|
Post by duff on Oct 14, 2017 2:46:02 GMT -5
Got an email last night from Atterbury stating the same massage, no rifles at all this year. I saw the news was interviewing Legislators about the issue and they want to try to figure out if they can fix it short term before the January session where they can fix it correctly. Herd though grapevine that SEPAC is going to do the same "NO RIFLES " What is SEPAC?
|
|
|
Post by firstwd on Oct 14, 2017 4:15:25 GMT -5
Herd though grapevine that SEPAC is going to do the same "NO RIFLES " What is SEPAC? One of several properties around the state that Purdue owns.
|
|
|
Post by duff on Oct 14, 2017 4:29:53 GMT -5
Oh. They have a decent sized farm down the road from me where they raise cattle and crops. It is no hunting allowed. Dang shame too. Loaded with deer, yote and doves. Also one of the few places I actually see geese around here.
I know a few who have asked and i have never seen anyone hunting either.
|
|
|
Post by greghopper on Oct 14, 2017 5:31:59 GMT -5
Oh. They have a decent sized farm down the road from me where they raise cattle and crops. It is no hunting allowed. Dang shame too. Loaded with deer, yote and doves. Also one of the few places I actually see geese around here. I know a few who have asked and i have never seen anyone hunting either. And the places that do allow Hunting by pemit are "NO RIFLES" this year. "No rifles firing either handgun or rifle cartridges are allowed for deer hunting on SEPAC consistent with House Enrolled Act 1415 www.in.gov/dnr/fishwild/7389.htm"
|
|
|
Post by arlowe13 on Oct 14, 2017 7:28:33 GMT -5
M4madness I wish I shared your optimism.... You guys are giving the legislators too much credit. I just can't see them being so sly as to pull off a public land rifle ban intentionally, especially when there hasn't been a single accident attributed to them. The law last year listed the legal HPR calibers and said they were only legal on private property. Then the law this year is essentially the same, only changing the caliber list to simply anything .243 and larger. What they failed to realize is that ALL of the PCR calibers are greater than.243". Lol! The 2016 law said that rifles MUST be a .243 or .30 caliber rifle. So in 2016, all PCRs were illegal because there were none that were that caliber. But, no one noticed until this year, likely a month or so ago, what the ramifications of the law really were.
|
|
|
Post by gumbootbill on Oct 14, 2017 19:27:25 GMT -5
Southeast Purdue Agriculture Center/SEPAC used to be the Brush creek fish and wildlife area before the state gave it to Purdue. Google hunting and access permission Agreement/Purdue university. or Hunting policy Purdue university college of agriculture.
|
|
|
Post by greghopper on Oct 15, 2017 8:26:13 GMT -5
HEA1415 took effect AFTER the hunting regs were printed. It wasn't the Legislature's intention to ban PCR's from public land, but it happened. Multiple DNR Facebook pages have already confirmed it. Acutally the Printed regs contained the new info except the private/public change.
|
|
|
Post by firstwd on Oct 15, 2017 10:04:48 GMT -5
Southeast Purdue Agriculture Center/SEPAC used to be the Brush creek fish and wildlife area before the state gave it to Purdue. Google hunting and access permission Agreement/Purdue university. or Hunting policy Purdue university college of agriculture. The state didn't give it to Purdue. They gave it to the military for some financial consideration towards the acquisition of the Goose Pond area, basically giving up 2400 acres for help acquiring 24,000. The military carved out the portions of the land that suited the needs for UTC and then donated the rest to Purdue Outdoor Laboratories since they have a large established property adjacent to there.
|
|
|
Post by greghopper on Oct 15, 2017 10:37:16 GMT -5
Southeast Purdue Agriculture Center/SEPAC used to be the Brush creek fish and wildlife area before the state gave it to Purdue. Google hunting and access permission Agreement/Purdue university. or Hunting policy Purdue university college of agriculture. The state didn't give it to Purdue. They gave it to the military for some financial consideration towards the acquisition of the Goose Pond area, basically giving up 2400 acres for help acquiring 24,000. The military carved out the portions of the land that suited the needs for UTC and then donated the rest to Purdue Outdoor Laboratories since they have a large established property adjacent to there. Do you have a source for this information? I have read something different in the past not saying anyone is wrong just trying to remember how things went down!
|
|
|
Post by firstwd on Oct 15, 2017 13:41:46 GMT -5
The state didn't give it to Purdue. They gave it to the military for some financial consideration towards the acquisition of the Goose Pond area, basically giving up 2400 acres for help acquiring 24,000. The military carved out the portions of the land that suited the needs for UTC and then donated the rest to Purdue Outdoor Laboratories since they have a large established property adjacent to there. Do you have a source for this information? I have read something different in the past not saying anyone is wrong just trying to remember how things went down! Me. I was active in the input sessions when all of this was first being discussed and worked out.
|
|
|
Post by beehunter on Oct 15, 2017 14:01:30 GMT -5
Southeast Purdue Agriculture Center/SEPAC used to be the Brush creek fish and wildlife area before the state gave it to Purdue. Google hunting and access permission Agreement/Purdue university. or Hunting policy Purdue university college of agriculture. The state didn't give it to Purdue. They gave it to the military for some financial consideration towards the acquisition of the Goose Pond area, basically giving up 2400 acres for help acquiring 24,000. The military carved out the portions of the land that suited the needs for UTC and then donated the rest to Purdue Outdoor Laboratories since they have a large established property adjacent to there. Not saying your wrong but the Goosepond Fish and wildlife area is not 24,000 acres, I live right by it.
|
|
|
Post by firstwd on Oct 15, 2017 14:35:40 GMT -5
The state didn't give it to Purdue. They gave it to the military for some financial consideration towards the acquisition of the Goose Pond area, basically giving up 2400 acres for help acquiring 24,000. The military carved out the portions of the land that suited the needs for UTC and then donated the rest to Purdue Outdoor Laboratories since they have a large established property adjacent to there. Not saying your wrong but the Goosepond Fish and wildlife area is not 24,000 acres, I live right by it. Whatever the total increase was, it's been awhile. I know for sure it went from having land 30 away to it's replacement being 3 hours away. That was before the remaining land was turned over to Purdue and then opened up for use again.
|
|
|
Post by js2397 on Oct 17, 2017 16:43:06 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Oct 17, 2017 20:12:51 GMT -5
From an Indiana Senator..
I got a response from Legislative Services that they basically agree with what the other lawyers have said. This will require a legislative fix and they don’t really think and emergency rule can be used to fix this. I asked them to draft language that they thought could fix it and I’ll take that to leadership to see if there is any way we can address it before session starts in January but I’m not hopeful.
|
|
|
Post by arlowe13 on Oct 18, 2017 4:41:05 GMT -5
Reverting to the 2016 law will not change anything, only make it worse. It will still make PCRs illegal on public land, and will also make them illegal on PRIVATE land. It still states that "Rifles are not to be used on public land" and it also states that rifles MUST fire a .243 or .30cal bullet. What PCR uses either of those bullets? NONE, so PCRs will also be illegal on PRIVATE land.
|
|
|
Post by firstwd on Oct 18, 2017 10:59:06 GMT -5
Reverting to the 2016 law will not change anything, only make it worse. It will still make PCRs illegal on public land, and will also make them illegal on PRIVATE land. It still states that "Rifles are not to be used on public land" and it also states that rifles MUST fire a .243 or .30cal bullet. What PCR uses either of those bullets? NONE, so PCRs will also be illegal on PRIVATE land. I believe the 2016 language included the wording "additional rifle calibers".
|
|
|
Post by arlowe13 on Oct 18, 2017 12:40:09 GMT -5
Reverting to the 2016 law will not change anything, only make it worse. It will still make PCRs illegal on public land, and will also make them illegal on PRIVATE land. It still states that "Rifles are not to be used on public land" and it also states that rifles MUST fire a .243 or .30cal bullet. What PCR uses either of those bullets? NONE, so PCRs will also be illegal on PRIVATE land. I believe the 2016 language included the wording "additional rifle calibers". I don't see that anywhere...
|
|
|
Post by arlowe13 on Oct 18, 2017 12:42:40 GMT -5
And compare to 2017...
|
|
|
Post by INhuntin on Oct 18, 2017 17:06:48 GMT -5
Pistols are still ok for public land?? If not I'll have to pull out the old shotgun & get it sighted in. I haven't shot it for deer in about 5 years, been using pistol.
|
|
|
Post by greghopper on Oct 18, 2017 17:55:03 GMT -5
I believe the 2016 language included the wording "additional rifle calibers". I don't see that anywhere... How where PCR legal last year? Looks like they should of been illegal and there was a over sight IMO
|
|