|
|
Post by greghopper on Mar 24, 2016 19:13:36 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by M4Madness on Mar 24, 2016 19:20:08 GMT -5
Where can I comment? I'm not shy and will counter what I consider inaccuracies in the article. Lol!
|
|
|
|
Post by jjas on Mar 24, 2016 19:32:47 GMT -5
The body of the article...
"Indiana Gov. Mike Pence has signed into law a bill that critics say will endanger hunters and suburbanites, and possibly cut too deeply into the state's deer herd.
When deer firearms season opens for two weeks in November, hunters for the first time will be allowed to use high-powered rifles when hunting on privately owned property. Historically most Indiana deer hunters have used shotguns since the only other types of allowable long arms were muzzle loaders or rifles that fire handgun-caliber bullets.
The Indiana Department of Natural Resources last year considered making the change but decided against it after hearing heavy opposition from the public, including many hunters.
“We now have the legislature micromanaging the DNR and wildlife management and hunting methods,” said Doug Allman, spokesman for the Indiana Deer Hunters Association. “What’s next, fishing lures?”
Allman said today’s high-powered rifles can hit a deer from a half-mile away, “and if you miss, that bullet is still going.” That situation becomes increasingly dangerous as land development pushes hunters closer to highly populated suburbs.
“Rifles are allowed to be used for some animals in this state but you don’t have 250,000 hunters out there on opening weekend (of deer firearms season) shooting, sometimes at running animals,” Allman said.
South Bend deer hunter Dave Holcomb said he doesn’t like the new law and will continue using his muzzle loader or .44-caliber revolver this fall. He also has concerns about safety since Indiana has such flat terrain and high-powered rifles can shoot further distances. But he’s more worried that hunters, able to hit more deer from further away, will reduce the deer population too much.
Holcomb, 28, said he’s been hunting deer since he was 8, and last year was the first year ever that he didn’t kill a deer in either firearm or archery season. His father hasn’t gotten a buck for eight years.
“The whole idea of high-powered rifles seems asinine to a lot of guys,” Holcomb said. “I don’t see why they feel this is a necessary change.”
Holcomb’s perception that he’s seeing fewer deer would seem to be supported by the DNR’s annual deer harvest statistics. In 2014 hunters killed 120,073 deer, down 12 percent from the 136,248 bagged in 2012. In St. Joseph County the decline was even larger during that time, dropping 18 percent, from 1,415 to 1,155.
But the bill’s author, Rep. Lloyd Arnold, R-Leavenworth, said he isn’t worried about safety or overly reducing deer herds.
“We aren’t increasing the season, we aren’t increasing the deer count you can take,” Arnold said. “There are only five new calibers you can use (the .243, .30-.30, .300, .30-06 and .308), and we already have muzzle loaders that can shoot over 300 to 400 yards. I can use every one of those guns 365 days a year for any other species besides deer. Why do we have that restriction? It doesn’t make sense.”
Arnold noted that the bill directs the DNR to study effects of the change in 2020, and he vowed to reverse it if critics' fears are realized.
Of the 43 states with reportable whitetail deer harvests, Indiana had been one of nine that didn’t allow high-power rifles, said Dan Schmidt, editor-in-chief of Iola, Wis.-based Deer & Deer Hunting, the world’s oldest and largest deer hunting magazine. Indiana formerly joined Iowa, Illinois and Ohio in banning high-powered rifles because of flat topography. Five others have it because of their higher population density — Maryland, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Delaware. Michigan allows high-powered rifles for deer only in the northern part of the state, which has more hills.
Schmidt said he doesn’t expect more injuries and significantly more deer taken under the new law because that hasn’t happened in states that have made the change. His native Wisconsin formerly was divided, like Michigan, but two years ago started allowing high-powered rifles statewide and have seen no increase in accidents, Schmidt said.
Pence also angered hunting and conservation groups this week when he signed a bill that formally legalizes the existing practice of hunting deer in preserves that are enclosed by 8-foot fences, derided as “canned hunting” by critics.
The DNR had tried for 10 years to ban the preserves but lost a court case in February, paving the way for the legislation."
As far as the preserves go, I'll borrow a quote from someone on this forum who said "The politicians didn't have much choice in the "canned shooting bill". The court had already sided with the deer shooting pens."
As for the rest of the article...I don't know if I'll purchase an hpr or not, but if I do it will be because of factors such as better bullet construction, better accuracy and lesser chance of wounding due to that accuracy (and less bullet drop and drift) and not the tripe of the fear mongers who say it's because I want to shoot deer from "a half-mile away".
|
|
|
|
Post by bart1533 on Mar 24, 2016 20:06:31 GMT -5
Jeff parrott. If u r read this. UR A IDIOT...LOL..
|
|
|
|
Post by firstwd on Mar 24, 2016 22:13:50 GMT -5
What's that line?
How cute, you can hit a goofball 300 yards. I can hit a goofball AT 300 yards.
|
|
|
|
Post by boman on Mar 24, 2016 23:01:58 GMT -5
I like the part where Doug Allman is represented as "the spokesperson for the Ind. deer hunters assoc.". Last I heard the association, or what's left of it, didn't have a stand on rifles. Pretty sure Doug is a spokesperson for Doug  Steve |
|
|
|
Post by drs on Mar 25, 2016 4:49:31 GMT -5
I knew this issue would surface sooner or later. We use high powered rifles here in Kentucky, for hunting Deer, and our Deer herd population hasn't suffered or declined at all. As for safety reasons, Folks not wanting to allow H.P. Rifles, you have to remember that Indiana is flatter in most areas than Kentucky, plus the "people" population is much higher in Indiana; with housing subdivisions going up "left & right" each year. One shooting incident, like a bullet going through a home or cattle being shot, will weigh heavy against the continued use of H.P. rifles in Indiana. My feeling is, a lot of private property owners won't allow their use or will stop hunting on their property all together. I am afraid it's going to become a real messy issue. |
|
|
|
Post by M4Madness on Mar 25, 2016 5:10:56 GMT -5
As for safety reasons, Folks not wanting to allow H.P. Rifles, you have to remember that Indiana is flatter in most areas than Kentucky, plus the "people" population is much higher in Indiana; with housing subdivisions going up "left & right" each year. One shooting incident, like a bullet going through a home or cattle being shot, will weigh heavy against the continued use of H.P. rifles in Indiana. My feeling is, a lot of private property owners won't allow their use or will stop hunting on their property all together. I am afraid it's going to become a real messy issue. All the people shot here in Indiana with deer slugs over the years certainly hasn't caused a ban on shotgun hunting. Banning HPR's due to an accident would be discrimination. Lol! As for northern Indiana being too flat, everyone has that issue totally backwards. Flat ground is where HPR's are safer. The Army study Pennsylvania contracted plainly stated that the only time that HPR's posed a greater threat than slug guns in a deer hunting scenario were if they were fired at a greater than 30 degree upward angle. Obviously on flat ground, shots will be level (ground hunting) or less than level (treestand). Look at all the flat country out west where rifles are used. Hill country is where the threat would be, if someone were to be at the bottom of a hill shooting upwards at a skylined deer. So, they need to say that Indiana is too hilly for HPR's. Lol! Population cannot be argued either, as rifle hunting is allowed in England, and they have a very large amount of people crammed into that country and do quite well. And I'm sure we have some densely populated rifle states here as well. My biggest beef with the article is the flat out lie that rifles have never been legal in Indiana before due to safety concerns. Safety had NO bearing on shotguns being chosen in 1951. |
|
|
|
Post by firstwd on Mar 25, 2016 5:30:00 GMT -5
As for safety reasons, Folks not wanting to allow H.P. Rifles, you have to remember that Indiana is flatter in most areas than Kentucky, plus the "people" population is much higher in Indiana; with housing subdivisions going up "left & right" each year. One shooting incident, like a bullet going through a home or cattle being shot, will weigh heavy against the continued use of H.P. rifles in Indiana. My feeling is, a lot of private property owners won't allow their use or will stop hunting on their property all together. I am afraid it's going to become a real messy issue. All the people shot here in Indiana with deer slugs over the years certainly hasn't caused a ban on shotgun hunting. Banning HPR's due to an accident would be discrimination. Lol! As for northern Indiana being too flat, everyone has that issue totally backwards. Flat ground is where HPR's are safer. The Army study Pennsylvania contracted plainly stated that the only time that HPR's posed a greater threat than slug guns in a deer hunting scenario were if they were fired at a greater than 30 degree upward angle. Obviously on flat ground, shots will be level (ground hunting) or less than level (treestand). Look at all the flat country out west where rifles are used. Hill country is where the threat would be, if someone were to be at the bottom of a hill shooting upwards at a skylined deer. So, they need to say that Indiana is too hilly for HPR's. Lol! Population cannot be argued either, as rifle hunting is allowed in England, and they have a very large amount of people crammed into that country and do quite well. And I'm sure we have some densely populated rifle states here as well. My biggest beef with the article is the flat out lie that rifles have never been legal in Indiana before due to safety concerns. Safety had NO bearing on shotguns being chosen in 1951. I just wish they would have pointed out that rifle rounds have been successfully safely used for decades. The fact that they are still used with so few people's knowledge tells me there has been no accidents to blow up over. |
|
|
|
Post by M4Madness on Mar 25, 2016 5:43:52 GMT -5
That's another issue with the article. No one can argue that .358 WSSM and .358 Hoosier cartridges aren't in the same class as the .308 Winchester, yet there was no mention that these two HPR's have been deer legal for 9 years now and no one has been killed eating breakfast, nor have any hunters been shot. We DID have a hunter in Indiana shot in the face with a deer slug just this last season though.
|
|
|
|
Post by drs on Mar 25, 2016 5:56:59 GMT -5
As for safety reasons, Folks not wanting to allow H.P. Rifles, you have to remember that Indiana is flatter in most areas than Kentucky, plus the "people" population is much higher in Indiana; with housing subdivisions going up "left & right" each year. One shooting incident, like a bullet going through a home or cattle being shot, will weigh heavy against the continued use of H.P. rifles in Indiana. My feeling is, a lot of private property owners won't allow their use or will stop hunting on their property all together. I am afraid it's going to become a real messy issue. All the people shot here in Indiana with deer slugs over the years certainly hasn't caused a ban on shotgun hunting. Banning HPR's due to an accident would be discrimination. Lol! As for northern Indiana being too flat, everyone has that issue totally backwards. Flat ground is where HPR's are safer. The Army study Pennsylvania contracted plainly stated that the only time that HPR's posed a greater threat than slug guns in a deer hunting scenario were if they were fired at a greater than 30 degree upward angle. Obviously on flat ground, shots will be level (ground hunting) or less than level (treestand). Look at all the flat country out west where rifles are used. Hill country is where the threat would be, if someone were to be at the bottom of a hill shooting upwards at a skylined deer. So, they need to say that Indiana is too hilly for HPR's. Lol! Population cannot be argued either, as rifle hunting is allowed in England, and they have a very large amount of people crammed into that country and do quite well. And I'm sure we have some densely populated rifle states here as well. My biggest beef with the article is the flat out lie that rifles have never been legal in Indiana before due to safety concerns. Safety had NO bearing on shotguns being chosen in 1951. It's unfortunate that the general public can't equate that H.P. rifles are no more dangerous or safe than shotgun slugs. It's the "Shooter" that plays a larger role in the safety of either. Folks, especially non-hunting Suburbanites, are afraid of high powered rifles, due to their lack of knowledge. They still and most likely will always believe that "short range" shotgun slugs, P.C.R.'s and Muzzle loaders are safer than High Powered rifles. With Indiana's growing population of immigrants (legal or illegal) this rifle use issue will be under scrutiny as to safety. You can also blame the "Liberal media" demonizing firearms in general, plus an ignorant public that believe all that liberal media crap. |
|
|
|
Post by drs on Mar 25, 2016 6:01:26 GMT -5
That's another issue with the article. No one can argue that .358 WSSM and .358 Hoosier cartridges aren't in the same class as the .308 Winchester, yet there was no mention that these two HPR's have been deer legal for 9 years now and no one has been killed eating breakfast, nor have any hunters been shot. We DID have a hunter in Indiana shot in the face with a deer slug just this last season though. Your .358 W.S.S.M. and .358 Hoosier are in the same class as a .308 Winchester. Only difference is the diameter of their bullets, and the reason they are currently legal to use is their "case length" and "Bullet Diameter" being over .357". |
|
|
|
Post by dbd870 on Mar 25, 2016 7:43:55 GMT -5
Another issue that proves the old adage - repeat a lie often enough and people will believe it
|
|
|
|
Post by jjas on Mar 25, 2016 8:34:00 GMT -5
A person on another forum made this point and I felt it was a very good one....
Here's the opening line of the article...
"Indiana Gov. Mike Pence has signed into law a bill that critics say will endanger hunters and suburbanites, and possibly cut too deeply into the state's deer herd."
Farther into the article, this is offered...
Dan Schmidt, editor of Deer and Deer Hunting magazine was quoted as saying....
"Schmidt said he doesn’t expect more injuries and significantly more deer taken under the new law because that hasn’t happened in states that have made the change. His native Wisconsin formerly was divided, but two years ago started allowing high-powered rifles statewide and have seen no increase in accidents, Schmidt said."
|
|
|
|
Post by boman on Mar 25, 2016 8:34:51 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by steiny on Mar 25, 2016 8:51:18 GMT -5
I'd jump on the opposition bandwagon if I thought it would do any good, but it's too late.
Definitely not in favor of this change.
There has been a real trend Indiana in the last twenty years or so toward making deer hunting easier to attract more license buyers. May sound selfish, but I wish they'd have kept things a little tougher. Too many hunters around here now as is. You can't find a woodlot that doesn't have a few orange coats in it during firearms season.
|
|
|
|
Post by M4Madness on Mar 25, 2016 9:00:43 GMT -5
You live in the north, steiny?
|
|
|
|
Post by jjas on Mar 25, 2016 9:16:48 GMT -5
I'd jump on the opposition bandwagon if I thought it would do any good, but it's too late. Definitely not in favor of this change. There has been a real trend Indiana in the last twenty years or so toward making deer hunting easier to attract more license buyers. May sound selfish, but I wish they'd have kept things a little tougher. Too many hunters around here now as is. You can't find a woodlot that doesn't have a few orange coats in it during firearms season. A obr, new equipment choices, positive press in the hunting magazines, plenty of "book bucks", cheap over the counter out of state tags and (when compared to many surrounding states) reasonable land and leasing prices, have all combined to push Indiana onto the radar screens of both new in-state and out of state hunters. Throw in this quote from the 2014 harvest report... Hunters who purchased regular annual deer hunting licenses (resident plus non-resident) took only 55% of the total deer harvest; other individuals using discounted licenses or exemptions (i.e., Lifetime license holders, Youth license holders, landowners/tenants, and active-duty military personnel) took 45% of the total harvest. ...and it's not too difficult to see why generating income is a priority with the IDNR. Doesn't make finding hunting spots any easier, but it's the wave of the future. People are willing to spend crazy amounts of money on deer hunting equipment and land. Unfortunately for Hoosier residents, unless we are willing to "pay to play", I'm afraid many of us will end up like residents of states like Iowa and Illinois and will be on the outside looking in. |
|
|
|
Post by hatchetjack on Mar 25, 2016 10:12:29 GMT -5
I like the part where Doug Allman is represented as "the spokesperson for the Ind. deer hunters assoc.". Last I heard the association, or what's left of it, didn't have a stand on rifles. Pretty sure Doug is a spokesperson for Doug Steve Doug is still a spokesman for the Indiana Deer Hunters Association and the Indiana Sportsmens Roundtable. Jack |
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Mar 25, 2016 11:11:34 GMT -5
Knowing Doug he would not state an untrue position of any group he is speaking for. Now whether he was saying this as the spokesperson for the group or whether the author just threw that in is an unanswered question.
I do know that the President of the IDHA, Joe Bacon, has stated publically in favor of HPRs..
|
|
