|
Post by Woody Williams on Mar 2, 2016 10:54:07 GMT -5
I wonder how many nays (if any) can be attributed to the various amendments and how many just didn't like the bill at all. I know of one "nay" that believed that the HPRs useage should not even be talked about in the legislature.. It should be left up to the DNR and NRC through the Administrative Rules Process...
|
|
|
Post by M4Madness on Mar 2, 2016 11:07:33 GMT -5
My complaint with the DNR is that they admitted in writing that HPR's posed NO safety or herd management issues, yet still pulled a proposal that they themselves labeled a social issue. If it is simply a social issue, it should have been allowed even if it were a thousand to one against, since the one does not affect the thousand from a social standpoint. Throw in that the proponents and opponents were pretty well split at 50/50, a 1000+ commenters who were for HPR's should have been sufficient.
|
|
|
Post by throbak on Mar 2, 2016 11:20:48 GMT -5
The comments are not a go / no go vote my self I think the right decision canning it was made ,
|
|
|
Post by tynimiller on Mar 2, 2016 11:27:31 GMT -5
My complaint with the DNR is that they admitted in writing that HPR's posed NO safety or herd management issues, yet still pulled a proposal that they themselves labeled a social issue. If it is simply a social issue, it should have been allowed even if it were a thousand to one against, since the one does not affect the thousand from a social standpoint. Throw in that the proponents and opponents were pretty well split at 50/50, a 1000+ commenters who were for HPR's should have been sufficient. Me personally I don't ever want to see a hunting law or regulation passed that is 50/50 split, no matter where I am on it personally. If 2/3 for a change, than I think they'd (IDNR) better ever surefire reasons why not to.
|
|
|
Post by esshup on Mar 2, 2016 11:38:59 GMT -5
They use HPR's just fine in flat states too... However, those "flat" States have less people. With this immigration issue, Indiana could possibly have 12 million people + soon, and less land to hunt on. A good friend of mine grew up in Munich, Germany. He still has friends and family there. He said that since WWII there were no shootings in his neighborhood. Now since the immigration push? It's common. I don't think that a lot of the immigrants will be living in the country.....
|
|
|
Post by gilder on Mar 2, 2016 11:56:16 GMT -5
I would. I am a Russian immigrant and if I had money to buy land and move out of town I definitely would. Well, I am different.
|
|
|
Post by M4Madness on Mar 2, 2016 13:27:44 GMT -5
My complaint with the DNR is that they admitted in writing that HPR's posed NO safety or herd management issues, yet still pulled a proposal that they themselves labeled a social issue. If it is simply a social issue, it should have been allowed even if it were a thousand to one against, since the one does not affect the thousand from a social standpoint. Throw in that the proponents and opponents were pretty well split at 50/50, a 1000+ commenters who were for HPR's should have been sufficient. Me personally I don't ever want to see a hunting law or regulation passed that is 50/50 split, no matter where I am on it personally. If 2/3 for a change, than I think they'd (IDNR) better ever surefire reasons why not to. Percentages shouldn't even be a consideration on a fair chase social issue. If it harms no one or the herd, pass it.
|
|
|
Post by bart1533 on Mar 2, 2016 14:02:17 GMT -5
Me personally I don't ever want to see a hunting law or regulation passed that is 50/50 split, no matter where I am on it personally. If 2/3 for a change, than I think they'd (IDNR) better ever surefire reasons why not to. Percentages shouldn't even be a consideration on a fair chase social issue. If it harms no one or the herd, pass it.
|
|
|
Post by tynimiller on Mar 2, 2016 15:09:07 GMT -5
Me personally I don't ever want to see a hunting law or regulation passed that is 50/50 split, no matter where I am on it personally. If 2/3 for a change, than I think they'd (IDNR) better ever surefire reasons why not to. Percentages shouldn't even be a consideration on a fair chase social issue. If it harms no one or the herd, pass it. Okay so if a bill was put forth or the DNR decided to cut the firearm season in half....you'd support it? It doesn't harm anyone or the herd so pass it? I get them stating it was a social issue concern..they should have said their consitituents are too split to change anything on the subject of HPRs in my opinion. I've said all along though the DNR made this bed though by allowing HPRs through handguns but not long guns and allowing wildcat rounds which are equivalent...
|
|
|
Post by bonecollector23 on Mar 2, 2016 15:14:21 GMT -5
It is amazing to me how many people actually want HPR's. I think it is a ridiculous idea. Why would anyone need a HPR to shoot a deer. I personally wont feel safe knowing that I am surrounded by individuals with HPRs. We have too many hunters per square mile in Indiana for hprs. I am in west central Indiana and I don't see using a hprs as a logical decision. We have a declining population in my area and why not make it easier for people to shoot deer. I am completely against this bill. It needs to die ASAP. Nothing good would come from introducing more high powered rifles in Indiana. Have you actually done any research into HPR's, or are just just assuming they are so much more dangerous? Are you aware of the results of the study PA commissioned several years back? Are you aware of the terrain in Pennsylvania. Yes, It is not the same as here. I don't think you can compare us to them or even kentucky to us. Those seem to be the go to. Our area is much flatter which means a bullet will fly much further before hitting an object and coming to rest. Also, open hard dirt can and will cause a bullet on a flat trajectory to deflect.
|
|
|
Post by oldhoyt on Mar 2, 2016 15:18:11 GMT -5
In general, I agree with this: "If it harms no one or the herd, pass it", when it is also true that folks operating under the current rules would not get screwed.
Shortening the season screws folks over. Allowing rifles has no effect on folks that don't want to use them.
|
|
|
Post by bonecollector23 on Mar 2, 2016 15:19:53 GMT -5
It is amazing to me how many people actually want HPR's. I think it is a ridiculous idea. Why would anyone need a HPR to shoot a deer. I personally wont feel safe knowing that I am surrounded by individuals with HPRs. We have too many hunters per square mile in Indiana for hprs. I am in west central Indiana and I don't see using a hprs as a logical decision. We have a declining population in my area and why not make it easier for people to shoot deer. I am completely against this bill. It needs to die ASAP. Nothing good would come from introducing more high powered rifles in Indiana. Do you feel safe knowing that there are hunters out there using those same HPR's for varmints? Maybe the people that are on the "for" side of the fence should look at the bills passing in a different light. When it's proven that there isn't a massacre of the deer herd in the southern part of the state, and when it's shown that there are massive hunter die offs from being shot by dangerous HPR's, then that will open the door for it to become legal in the rest of the state. For me personally? I'm happy that it passed for no other reason than if it's signed into law it will mean that purple paint will be legal to use to mark property boundaries. Since I don't hunt the southern part of the state, the other parts of the bill doesn't pertain to me. Now I'll go continue the research on a specialty pistol that I can use on the few private properties that I can hunt. For all the rest of my "firearm" deer hunting I will continue to use my Savage Muzzleloader. I am also not in the southern part of the state. This will not immediately affect me. I like that people are willing to roll the dice and see if accidents or property damage occur before deciding if HPRs should be legalized. That makes total sense. I don't think you will see a massacre of deer in the southern half of the state like you would in the northern. The majority of the southern half of the state has a higher percentage of wooded area. Obviously rifles aren't any better in the woods. However, here a deer runs to the other side of the field and now it is no longer safe at 400 yards or further. I don't judge people for wanting this and I won't be an I told you so either but I strongly feel that this is a major mistake.
|
|
|
Post by bonecollector23 on Mar 2, 2016 15:21:44 GMT -5
It is amazing to me how many people actually want HPR's. I think it is a ridiculous idea. Why would anyone need a HPR to shoot a deer. I personally wont feel safe knowing that I am surrounded by individuals with HPRs. We have too many hunters per square mile in Indiana for hprs. I am in west central Indiana and I don't see using a hprs as a logical decision. We have a declining population in my area and why not make it easier for people to shoot deer. I am completely against this bill. It needs to die ASAP. Nothing good would come from introducing more high powered rifles in Indiana. Do you feel safe knowing that there are hunters out there using those same HPR's for varmints? Maybe the people that are on the "for" side of the fence should look at the bills passing in a different light. When it's proven that there isn't a massacre of the deer herd in the southern part of the state, and when it's shown that there are massive hunter die offs from being shot by dangerous HPR's, then that will open the door for it to become legal in the rest of the state. For me personally? I'm happy that it passed for no other reason than if it's signed into law it will mean that purple paint will be legal to use to mark property boundaries. Since I don't hunt the southern part of the state, the other parts of the bill doesn't pertain to me. Now I'll go continue the research on a specialty pistol that I can use on the few private properties that I can hunt. For all the rest of my "firearm" deer hunting I will continue to use my Savage Muzzleloader. You can't compare varmint hunters to the weekend warriors during firearms season. Some people are good with weapons. Others are not. You might have 1 varmint hunter for 100+ deer hunters.
|
|
|
Post by tynimiller on Mar 2, 2016 15:33:35 GMT -5
My only personal opinion on it is if we are going to allow them we restrict live round counts across the board. Waterfowlers been doing it for years just fine.
|
|
|
Post by bonecollector23 on Mar 2, 2016 15:33:45 GMT -5
Have you actually done any research into HPR's, or are just just assuming they are so much more dangerous? Are you aware of the results of the study PA commissioned several years back? ....some people are just stuck in the box....with no windows. .. How many of you guys drive down the road and see a truck or more parked on every piece of property and can see orange hats from the road on opening weekend? Now picture 75% of those hunters with larger caliber rifles. How is that not raising the risks of property damage or some sort of accident? You guys are the blind ones. You see a new rifle in your hand and can picture shooting that trophy and 8 does in your county from 300+ yards. Well maybe you are a responsible hunter and you are aware of the shot and anything that could possibly be behind your target. You are in the minority i promise. The majority people don't have a clue what is beyond their target. This is what worries me. I live in the country. I have livestock. Our properties average about 50-100 acres of mostly flat ground per owner with multiple hunters on each. I am not trying to steer anyone from whatever side of the fence you are on but instead expressing concerns. No one is concerned about the hunters and landowners. Their concerns are only increasing money flow from more sales and decreasing the deer population so there are less accidents with cars.
|
|
|
Post by jjas on Mar 2, 2016 15:37:18 GMT -5
Bonecollector23
Why do I have a feeling that you don't care much for the firearms season regardless of equipment used?
Am I right or wrong?
|
|
|
Post by lawrencecountyhunter on Mar 2, 2016 15:51:32 GMT -5
I don't really understand why magazine restrictions are needed now. ARs of various calibers have been allowed for years. I'd be willing to bet the vast majority of HPRs hitting the woods will be $200-300 budget bolt guns.
I often hunt with an AR, but use a 5 round magazine. I just don't care for silly, unnecessary restrictions.
|
|
|
Post by bart1533 on Mar 2, 2016 16:13:18 GMT -5
Maybe it just the fact I like to use a few guns that was left to me from my grandfather other that shooting steel or paper. If it doesn't pertain to u then why u so concerned. Keep doing what u do.
|
|
|
Post by bart1533 on Mar 2, 2016 16:31:28 GMT -5
I don't really understand why magazine restrictions are needed now. ARs of various calibers have been allowed for years. I'd be willing to bet the vast majority of HPRs hitting the woods will be $200-300 budget bolt guns. I often hunt with an AR, but use a 5 round magazine. I just don't care for silly, unnecessary restrictions. No different than guys going out with 200-300 dollar H&R setups in pistol calipers now. What's cost of a firearm have to do with u taking game. If that's what u can afford and u are on point. I say have at it.
|
|
|
Post by lawrencecountyhunter on Mar 2, 2016 16:35:56 GMT -5
I don't really understand why magazine restrictions are needed now. ARs of various calibers have been allowed for years. I'd be willing to bet the vast majority of HPRs hitting the woods will be $200-300 budget bolt guns. I often hunt with an AR, but use a 5 round magazine. I just don't care for silly, unnecessary restrictions. No different than guys going out with 200-300 dollar H&R setups in pistol calipers now. What's cost of a firearm have to do with u taking game. If that's what u can afford and u are on point. I say have at it. You completely missed my point.
|
|