|
Post by GS1 on Dec 10, 2014 10:22:14 GMT -5
The fact that they are just as safe as other weapons currently in use does not make a compelling argument to make them legal. The fact that antlerless permits have been cut back and harvest might be starting a slight downward trend means that no additional weapons are needed to keep pace with what the DNR is trying to do. Your last sentence is what I am wondering about ... has the decision already been made regardless of public input? You make a good argument for the addition of rifles. Additional weapons are not going to change the harvest after guys get the "I shot one with a rifle" out of their system. Average will still be just under 2 deer or whatever it is. I would say that them being no more unsafe than what we currently have is a compelling argument to make them legal. They are, generally speaking, more effective than a shotgun and more fun to shoot if you're a smaller/younger hunter. I'd bet it's a done deal.
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Dec 10, 2014 10:27:01 GMT -5
Only if I were making the argument with a potato.
I have heard time and again that it is a done deal but I keep reading more and more instances of input being against them.
|
|
|
Post by chubwub on Dec 10, 2014 10:43:27 GMT -5
I've come to the conclusion that it doesn't matter what kind of weapon I have in my hand, I am still going to suck at deer hunting.
|
|
|
Post by firstwd on Dec 10, 2014 17:24:22 GMT -5
I've come to the conclusion that it doesn't matter what kind of weapon I have in my hand, I am still going to suck at deer hunting. Do you squirrel hunt with a rifle? I spent a couple seasons using 2 shorts. My accuracy, follow through, and "flinch" response improved greatly. Also, do you shoot ducks or do you head-shoot ducks? Get to where you are blowing beaks off of birds and you'll be just fine no matter what you are hunting.
|
|
|
Post by boman on Dec 10, 2014 18:45:17 GMT -5
Ok, back on topic after you guys hijacked this thread. here's biologist reply to gun survey question Steve,
Hi. Thanks for your email. When I spoke with hunters the opening day of the deer firearm season last month, based on their comments, more hunters were opposed to expanding rifle calibers than favored it, by about 2 to 1. We could call it an informal survey.
and more importantly here's the reply to changes in Urban/Deer Reduction proposal: I had not bothered to look on the website about the extent of changes being made. I thought the additional “rifle options” were the only deer related thing being considered.
I spoke with my supervisor about his understanding on the changes proposed for urban deer zones. This is not in stone, but our understanding is that urban deer zones as we know them would end along with urban zone licenses. The Div. of Fish and Wildlife would then establish “deer reduction zones” by emergency rule. We envision these zones to be smaller than current urban zones which could be established in true urban areas to deal with high numbers of deer. There would be that long firearm season in those zones from the opening day of firearm season until January 31. If the added “rifle calibers” go through, they could be used in the deer reduction zones. Again, we envision those deer reduction zones to be small in size and not very wide spread. They would be to deal with significant urban deer issues. There is much to be worked out as to how the deer reduction zones would work, and where they are needed.
That’s the best I can tell you now. If we still had our deer biologist, I would suggest you call him for more information, but can’t because he has moved on. I trust this helps. Dean this is where i thought(and was hoping) it would go as I have never thought the Urban deer rules had much effect on the reduction of deer in urban areas. Most guys I talk to just look at it as an opportunity to get a second buck---typical deer hunters
|
|
|
Post by throbak on Dec 10, 2014 19:03:24 GMT -5
On the ? Does it make a diff erence if you have a licence it d9es not matter if your from another state That Question was ask at the last NRC MTG and the answer was it is Public Input you don't have to be from Indiana ALL input must be considered
|
|
|
Post by M4Madness on Dec 10, 2014 20:04:29 GMT -5
I do wonder if most of the opposed are shooting themselves in the foot by using safety as their reasoning for opposing the proposal instead of just saying they oppose it though? I would think that since it has been proven to be no more unsafe than what we currently have the DNR would overlook their opposing view the same as they should overlook the view of the guy that said today, "if high powers become legal, nothing within 1200 yards will be safe". I've said from the beginning that since the DNR stated in their summary on legalizing rifles that they consider them safe, that they will pay no heed to any arguments citing safety as a reason for opposing. I believe that they've already studied the issue and decided them to be safe. I also feel that public comments are something required by law for transparency, and that the NRC really doesn't put much stock in them.
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Dec 10, 2014 20:26:42 GMT -5
It is required by law for the NRC to have a public meeting. I'm not really sure about the online input. That may be above and beyond what is required by law. I'll ask that next time I contact the DNR and/or the NRC.
As gar as the NRC not putting much stock in them - I'll have to disagree with that since we saw "Proposal #1" go down in flames because of public input.. John Q DeerHunter jumped on that one with both feet...repeatedly.
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Dec 10, 2014 20:28:59 GMT -5
On the ? Does it make a diff erence if you have a licence it d9es not matter if your from another state That Question was ask at the last NRC MTG and the answer was it is Public Input you don't have to be from Indiana ALL input must be considered They will take input from anywhere... You do have to post what state that you live in. There are numerous non-residents giving input as they do hunt here too.
|
|