/hunting/deer/The actual IAC section: (e) The use or aid of: (1) a food product that is transported and placed for consumption; (2) salt; (3) mineral blocks; (4) prepared solid or liquid intended for ingestion (herein called bait); (5) snares; (6) dogs; or (7) other domesticated animals; to take deer is prohibited. A person must not hunt by the aid of bait or on or over a baited area. An area is considered baited for ten (10) days after the removal of the bait or the baited soil. Hunting an orchard or another area, which may be attractive to deer as the result of normal agricultural activity, is not prohibited. The use of manufactured scents and lures or similar chemical or natural attractants is not prohibited\ That's all there is to a "fair chase clause"? Anything else goes? When I posted the first time, I was referring to things like baiting, night hunting, etc. After doing some soul searching when crossbows were first introduced for the entire season, I have come to the conclusion that I no longer care what weapon one uses to take deer. If someone wants to use an atlatl, air gun, even a hand grenade or RPG, so be it. I consider the weapon used to be totally separate from everything else in the game regulations. I feel that the DNR should be 100% in control of every aspect of hunting, but don't consider weapon choice to be included in that. That is just my personal opinion, and it may contradict others' opinions, but that's the beauty of freedom.
|
|
|
Post by span870 on May 5, 2017 18:43:38 GMT -5
Always found it humerous what is "fair chase" for one animal is considered taboo and unsporting for another. Who deems fair, moral, and sporting???
|
|
|
Post by jackryan on May 5, 2017 20:54:28 GMT -5
You say that like it's something new? It started so long ago we now have a generation of people who've never seen any thing different. So what management rules do we have in place now that came through politics? Give some examples please! In deer season alone. The last two or three changes in rifle rules. Rifles. Crossbows. Youth seasons. Expanded youth seasons. Cervid shooting zoos. All these doe permits. You weren't born yesterday. You've seen these rule changes come about and how the system worked the same as me, Woody, and thousands others. We aren't dead yet just because they make a rule change.
|
|
|
Post by benj on May 8, 2017 13:07:30 GMT -5
So what management rules do we have in place now that came through politics? Give some examples please! In deer season alone. The last two or three changes in rifle rules. Rifles. Crossbows. Youth seasons. Expanded youth seasons. Cervid shooting zoos.All these doe permits. You weren't born yesterday. You've seen these rule changes come about and how the system worked the same as me, Woody, and thousands others. We aren't dead yet just because they make a rule change. I like that description! I've only been actively hunting since the rifle rule change proposal and can't speak to the other legislatively implemented rule changes, but I feel the HPR rule change was one of those "DNR not listening to the public" scenarios. I'll admit, I was somewhat salty when I bought a .270 in hopes of the rule changing and found out the DNR didn't end up going through with it. Either way, I'd have to agree with the thinking of if the tool being used can provide a clean and quick kill(and leave the animal recognizable afterwords!), then I don't mind.
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on May 8, 2017 16:12:33 GMT -5
So what management rules do we have in place now that came through politics? Give some examples please! In deer season alone. The last two or three changes in rifle rules. I'm guessing you mean the original PCRs? Nope, that went through the Administrative Rules Process..Not the legislatureRifles. Yep, that was the legislature screwing things upCrossbows. Nope. That went through the Administrative Rules Process..Not the legislature.Youth seasons. Nope. That went through the Administrative Rules Process..Not the legislature.Expanded youth seasons. Are you talking about when the kids could FINALLY take a buck instead of antlerless ONLY and then when they could take the county limit on antlerless - LIKE EVERyONE ELSE?Nope. That went through the Administrative Rules Process..Not the legislature.Cervid shooting zoos. Yep, the legislature..All these doe permits. The DNR by being pushed by the politicians.You weren't born yesterday. You've seen these rule changes come about and how the system worked the same as me, Woody, and thousands others. We aren't dead yet just because they make a rule change. Just because you don't like the Rules changes they do not always have to be politically motivated. Jack, Jack... Why did you leave out THE ONE BUCK RULE?
|
|
|
Post by jackryan on May 9, 2017 10:56:25 GMT -5
My fingers got tired.
|
|
|
Post by greghopper on May 9, 2017 11:27:33 GMT -5
Good.... because that wasn't a political decision also! That was backed by citizens of the state and still is to this very Day.
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on May 9, 2017 11:57:23 GMT -5
Good.... because that wasn't a political decision also! That was backed by citizens of the state and still is to this very Day. Lol....sure it was...
|
|