|
Post by Woody Williams on Oct 9, 2017 18:11:28 GMT -5
This is why the legislature should not be involved. This all should have been handled through the NRC Administrative Rules Process. The DNR is bound to enforce laws as written. The "out", if there is one, is the "intent" of the law. The DNR could be addressing this with the authors of the bill to determine what their intent was. If the politicians say it was their intent to not ban previously OKed rifles from public land MAYBE the DNR Director can issue an Emergency Executive Order. IF it was their intent to ban all rifles from public ground then the DNR has absolutely no choice but to follow the law.
BTW - Have you ever heard a politician say "We made a mistake?"
|
|
|
Post by greghopper on Oct 9, 2017 18:34:04 GMT -5
Why wait a year later to enforce something already written? What changed?
|
|
|
Post by squirrelhunter on Oct 9, 2017 18:51:30 GMT -5
This is why the legislature should not be involved. This all should have been handled through the NRC Administrative Rules Process. The DNR is bound to enforce laws as written. The "out", if there is one, is the "intent" of the law. The DNR could be addressing this with the authors of the bill to determine what their intent was. If the politicians say it was their intent to not ban previously OKed rifles from public land MAYBE the DNR Director can issue an Emergency Executive Order. IF it was their intent to ban all rifles from public ground then the DNR has absolutely no choice but to follow the law. BTW - Have you ever heard a politician say "We made a mistake?" I agree,but all I see that this new IC code did to the old IC code was change the calibers,not where they're allowed to be used,they both say private land only and nothing was said last year. The only place I see where anything changed was in the Deer "questions and information" section at the DNR site,not the politicians,I'd say whoever wrote THAT section didn't know what was going on and goofed it up.
|
|
|
Post by huhwhatdeer on Oct 9, 2017 19:27:53 GMT -5
i talked to co today and he said only muzzle loaders and shotguns on public and pcr's ml and sg on private no hprs on anything. vanderburgh co said this in person today while fishing
|
|
|
Post by huhwhatdeer on Oct 9, 2017 19:29:14 GMT -5
he also said they dont have a director now when i mentioned that the director should make an emergency decision. he said we dont have a director right now
|
|
|
Post by firstwd on Oct 9, 2017 20:02:57 GMT -5
Why wait a year later to enforce something already written? What changed? The definition of legal calibers. Last year they write the rifle law with the "specified calibers" ( I know, it was a mess) and this year the definition of legal calibers covers the PCR legal parameters as well.
|
|
|
Post by arlowe13 on Oct 9, 2017 20:11:08 GMT -5
Why wait a year later to enforce something already written? What changed? The definition of legal calibers. Last year they write the rifle law with the "specified calibers" ( I know, it was a mess) and this year the definition of legal calibers covers the PCR legal parameters as well. But last year, it stated that the rifle "MUST" be one of those calibers, so basically if it didn't have a .243 or .30cal bullet it should have been illegal last year. That rules out all the common .44s and .357's and .45's etc...
|
|
|
Post by greghopper on Oct 9, 2017 20:23:51 GMT -5
The definition of legal calibers. Last year they write the rifle law with the "specified calibers" ( I know, it was a mess) and this year the definition of legal calibers covers the PCR legal parameters as well. But last year, it stated that the rifle "MUST" be one of those calibers, so basically if it didn't have a .243 or .30cal bullet it should have been illegal last year. That rules out all the common .44s and .357's and .45's etc... Bingo....looks Like PCR's where outlawed last year!
|
|
|
Post by js2397 on Oct 9, 2017 21:01:12 GMT -5
But last year, it stated that the rifle "MUST" be one of those calibers, so basically if it didn't have a .243 or .30cal bullet it should have been illegal last year. That rules out all the common .44s and .357's and .45's etc... Bingo....looks Like PCR's where outlawed last year! Should be easy to track violators. When you check them in you have to tell whether it's public or private and equipment. I would think if they don't go back and hit everyone from last year they would have trouble enforcing it this year.
|
|
|
Post by fishinbrad on Oct 9, 2017 21:17:19 GMT -5
Last year, .243 and .30 calibers were specifically called HIGH POWERED RIFLES, which were only legal on private land. PISTOL CALIBER RIFLES were specifically named as legal on public land, however this was not stated in the rule changes. This years rule change dropped the HIGH POWER, and said .243 and larger, which (possibly inadvertently) encompassed the PCR's. Has anyone looked into the Indiana Code, from years back, to check the specific wording which initially allowed PCR's on public land?
|
|
|
Post by duff on Oct 10, 2017 4:44:53 GMT -5
Seems there is power play being attempted at the cost of hunters.
Looks like the intent is same as previous year. If indeed the DNR clarified they had missed it last year, after publishing the regulation book, then we do have a right to be angry at the DNR.
DNR needs to clear this up before this gets totally out of control and they lose this battle. If indeed this is a power struggle with legislators... DNR will lose. And so will all hunters as it will only give more power to legislators.
What a mess.
|
|
|
Post by arlowe13 on Oct 10, 2017 5:09:27 GMT -5
Last year, .243 and .30 calibers were specifically called HIGH POWERED RIFLES, which were only legal on private land. PISTOL CALIBER RIFLES were specifically named as legal on public land, however this was not stated in the rule changes. This years rule change dropped the HIGH POWER, and said .243 and larger, which (possibly inadvertently) encompassed the PCR's. Has anyone looked into the Indiana Code, from years back, to check the specific wording which initially allowed PCR's on public land? Where does it say "High power" in any of the wording in the 2016 law? The wording is identical to the 2017 law, minus the cartridge requirements. 2016: 2017
|
|
|
Post by 76chevy on Oct 10, 2017 5:49:52 GMT -5
I'm glad I never have and probably never will hunt public land,what a total mess Yeah, public land is terrible! The worst really! Don't go hunting or fishing on the thousands of IN acres.....
|
|
|
Post by fishinbrad on Oct 10, 2017 5:51:57 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by arlowe13 on Oct 10, 2017 7:54:43 GMT -5
They said nothing in the 2016 law about PCRs. Nearly identical wording as the 2017 law.
|
|
|
Post by fishinbrad on Oct 10, 2017 8:14:41 GMT -5
They said nothing in the 2016 law about PCRs. Nearly identical wording as the 2017 law. Not sure what part of "Rifles with pistol cartridges that have been allowed in previous years may still be used to hunt deer on both private and public land. " isn't clear from 2016...
|
|
|
Post by arlowe13 on Oct 10, 2017 8:16:06 GMT -5
They said nothing in the 2016 law about PCRs. Nearly identical wording as the 2017 law. Not sure what part of "Rifles with pistol cartridges that have been allowed in previous years may still be used to hunt deer on both private and public land. " isn't clear from 2016... Was that part of the law or written in the hunting guide? I don't see that written in the law. The new hunting guide has that language in there, as well, but it has been declared as incorrect.
|
|
|
Post by fishinbrad on Oct 10, 2017 8:32:51 GMT -5
It was written on the DNR website as an explanation of 2016 rifle laws
|
|
|
Post by js2397 on Oct 10, 2017 8:55:30 GMT -5
It was written on the DNR website as an explanation of 2016 rifle laws Correct, but no wording in the law has changed except the included calibers. The DNR was wrong when they posted that last year.
|
|
|
Post by medic22 on Oct 10, 2017 9:23:24 GMT -5
Instead of writing your representatives and asking them to fix this, put your wants aside and ask them to repeal it.
Theyve attempted this law twice and messed it up twice. Its time to put the decision back in the hands of DNR where it belongs.
|
|