High-powered rifle bill triggers opposition

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.

http://www.southbendtribune.com/new...1730ea3-8020-5813-806a-414582b19f42.html

"...Michigan, but two years ago started allowing high-powered rifles statewide and have seen no increase in accidents....."

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own set of facts.

Im a fan of it in some ways. My small statured son can now easily shoot a .243. He wont be taking 300 yard shots, but now he isnt limited to a 410 or a muzzy with 50 grains of powder.

you might check out the Ruger american youth/compact model for him.

http://www.ruger.com/products/americanRifleCompact/models.html

I have the full size American in .243 and it shoots 1 inch groups at 100 yds no problem with factory ammo.

Thanks im looking at that and the remington 783 right now.

I would also reccomend you check out the savage 93 with accu trigger. I don't think you go wrong with this one or the American rifle.

I meant the axis not the 93

https://www.cheaperthandirt.com/pro...ish-3-9x40mm-scope-19230-011356192301.do

Ruger American compact/youth model
http://www.budsgunshop.com/catalog/product_info.php/products_id/84840/Ruger+AMER-C+243+18+MTBLK

Y'all been using .72 and .615 caliber rifles for years...... Smh at those all butthurt over the new regs

:rolleyes:

I'm amazed at those who don't see a problem with big $$ and ".gov" dictating how our wildlife resources are regulated.


But...."hunt on" (while you still can)

Now that's something worth griping about

I agree with that weed. The fact they can just make happen what they want doesn't bode well for the future of hunting.

Why even have a dnr if the politicians are going to run the boat ??

Future scapegoat

They didn't listen to DNR anyway We now have Deer Farmers Going to pop up every where you have Amish , And I expect Kill Pens In counties that draw the most aHunters will soon be available and Now HPR All Politically Approved without the DNRs approval

Until we can get the entitled pukes off their azzez and to the polls....nothing will change.

But looking at what's going on in the big scheme of things.....looks like we're screwed no matter how we slice it.

This State might as well go (full retard and pass a baiting law next).....

You never go full retard.... I love that movie.

THIS!

Just remember folks, this isn't the first time a group of people didn't like the DNR answer and involved politicians to run interference. This ball started rolling about five years ago....and has picked up steam.

When compared to 5+ years ago, this is a much different situation.

Back then, decisions were being made by professionals with input from a limited number of groups and MAJOR changes were being proposed to the deer season. I felt the proposal that resulted from that process favored a certain segment of deer hunters while penalizing another, AND that my voice wasn't being represented. So I tried to get more involved, encouraged others to do the same, and pushed for more public input. Did I contact the DNR, the NRC, my representatives and anyone else I felt was in a position of authority in this state and voice my opinion on the subject matter?

Yes I did, and I would do it again in a similar situation....

Last year, when the DNR brought up hpr inclusion, it went through the process. Public input was taken and while the input proved to be nearly 50/50 for/against, the powers that be apparently felt like there were enough concerns to shelve the idea and did just that. Did I fight it? In a word, No. I felt the process was fair, the public gave their input, a decision was made and I respected that decision.

Do I agree with the legislature pushing hprs through like this? Absolutely not. I don't know anyone that wants the DNR and/or Hoosier residents circumvented in this manner. Now we have a list of 5 "approved calibers" that has lead to confusion and needs to be clarified. Does the list of 5 mean, .243 Winchester, 30-30 Winchester, 30-06 Springfield, .308 Winchester and .300 Win mag only? Or (for example) does .300 include other calibers such as .300 RUM?

Finally...we can continue along this path of bow hunters vs gun hunters, trophy hunters vs meat hunters, one forum vs another, and continue to have p*ssing contests over equipment choices that breed hard feelings....Or we could try and find some common ground and work together on things that many hunters are concerned about like hunter access, antlerless bag limits, and the fact that the DNR is horribly understaffed.

Will that happen? I hope so, but with the public input process beginning again...who knows....

Don't hold your breath.

Five years ago, the DNR responded to a legislative ultimatum. That "limited number of groups" which tends to get thrown under the bus in these discussions, stood up to the legislature on behalf of the DNR in order for that response to even be possible. That's where the differences stop IMO.

The DNR communicated a deer management plan. The opposition chose to enlist the "help" of politicians to shut the DNR plan down ....and it worked.

Last year, the DNR said no to HPR's. The opposition chose to enlist the "help" of politicians to get the DNR decision reversed...and it worked.

Bottom line is...one time just became two. Guess where it goes from here? Indiana isn't the first state to put game management in the hands of politicians...and probably won't be the last. I just find it very ironic that it was Hoosier hunters who sent out the invites and hung up the welcome signs.

Just wait until the results of deer pens start rearing it's ugly head.

According to your own statement....

"Five years ago, the DNR responded to a legislative ultimatum. That "limited number of groups" which tends to get thrown under the bus in these discussions, stood up to the legislature on behalf of the DNR in order for that response to even be possible."

So in actuality, the legislature was poised to come in the door regardless and hardly required anyone to "invite" them in.

As a matter of fact, many say that members of the legislature were the driving force for the inclusion of handguns chambered in standard hpr calibers several years prior to the time frame we are discussing.

Deer pens...CWD....what say you?

I'm not a fan, don't support and would never frequent high fence hunting preserves. As a matter of fact, I don't like the idea of deer farms either. But based on what I've read, the preserve issue has been decided in the courts and it's no longer a matter of IF these places will be around, it's an issue of what happens in these places in the future.

Just the thought of CWD in the state is obviously very concerning for all of us and unfortunately, I have a feeling that if it occurs the taxpayers are going to be stuck having to deal with it.

So...we all will have to pay to clean up CWD? Why not just the fools who lobbied for it and won?? Why not the big $$ fools who asked for this mess?? Doesn't this pizz you off...just a little bit?

Since 1969 when I first deer hunted, I've seen predictions of absolute and total annihilation of the deer heard and extreme danger of the hunters due to regulation changes. Changes like - compounds, special muzzle-loading season, inline muzzle loaders, smokeless muzzle loaders, center fire handguns, rifle cartridges in handguns, depredation permits, antlerless permits, limited center fire rifle and now an expanded center fire rifle. The deer don't seem to mind, they just keep making more. Deer hunting has progressed from a limited experience (had to drive two counties away to see deer) to one of significant economic impact (guns, blinds, stands, scents, camo, ammo, movies, food plots, transportation, leases...). Yes, deer hunting is about the buck$.

Does it "pizz" me off? Of course, and I contacted my "elected representatives" and the Governor over this matter on several occasions over the years, but in the end, it was decided by the courts and the state lost.

I thought I had read somewhere that these places were supposed to pay into a fund that was to be used to deal with disease issues. I don't know if that is correct or how much money is to be put into the fund. If it does exist, will it be enough to cover the "clean up"? I highly doubt it and that's why I said in the end, the taxpayers will likely be on the hook for some of it.

Perhaps someone who is more familiar with the bill that passed will have a more complete grasp of the situation than I do and can fill in the blanks.

From Senate Enrolled Act 109:

Sec. 16. (a) The captive cervidae programs fund is established.
The board may use money in the fund to pay the expenses of:
(1) administering IC 15-17-14.5 and this chapter; and
(2) implementing programs to control diseases in cervidae
authorized under this article.
(b) The fund shall be administered by the board.
(c) The fund consists of all fees collected under this chapter.
(d) The expenses of administering the fund shall be paid from
money in the fund.
(e) The treasurer ofstate shall invest the money in the fund not
currently needed to meet the obligations of the fund in the same
manner as other public money may be invested. Interest that
accrues from these investments shall be deposited in the fund.
(f) Money in the fund at the end of a state fiscal year does not
revert to the state general fund.

Thanks for the info, HatchetJack.

I don't think there would be enough money in that account to handle a single outbreak of TB much less CWD if it happened in the first couple of years. Then they would start using money from other sources perhaps even DNR funds.

We done been down the TB road..... Anyone want to guess where it started???

Coming soon to a farm near you

This is bullcrap.....

There's always the chance funds would come from the Dept of Ag (BOAH) but manpower etc. could easily be directed from DNR to prevent spread of disease. During the TB outbreak of 2009 many deer were taken outside the high fence to determine if disease had spread. DNR CO's shot those deer and paid for the sample analysis. Right now I don't know if there is any plan for this scenario other than the old DNR plan.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by jjas:
So in actuality, the legislature was poised to come in the door regardless and hardly required anyone to "invite" them in.[/QUOTE

The legislature has always been a presence of course. But for decades, involved sportsmen (acting in support of the DNR) were pretty darned successful in keeping the Indiana legislature at bay regarding game management issues.

Five years ago, some sportsmen took it upon themselves to enlist political influence against the DNR on a game management issue. Whether these people are willing to admit it or not, they set a new precedence in this state...and the proof was just signed by the governor.

The way I see it, those guilty of involving politicians in deer management five years ago, have absolutely zero right to complain about what just went down with HPR's. All the HPR crowd did was follow the leader.

Don't expect it to stop. The door is off the hinges. Everybody is going to have to adjust to the new playing field....pathetic as that is.

Sorry for the rant...but none of it sits right with me...as I've generally been in favor of reducing the scope of government whenever and where ever possible.

PAV The legislature has always been a presence of course. But for decades, involved sportsmen (acting in support of the DNR) were pretty darned successful in keeping the Indiana legislature at bay regarding game management issues. Five years ago, some sportsmen took it upon themselves to enlist political influence against the DNR on a game management issue.


The reality is I didn't feel my position was represented by any of the "groups" involved in the sweeping changes of the first proposal, which left me feeling like I had zero say in any of it. On top of that, many were saying it was a "done deal", so I felt there was no other avenue for me than to let the DNR, NRC and my elected representatives know how I felt about it before it was adopted. Do I regret that? No....and if that type of citizen involvement kicked the legs out from under the DNR, then it's painfully apparent that the politicians in this state were already poised and ready to step in.

Finally, I would like to clear one thing up. For me, none of this was/is about wanting to "enlist political influence against the DNR". I respect the difficult jobs they have, especially since they are so understaffed @ this time. This was strictly about disagreeing with the proposal, not feeling represented in the process and wanting to make sure my voice was heard.

Nothing more, nothing less.


pav Nothing to apologize for. Everyone needs to let go with a good rant every now and again....LOL

Not directed towards you, Jack. I just find it ludicrous that some folks can't foresee the risks with high fence operations, placing our wild herd in jeopardy.

Oh im sure they see the risk, but I bet the care more about the $$$...

Yup.... Actually the pen owners will get paid for all there animals when a diease breaks out and the game needs killed to test them..... They have nothing to lose there getting paid both ways!

Until sportsmen band together and bring a class action lawsuit on them for destroying our herd when it happens


When, not if

the real question is how did the .270, , .240, .25-06, .280, 7mm-08 Remington, etc...get left off that list?!

Dead deer is a dead deer, does not matter which weapon killed it

We let the govt in on it. The ones that could ruin a wet dream.

From watching the meetings and conferences, the bill was originally written (".243 and up"), but it would have never passed written that way so they amended it to make it look more like a "trial" to "test the waters" of adding more rifles to the legal list.

thanks for the reply, this makes sense. Likely expand from this list down the road.

I wonder what number of incidents of property damage, injuries, or deaths will be acceptable to them? For me, my main disagreement with it is a safety issue. I hunt on 100 acres with two other hunters, surrounded by identically sized and number of hunter properties. We have almost never taken a shot past 100 yards and we harvest deer just fine every year. I don't feel there is a need to use a round that could potentially strike someone three properties over. If you are out target shooting, you're responsible for shooting with an appropriate backstop. How many people are going to only take an appropriately backstopped shot when there is a big buck in their sights or have their stand in an area where it's safe to shoot a weapon like that in every direction in their line of sight? Whether I think it’s “sporting” or not is far and away from my safety concern. No, I don’t think it is, but that is purely personal preference. I like the thrill of sitting in a ground blind and having deer come within 20ft of me; some guys prefer or enjoy just as much sighting in at a deer 200 yards away. Like has been said, dead deer is dead deer. I’m just more worried about dead or injured humans.

There are several states (KY, PA, MI, WI) that have the same general hunter density and property sizes that allow rifles without any problems. Putting a rifle in a hunter's hand doesn't make him all-of-sudden reckless and dangerous. We have to AT LEAST assume hunters follow basic hunting safety, as we have for years with shotguns, rifles, handguns and muzzleloaders.

Let's be fair about the ballistics of rifle's vs currently available ammunition now, too.

Here's a chart showing the drop of a 150gr .308 (will probably be very popular) in the "A" column, and a 300gr slug doing 2000fps in the "B" column. Both firearms zeroed at 100 yards.



Now, if the the hunter were sitting in a ground blind and shooting level, and were to miss their target, the .308 will hit the ground around 400 yards and the slug will hit the ground at around 300 yards.

Now, the .308 will lose nearly all its energy the moment it hits the ground, not making it more than a few feet after hitting the ground. It has been proven, however, that the 300gr slug will not stop near as quickly as the 150gr .308. In fact, the shotgun slug has been proven to actually ricochet so much to the point that the slug ends up past where the .308 round struck the ground.

As we know, not all shots are fired level, but are quite commonly fired at a downward angle. At even a 10 degree angle, the rifle round has less than a 0.6% chance of ricocheting. However, the slug still has over a 7% chance ricocheting.

INDIANA is the SMALLEST land mass west of the Appalachian Mountains..... Not sure how that makes us like other states :rolleyes:

Overall land mass doesn't matter if hunter density and property sizes are similar.

According to QDMA:
IN: 13-16 hunters per sq mi
WI: 17-20 hunters per sq mi
MI: 5-8 hunters per sq mi
KY: 5-8 hunters per sq mi
PA: 17-20 hunters per sq mi

The chart isn't showing up, but I'll respect the ballistics you quoted. Despite the "science" behind that way of looking at it, it just doesn't convince me. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm saying it doesn't change my mind or my opinion. I know in a 200+yd engagement with an enemy, I’d “feel” safer knowing the enemy had pump action 12 gauges rather than high powered rifles, so maybe it’s not fact based, it’s gut feeling based.

But, I'm also not sure comparing us to KY, PA, MI, and WI is an accurate comparison of the suitability of rifles for Indiana. Not only is the physical geography/topography different, I would argue that parcel size and hunter density are also not equivalent. I’m saying, from my experience, a lot of Indiana private land hunters hunt relatively small parcels where long range rounds could more easily endanger hunters in neighboring parcels. There simply are not as many 500+ acre privately owned wooded/recreational parcels in Indiana as there are in the other states you referenced. Heck, if you go on any of the three or four top land listing websites, it’s not uncommon at all to find properties with 1000+ acres for sale in those states at any given time. In Indiana, you’re hard pressed to find over 300 acre properties that are not flat agricultural.

Ever hear the term crossroads of America?

That's INDIANA ..... Just like other states? :rolleyes:

I edited my post while you were replying, but our density is fairly "median" to those other states. The topography is not really an issue when it comes to safety, as I've described in my ballistics. I could effectively make a case that "hill country" would be more dangerous for rifles than flat land.

I would agree with you but then both of us would be wrong

My job title has had the term "Analyst" in it for the last 18 years, so believe me when I say I am generally very much a "The numbers don't lie." type of person. So, if a bunch of data can be pulled from the ether to prove they're safe, then this is something I guess I'm going to have to fess up and say it's just how I "feel" about it. It's not always the numbers. A lot of science (and money and politics) have gone towards determining if global warming is real and, if so, manmade or natural, and they haven't managed to convince me either way yet!

Curiously, what don't you agree with? I've been trying to find studies, data, anything that would prove a safety concern is warranted.

I respect that. I too deal with mounds of data. So that's just how my brain works, I guess (you get it).

Whether it convinces anyone, and whether it proves true, will all just have to be proven empirically.

In Indiana where talking general population not just Hunter population big deference . I been all over the the Midwest traveling and working and Indiana is not like other states at all in many ways... IMO

Do I think someone will be shot with a HPR ... Most likely not, but rest assured there will be property damage ..IMO

So what is it about rifles that will cause these more property damage incidents?

If you can't understand that I can't help you.

Maybe someone else can guide you though them answers ....

All I needed to hear thanks

Chart I see compares a 500 s&w to 308 not a shotgun slug. I hunt with the 500 and that bullet explodes on impact I have never had a pass through and always find fragments in the deer. Doe I got last year had the copper jacket mushroomed in the heart but no lead to be found

I disagree with the No-Rifles Rule. Just like the time change. Indiana needs to get with the program. over 90% of the state is boondock farmland. It is ridiculous that the shotgun-only rule was in place, they slowly allowed rifles.

I like the new policy. In 10 years everyone here will own a 30-30, 30-06 or .308 and love using it. They are fun to have, shoot and hunt with. I love them.

:-)

The program I used only had rifle and handgun cartridges. The 300gr slug in the 12ga has the same ballistics.

Ok I use 350gr out of my 500 and when I use the shotgun I use 1oz foster slugs. Those ballistics are with sabots and rifled barrel i assume

it's a trial period, if some morons shoot at a deer on a hill top and hits a house, leading to public outcry it might very well be the end of it... It is set to sunset in 2020.

Correct.

I'm not a fan of this, but not gonna argue about something that's GOING to happen...I'll say this though:
Analyzing data statewide and averaging it all together to prove a point and move forward is pretty much how we do our deer herd...and that's exactly why in some parts of the state deer are every where and others hunters barely see any.
There are certainly places that rifles will be just fine. But we already have idiots shooting through walls of houses in subdivisions a few times per year and deer hunting with HPR's hasn't even been legal...Wait till "Joe six pack" wobbles outa walmart with his bundle license,brand new blaze orange cap, couple boxes of slugs and a cheap 30.06 and goes out in a cornfield to sight it in before it gets dark the friday before opening day.yep...multiply that by a few thousand over the next few years...Can't wait.I decided not to hunt in the gun season anymore, but I live in the country...there will be people in the tiny woodlots with 300 yard guns all around me.

HS, it not only that, but those in densely populated areas, Marion, Porter, Lake and St. Joe counties and a few others are going to have a very rude awakening... I hope this stupidity NEVER come to pass on our F&W areas.... Kingsbury and blood alley has always been a war zone, cant even imagine it with guys and 300 win.'s and others lined up on it.... god help those that try .... the herd on many F&W areas have plummeted, hate to see it if these things become legal on 'em .....

I'll stick to Krogers and Meijers....

I've probably hunted my last firearm season......just cannot deal with the stupidity anymore!!!

Made the exact same stand on opening day of the 1991 general firearms season. Loading my buck in the truck at noon I swore never again. Difficult to explain that level of aggravation following a successful hunt...but believe me, it was the real deal. It was bad enough then...without rifles.

As with most things "deer hunting" there are opposing views....

Here are two....

http://wildindiana.com/a/editorial-sky-isnt-falling-because-hb1231/

http://wildindiana.com/a/deer-rifle-controversy/

No one seems concerned that the LEGISLATURE has now stepped in and made wildlife rules!

We will "pay" for this for years!

"You" can post all the pro or con statistics you want but........ We now have lawyers making wildlife rules........SAD DAY.

I think I voiced my concerns early on with this topic, Joe. Pandoras box has been opened.

I'm as green as it gets to following legislation, so this is the first time ever that the IGA has made a law regarding hunting/fishing/etc?

If that's the case, it is concerning...

But at the same time....we can FIRE those elected officials and replace with someone more to our liking and in line with our thinking


There's always a sliver of silver

Just have to get the dead beats to the polls

A couple of points....

1. The second link addressed this very subject..

http://wildindiana.com/a/deer-rifle-controversy/

2. This is what happens when one political party holds all the power.

Please post the list of wildlife rules the IGA has made in the past...

I don't believe you understood arlowe13's comment, Brew. He was asking a question...

Does this count?
FIRST OPEN SEASON

The White-tailed Deer Investigation had progressed to the point in 1951 that we knew where the deer were, approximately how many, something of their rate of increase, and limiting factors. Many of the basic facts necessary for proper management were still unknown but it became increasingly apparent that an open hunting season was needed to scatter herds, relieve crop damage, and curb illegal kills. The 1951 population estimate was 4,943 animals, quite an increase from 1944. About 4,500 of these were in 17 counties which were believed to be ready for an open season.

The 1951 General Assembly gave the Director of the Division of Fish and Game discretionary powers to issue orders regulating the hunting and killing of deer. A hunt plan including regulations was formulated and submitted to the Director of Fish and Game.

The first open deer hunting season in 58 years was held November 1, 2, and 3, 1951. In brief, it was an "any deer" season in 17 counties, with shotgun slugs and bow and arrows only. The number of licenses sold was not limited. They were issued at a cost of five dollars to residents only. Information on the hunt was collected by compulsory return of postal card reports issued with licenses, while Pittman-Robertson personnel and conservation officers manned 6 checking stations in 5 herd areas where successful hunters were interviewed and deer examined.

Well it's good to know that when our deer herd gets down to 5000 animals we'll still have a gun season.

Thanks, Weed. Yeah, like I said, was wondering if this really was the first time the IGA had made a law concerning hunting/fishing/etc.

My curiousness led me the IGA's website. I don't know the history of these pieces of code, so I don't know how they passed with or without the DNR's "public" input.

IC 14-22-35
Requiring the department to establish a hunter safety course and the department must designate a CO to administer the program.

IC 14-22-7
Individuals may not hunt migratory waterfowl without a stamp issued by the department.

IC 14-22-8
Individuals may not hunt game birds without a stamp issued by the department.

IC 14-22-10
Individuals may not fish, hunt, trap or chase on private land without consent of landowner or tenant. Also regulates taking wild game across state borders.

IC 14-22-9
Regulates how an individual may fish (equipment restrictions) on state owned land. Also regulated minnow and crayfish handling.

IC 14-22-11
Regulates licenses and permits.

The legislature passes some laws every year that directly affect the DNR and the fish & game rules. The NRC does most of the hard work overseeing the day-to-day operation of the department. This is a special case where the NRC/DNR withdrew the original rifle proposal (which happens maybe once every few years) and the legislature picked up that proposal and turned it into law.

The controversy is not whether the legislature has that authority. Of course they do. The problem is that the DNR/NRC spent nearly a year gathering opinions and holding meetings across the state to garner an idea of what sportsmen wanted. All of that work was erased by a few folks in Indianapolis voting against what the DNR/NRC had achieved. While I have no problem with the outcome (I was the one person) to testify in the Senate hearing, I know most people cannot attended these meeting at the drop of a hat and scurry off to face legislators.

In short, it was the manner that this happened not the outcome.

Jack

P.S. I have no idea where the 5 cartridges/calibers came from. When I testified I was testifying to all .243 and above rifles. I know the author has a .243 and one of the Senators had a .300 Win Mag. Also, the NRA asked that 30-06 be added to the list.

Thanks for the post Hatchetjack.

I came across this today, clarification of the legal calibers. Definitely doesn't make any sense to me to allow certain calibers but not others.
Rifle Caliber Clarification

This is getting weird now. Never seen that clarification before, maybe another one will clarify more calibers.

This part of that article pretty much sums up the law. If the cartridge falls within these limits, it's legal.


• The rifle must have a barrel length of at least 16 inches
• The rifle cartridges must have a cartridge case length of least 1.16 inches
• The rifle cartridge must fire a bullet with a diameter that is
o .243 inches (or 6 mm); or
o .308 inches (or 7.62 mm)
• No cartridges with a bullet diameter between .243 and .308 are legal (such as the .270 Winchester)
• A hunter may not possess more than 10 such cartridges while in the field

the ruger .243 is sighted in 2 inches high at 100 yds. Good to go to 300 yds here!