|
Post by GS1 on May 11, 2015 11:14:07 GMT -5
That and how would a HPR round know where the boundies are .... Some folks land would be in multi counties, then what Kind of like now if your land falls in a county that has a late antlerless season and a county that does not? Or if your land falls in counties that have different antlerless quotas? Or if your land falls in what is considered an urban zone and part of it does not? Boundaries by counties are nothing new and not that difficult.
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on May 11, 2015 12:25:45 GMT -5
It is not "official" yet until the NRC takes a vote on it, but the DFW and the Administrative Law Judge thumbed it down. This is pretty well decided before this final meeting. It will be discussed, input (pro and con) taken from the public and then it will be voted down.. According to what the Administrative Law Judge said in her report they would like to pass it with restrictions (more than likely geographical) but they have time constraints.. It WILL be back. You got link to where the law judge tuned it down..... Guess I missed that part! What meeting was it tuned down at ? I went to 2 here in Indy ... Greg, I'm on my iPhone but it is in item 10.. It is A report by Sandra (Administrative Law Judge)
|
|
|
Post by greghopper on May 11, 2015 12:47:44 GMT -5
That and how would a HPR round know where the boundies are .... Some folks land would be in multi counties, then what Kind of like now if your land falls in a county that has a late antlerless season and a county that does not? Or if your land falls in counties that have different antlerless quotas? Or if your land falls in what is considered an urban zone and part of it does not? Boundaries by counties are nothing new and not that difficult. Yes it's nothing NEW but we are talking safety issue not if you can kill a deer or not!...... Apples and oranges What is looked at is municipalities that are concerned over "projectiles", MANY of these communities may close the door on deer hunting over a centerfire rifle. They areas could very well be yards away from a legal zone!!
|
|
|
Post by hornzilla on May 11, 2015 13:11:44 GMT -5
Only in Indiana. Back to what I have said before. I will continue to put a rifle cartridge in a handgun and a pistol cartridge in a rifle. That makes a lot of sense. Well really I will put a shortened 444 in a rifle. Only because it isn't a "high power rifle cartridge".
|
|
|
Post by esshup on May 11, 2015 16:29:35 GMT -5
No pistol, but a .50 and .45 Savage ML. I can shoot further (accurately and have more KE at impact) with the .45 Savage than the guys with the wildcat cartridge rifles. I suppose I should keep my eyes open for a left handed Savage Striker..... I like the idea of keeping my hand on the pistol grip while I work the bolt even tho I'm right handed.
|
|
|
Post by schoolmaster on May 11, 2015 17:39:33 GMT -5
DNR doesn't back the HPR proposal. As per Ryan Sabalow's Indianapolis Star article. The DNR feels the social issue caused by "strong opposition " to the proposal has caused too big a rift in the 200,000 plus Indiana deer hunters. Will the Indiana NRC disregard the DNR and pass the legislation anyway. Seems doubtful at best.
|
|
|
Post by Sasquatch on May 11, 2015 19:33:48 GMT -5
Wow. Never would have predicted that.
|
|
|
Post by thecommissioner on May 11, 2015 19:40:22 GMT -5
I thought this was a done deal. So convinced of being approved that I bought a Savage model 10 in 308 on sale at Wal-Mart. Well, unless someone invites me to go hunting out of state, that Savage stays NIB.
First, Gov. Pence caved in to the Gay Mafia on the Religious Freedom bill and now it looks like his NRC is caving in to the Luddites on the rifle rule change. He sure isn't the Governor I thought he would be.
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on May 11, 2015 20:09:33 GMT -5
Nope.. The NRC will vote it down in its present form. IF, and that is a huge IF, it can be amended they could pass something a little more palatable - like in the southern part of the state only.. If not this year in the Next year or two ..
In my opinion..
.
|
|
|
Post by barton174 on May 11, 2015 20:22:55 GMT -5
i.e. "the handfull of trophy buck bowhunting guides who we listen to over every other hunter don't want it because they're scared it'll mean more deer get killed, and it'll affect their business."
|
|
|
Post by scrub-buster on May 11, 2015 20:40:04 GMT -5
So when will we know for sure if its approved or not?
|
|
|
Post by greghopper on May 11, 2015 20:56:55 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by greghopper on May 11, 2015 21:11:39 GMT -5
You got link to where the law judge tuned it down..... Guess I missed that part! What meeting was it tuned down at ? I went to 2 here in Indy ... Greg, I'm on my iPhone but it is in item 10.. It is A report by Sandra (Administrative Law Judge) Ok I have gotten time to read this.....Do you have a page # for item 10 where Administrative Law Judge(Sandra) says in her report they would like to pass it with restrictions (more than likely geographical) and thumbed it down? That's the part I am missing...
|
|
|
Post by thecommissioner on May 11, 2015 21:13:41 GMT -5
Nope.. The NRC will vote it down in its present form. IF, and that is a huge IF, it can be amended they could pass something a little more palatable - like in the southern part of the state only.. If not this year in the Next year or two .. In my opinion.. . Somewhere, way back when, on this site I advocated for the HPR rule to be trialed in that part of Indiana south of US 50 and east of US 231. My proposal keeps the HPR's in the rural areas most likely to be hilly and wooded. A few years of experience would put to rest the safety question while appeasing the fearful opponents. Once the safety record was established, the rest of the state would be legal for HPR's.
|
|
|
Post by jjas on May 11, 2015 21:20:52 GMT -5
I think this would have had a better chance of passing if we hadn't gone through so much recently.....
PCRs, the "wars" between hunters over the two proposals, crossbow inclusion, herd reduction and now hprs. I know several hunters and landowners who quite frankly feel like enough changes have been made and we need to let things settle out for a bit and I tend to agree.
Will that happen? I guess we'll see......
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on May 11, 2015 21:43:31 GMT -5
It is Item 10, Hearing Officers Report. See and read from the last paragraph on page 14.
When you get to page 21 you will see the last two paragraphs say that she agrees with DFW and thumbs it down. This is her opinion. It is possible that they can amend the proposal to make it more "safe". She doesn't think that they can do it.. Just depends if the NRC wants to do it now... or later..
My feeling is that they will say no and bring it back in the future..
|
|
|
Post by tjmurf on May 11, 2015 21:53:23 GMT -5
So let me get this straight. To protect indiana residents from those individuals who do not pay attention to what is beyond their target, it would be best to restrict HP rifles to hilly parts of the state?
I hunt in some very flat areas of the state where I can see as far as most HP's can travel. How about we restrict HP rifle use to only those areas where the hunter can see all areas behind the target. This way there is no chance of shooting blindly over a hill.
Show me proof of using HP's in a hilly area of the state will make it safer than any other area when the shooter is not being responsible.
It looks like a 358 may still be in my near future.
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on May 11, 2015 22:00:44 GMT -5
So let me get this straight. To protect indiana residents from those individuals who do not pay attention to what is beyond their target, it would be best to restrict HP rifles to hilly parts of the state? I hunt in some very flat areas of the state where I can see as far as most HP's can travel. How about we restrict HP rifle use to only those areas where the hunter can see all areas behind the target. This way there is no chance of shooting blindly over a hill. Show me proof of using HP's in a hilly area of the state will make it safer than any other area when the shooter is not being responsible. It looks like a 358 may still be in my near future. Fear is an easy sell.... .
|
|
|
Post by greghopper on May 11, 2015 22:05:29 GMT -5
So let me get this straight. To protect indiana residents from those individuals who do not pay attention to what is beyond their target, it would be best to restrict HP rifles to hilly parts of the state? Very few within the DNR are actually saying that..... I seen a couple of quotes from some others in the know as to say differently.... here are there quotes.... "This one would have sailed through if we were only talking about bolt guns or limited magazine capacity to less than 10""What was looked at hard was municipalities that are concerned over "projectiles", MANY of these communities would have closed the door on deer hunting over a centerfire rifle."
|
|
|
Post by tjmurf on May 11, 2015 22:09:05 GMT -5
I know, I read a lot of the negative comments and that's what most were. Nothing but fear. Some of it coming from the our own fellow hunters.
|
|