|
Post by jjas on Jan 5, 2020 18:56:42 GMT -5
I have no idea what will happen with this, but I'm of the opinion that what is likely to happen is that the hpr rule will stay "as is" for private ground. Will the powers that be include hprs on public ground? I don't know, but I won't be surprised if it stays "as is" too... Or they could do like they have done with other so called “trials” and extend it another 5 years. True. One thing I will say is that I've never seen a piece of equipment allowed and then banned from use and can't imagine the fit that hunters will throw if hprs are banned on private ground.
|
|
|
Post by lawrencecountyhunter on Jan 5, 2020 18:57:10 GMT -5
I'll just say that I love the constant change in our regulations. It really tickles me pink when the legislature gets involved also! The unnecessary and illogical complexities keep things exciting. My favorite is when last minute press releases are given by the DNR a day or two prior to firearms opener, clarifying what weapons will be considered legal!
Haha, at a certain point you (I) can't help but laugh about it..
|
|
|
Post by 36fan on Jan 5, 2020 19:47:54 GMT -5
If there as SAFE as being stated,they should also be allowed on all public land. Make sure you keep that in your reminders to the authors. How about just having the DNR introduce them in law! DNR doesn't make the laws, they enforce them. They can make rules, which basically says how they are going to enforce the law.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 5, 2020 19:58:04 GMT -5
With the Buck harvest at a all time high I am sure some will see that as a detrimental effect.... we shall see! Has the buck harvest been at an all time high for the past 5 years or is this year an abnormality? I'd say take all 5 of the past years, average ALL the deer harvested and see how that compares to the norm previously. If the buck harvest was higher...so what? It`s the overall deer harvest that affects the herd, and if there were to be any "detriment", it would be if the doe herd was so high as to negatively affect herd numbers.
|
|
|
Post by firstwd on Jan 5, 2020 20:51:46 GMT -5
I'll just say that I love the constant change in our regulations. It really tickles me pink when the legislature gets involved also! The unnecessary and illogical complexities keep things exciting. My favorite is when last minute press releases are given by the DNR a day or two prior to firearms opener, clarifying what weapons will be considered legal! Haha, at a certain point you (I) can't help but laugh about it.. Always a good time. :-)
|
|
|
Post by jjas on Jan 6, 2020 12:01:07 GMT -5
Is the ending of 1/1/2020 mean that the antlerless and reduction seasons should not have allowed hprs after the new year? I have no idea. I just hope this doesn't turn into a giant mess between now and next season. If anyone on this forum wants to use their hpr next season, I would suggest contacting the lawmakers involved in the original bill and let them know that. I would not assume that HPR usage will automatically be approved for use next season.
|
|
|
Post by hornzilla on Jan 6, 2020 12:33:14 GMT -5
I'll actively fight against HPR's unless public land is included this go around. Explain? ?
|
|
|
Post by medic22 on Jan 6, 2020 13:00:00 GMT -5
I'll actively fight against HPR's unless public land is included this go around. Explain? ? First, because I equate it to early voting laws, whereas only landowners could vote. Second, it takes 90% of the confusion away from game laws. Lastly, there is no data to suggest there will be an increase in firearms injuries. Anyone that has been shooting for a decent amount of time knows that a shotgun slug will ricochet just as easily as a centerfire, and because of its mass can actually travel further than a centerfile with all things being equal. Arguing that public land is too crowded is merely an opinion with no scientific data to back up an increase in injuries. At the very least a seperate 5 year trial should be put in place to gather that data. If at the end of 5 years there has been a statistically significant increase in injuries I will lobby against legalizing them permanently, but I dont think we will see that.
|
|
|
Post by tynimiller on Jan 6, 2020 13:18:44 GMT -5
Explain? ? First, because I equate it to early voting laws, whereas only landowners could vote. Second, it takes 90% of the confusion away from game laws. Lastly, there is no data to suggest there will be an increase in firearms injuries. Anyone that has been shooting for a decent amount of time knows that a shotgun slug will ricochet just as easily as a centerfire, and because of its mass can actually travel further than a centerfile with all things being equal. Arguing that public land is too crowded is merely an opinion with no scientific data to back up an increase in injuries. At the very least a seperate 5 year trial should be put in place to gather that data. If at the end of 5 years there has been a statistically significant increase in injuries I will lobby against legalizing them permanently, but I dont think we will see that. I do hunt some public from time to time and I 100% know for a fact a few of my properties I have more hunters within a 500 yard circle on private ground than I have ever had on public... While I don't see it happening I don't believe a solid argument to disallow them on public but allow on private exists.
|
|
|
Post by greghopper on Jan 6, 2020 13:31:52 GMT -5
I think it's a sad situation when it's assumed that public ground hunters are irresponsible.
|
|
|
Post by jbird on Jan 6, 2020 13:42:20 GMT -5
I suspect the law will stay the same. If it was to change it would be to include them on public ground. I doubt the DNR wants to go backwards as it will potentially reduce their tag sales.....last thing they want to see. I makes no difference to me.....but I know it impacts my kids as they like being able to use a firearm that is effective for them at 100 to 150 yards that won't beat them up like a slug gun will. I also know lots of folks are frustrated that the law is different for private and public land....which to me makes little sense.
|
|
|
Post by medic22 on Jan 6, 2020 14:20:20 GMT -5
Just for clarity sake, I dont have any plans to go buy a new rifle for public ground so this is not a (, You have something and I want it too argument). I currently use a 300 blackout pistol with an 8 inch barrel, adding 8 inches to that barrel will add negligible velocity to what is already a 250 yard gun (which is another argument to the stupidity of current laws).
|
|
|
Post by omegahunter on Jan 6, 2020 14:23:05 GMT -5
If there as SAFE as being stated,they should also be allowed on all public land. Make sure you keep that in your reminders to the authors. How about just having the DNR introduce them in law! DNR doesn't make the laws, they enforce them. They can make rules, which basically says how they are going to enforce the law. I think he means through NRC with Indiana Administrative Code instead of through legislative process Indiana Code that couldn't get it right the first couple of times.
|
|
|
Post by greghopper on Jan 6, 2020 14:46:49 GMT -5
DNR doesn't make the laws, they enforce them. They can make rules, which basically says how they are going to enforce the law. I think he means through NRC with Indiana Administrative Code instead of through legislative process Indiana Code that couldn't get it right the first couple of times. Exactly.... pretty sure MOST knew what I trying to say!
|
|
|
Post by hornzilla on Jan 7, 2020 9:52:21 GMT -5
Explain? ? First, because I equate it to early voting laws, whereas only landowners could vote. Second, it takes 90% of the confusion away from game laws. Lastly, there is no data to suggest there will be an increase in firearms injuries. Anyone that has been shooting for a decent amount of time knows that a shotgun slug will ricochet just as easily as a centerfire, and because of its mass can actually travel further than a centerfile with all things being equal. Arguing that public land is too crowded is merely an opinion with no scientific data to back up an increase in injuries. At the very least a seperate 5 year trial should be put in place to gather that data. If at the end of 5 years there has been a statistically significant increase in injuries I will lobby against legalizing them permanently, but I dont think we will see that. I was just curious as to why. I personally own my ground or hunt some of my farmers. So it really doesn't affect me. I personally think the rifles will stay. And I personally think the rules of them being used on private only will stay. There is several choices of rifles for public if rules stay the same.
|
|
|
Post by butlerj on Jan 7, 2020 10:30:12 GMT -5
Alot of public butts up to private where I hunt due to the state selling parcels off years ago. So In scenario how is it fair a guy any given distance either feet or yds away on private property can use a rifle and anyone on the public side can't?
|
|
|
Post by jjas on Jan 7, 2020 10:40:04 GMT -5
Alot of public butts up to private where I hunt due to the state selling parcels off years ago. So In scenario how is it fair a guy any given distance either feet or yds away on private property can use a rifle and anyone on the public side can't? Your question above is why I would suggest you contact the lawmakers who pushed this through and ask them what their plans are on the matter and let them know how you feel about it.
|
|
|
Post by greghopper on Jan 7, 2020 10:44:55 GMT -5
Alot of public butts up to private where I hunt due to the state selling parcels off years ago. So In scenario how is it fair a guy any given distance either feet or yds away on private property can use a rifle and anyone on the public side can't? Your question above is why I would suggest you contact the lawmakers who pushed this through and ask them what their plans are on the matter and let them know how you feel about it. That same question cam come into play over hunter orange and counties with antherless season.
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Jan 7, 2020 10:47:27 GMT -5
My Indiana Senate contact says -
“ I think Eberhart said he was just making what is in place permanent. I’m not sure what the DNR recommended.”
|
|
|
Post by dbd870 on Jan 7, 2020 11:02:05 GMT -5
My Indiana Senate contact says - “ I think Eberhart said he was just making what is in place permanent. I’m not sure what the DNR recommended.” That’s what I expect as well
|
|