New rule proposal to legalize center fire rifles to be made

I have learned that a new Rule Proposal is going to be made next week to allow center fire rifles of .243 and higher to be legal for Indiana deer hunting. The rule could not go into effect earlier than 2015 at the earliest.

The source of this new rule proposal comes from public comments which were taken in various forums over the past.

The proposal will go to Public Comment in the next several weeks, and depending upon that public comment feedback a final adoption meeting would be scheduled for sometime next year is my best guess.

Again, this is a RULE PROPOSAL. It will need to go through public comment periods and formal adoption hearings before it would be finalized. The purpose of this email is to inform hunters to that they can be prepared to comment should they choose to do so. Instructions for how to comment will be forthcoming from IDNR. You can also visit their website www.dnr.in.gov periodically to check if they have this information out there yet.

Thanks Gene...they will get an ear full from me, that I promise.....

This is a "no brainer"!


All you need to do is lookat the past, we fought the pistol being added and was told it would be limited. You can see how that worked, a IDNR employee wanted to use "his" .243 and rule was changed. We have muzzleloaders with modern bullets and powders......... 300 yard shots are now possible . You then add the crossbow, again adding a tool that extends range......... Shotguns regularly kill at 150 yards.....

I have no problem with centerfire, let's get them in the game. There is no/0/ZERO difference in accident rates. Let's all play on an even playing field.

Set the rules, let people choose their "tool" of choice and " let's kill deer" no sport left it is all about our personal ego..........

I've got a .300 WSM just waiting to be my herd control tool...........


Before you choose to write in opposition............. think of PR moneies from the sale of a new tool to kill deer......

Don't be a "Hater" we all need to supportr the "other guys" choice, How does his choice of "tool" affect you? Same arguement as supplied by the Crossbow industry.........

Let's be all inclusive, set a bag limit and a single season .......... when ya killed your limit you are done, use all the tools available........ then the REAL deer hunters can hunt what is left............

Anyone want to look at the revenue stream for government?????????

Follow the money.........

I want to see the wildcat guys chime in here, YOU decided to push the limits on rules, be it pistols or PCR's........... NOW all of your efforts are gone as well as profits from the "wildcat" rounds. I can purchase or reload my rounds for the new centerfire regs. Choke on that .458............... The venerable 30-06 will always reign as caliber of choice.

please define REAL deer hunter

not going there............lol

Everyone defines it differently but I do believe there are those who go out just to shoot a deer vs. those who go out and hunt a specific deer and there is a difference in my definition. For instance, many years ago I would have considered myself a "real" trapper. This year I"m going to do a little trapping but I certainly would say that I am now more so going to do some trapping but compared to "real" trappers (like Yaz, 76, Gilley, Bean, HH and others) I am certainly not a "real" trapper. And honestly, I wouldn't care or be offended if anyone were to suggest I wasn't a "real" trapper because I don't but in the time, effort or analytics that others do.

a "real" trapper is anyone who sets traps. Just like a "real" deer hunter is one who hunts deer. Just because they do it different or have different goals doesnt make them less real or important.


I never thought any less of a hobby trapper when I was trapping for a living. Dont think any less of a weekend deer hunter when I live to hunt deer either.


to each his own

x2 h.h.

I certainly agree that no one is less important then the other or in the simple sense of hunting are they any less real in the aspect of the end result. And I"m fine with the to each his own within the legal constraints established. But I still think there is a difference in the total aspect of engagement and challenge.

I guess for me it would be easier to define what a deer hunter is NOT. For instance - a poacher IMO is not a true deer hunter. Also a person who does not prepare properly enough or respect the animal enough to sight in their gun. Lots of different types of deer hunters and that's cool but there are many who would not wear the title of a true deer hunter.

Just my .02

+1

Were not the proposals supposed to be posted soon???

Check out the new proposals here:
http://www.in.gov/dnr/fishwild/2362.htm

For the full text (not summary) of the proposed changes please go to:
http://www.in.gov/dnr/fishwild/files/fw-DNR_General_FW_Proposed_Rules.pdf

Public Comments
A public hearing has not yet been scheduled. More information will be available at a later date regarding the submission of comments and the public hearing(s).

The rule language will be presented to the Natural Resources Commission for preliminary adoption at their meeting on September 16, 2014. Public comments cannot be submitted to the Natural Resources Commission for this rule package at this time. We will let you know once the public comment period starts. For questions or for more information, send an email to dfwinput@dnr.in.gov

Did I see this correct 243 cal min, a min. case length NO max Case length Would This would make most HPR,s legal

Yes. That's what it says.

I think our darn DNR can screw up a wet dream at times....like there isnt enough deer killed already, this may increase the kill even more..... also who the heck, cares about safety anyway...seems our DNR dosnt....even our head deer biologist isnt for this proposal........

if you research the facts, hpr are safer than slugs from a 12 ga.

the kill will not increase, just the different means by which to harvest a deer. Nobody will kill any MORE deer than they already do.

That same wore out argument was used against compounds, then inlines, then pistol rounds in lever guns, then crossbows.....


If YOU personally want a greater deer hunting challenge then i invite you to pick up a recurve, longbow, selfbow, flintlock, caplock....whatever trips YOUR trigger. AND QUIT WORRYING ABOUT WHAT YOUR NEIGHBOR HUNTS WITH OR WHAT HE/SHE DECIDES TO HARVEST.

MY .02

The interesting part with be whether the DNR allows the rifles in our State Parks.

Squirrels,,rabbits,,doves,,,and fish are much easier to carry.

Same with military draws.

High density areas and counties ?... Porter co, Lake Co., Marion co. and other high density locations are NOT areas I want to see centerfires...
What about the fish and wildlife areas....some get guys almost as dense as the park hunts on the opening few days....once again, a more efficient tool is introduced and yes, the kill WILL go up.... the DNR now wants to use the rifles/firearms in the "reduction" areas, the urban zones will be eliminated, and gun season in these zones go to Jan. 31st...now tell me the kill wont go up....If(IF) the herd is that high in these areas, then I can see reductions being made....centerfire rifles and suppressors may be what is needed for these areas..... we'll see in several years where this goes, kill number wise.... I'm stickin' with my bow, its more challenging anyways....

Good on ya, Jeff! Hang in there and just whack one!

I know of one state property now which prohibits centerfire rifles.

I suspect more will add this restriction if/when this passes.

I'm sure all State properties and draw hunts will be off limits to centerfire rifles... My guess is that it will be limited to private property only for a few years to see how it goes....

I would agree with your comment, but I believe this is where the DNR loses a little credibility over safety. I'm sure it will be explained as other issues, but still I believe it should be all or nothing in regard to where it can be used. We have already seen this in regard to Fort Ben and archery only.

Like I said earlier, I feel sorry for that 50lb Doe that tries to cross blood alley at Kingsbury if they allow centerfires there........it would be worse than the assault on Omaha beach on D-Day.....

There has not been a single objective argument opposing this in the two threads I have seen. That tells me there is none. I welcome some data that will support any argument.

I have an open mind but prefer that we get more options and fewer restrictions when they are neutral or positive in their effect on the resource and the recreation.

But John, I think generally we've already suggested there is no data or objective reason for many, many potential rules changes. And freedom does not necessarily mean no restrictions. That said, if the DNR doesn't allow a weapon to be used on public land under the guise of risk or safety, would that qualify as an objective safety argument? Time will tell what the agency will do but I still pose the question to you if that would fit your question

Several of the opposing statements could be replayed from the discussions when rifles were first proposed. Or inline muzzleloaders, or crossbows, or handguns, or compounds....

Social acceptance of Laws and regs sometimes carry more weight than biological and scientific reasons for that law or Reg

Apparently my definition of freedom and yours are much different.

Possibly, but you surely realize that this country has a foundation that exists largely on laws and restrictions that define the limits of what freedom then is.

"restrictions that define the limits of what freedom then is."

Kind of like yelling FIRE in a crowed theater ???