Bring on the rifles!

The "stuff" is getting deep around here.

its possible that the same number of deer will be killed, just with a different weapon. it does continue, in my opinion, the diminished role of being an outdoorsman and only thing left will be to allow baiting to take deer killing to the lowest level of hunting skill. I couldn't care less, but there are some simple realities of what has gone on in regard to deer hunting and what continues.

I just may buy one of these:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8WiLqPB4lU0

Now you're talking Bean... Instant MRE.....

Interesting to see this thread go on for so long.

One thing for certain. It's ovbvious that a great many are not satisfied with the current state of the herd and deer hunting in Indiana and / or the direction it appears to be heading.

Yep.....

But we were told by a "loud few" that were keen on manipulation when all these new proposals were pushed through, that "this is what the majority wants"...... Which was not true.

Now this is coming full circle back to bite them..... They don't want to be seen as "the ones at fault"..... But they want us to quickly forget THEY were the ones that killed off the DNR's first proposal ..... They were the ones that threw out a steering commitee that was leading the charge in a good way that Chad Stewart was eagerly involved with..... They were the ones that sent hundreds of emails to Bryan Pointer of of the NRC so that the direction the DNR wanted to go was "killed off".....

...... And we sit here and wonder who will we believe the NEXT time? The loud minority that only represented less than 3% of deer hunters...... And laid the path for the situation we are in now.....? And with more dissatisfaction about our deer herd than ever.... AND Chad Stewart leaving the house.

I have more to say on this..... But I'll just put this "reminder" out there for now...

"Swarm On"....

Let me try.....

"People are seeing less deer, fewer quality deer, having fewer quality hunts and griping about such more than ever before. So they want to add ANOTHER long range more effective tool to increase the chances of killing more of the deer that are left."

A few points.....


The state wants the herd reduced, period. And this sniping back and forth and finger pointing over what equipment is being (or may be) used isn't going to change that. All it's doing is creating more animosity between hunters.

As far as hprs are concerned, (while I might be wrong), I think the decision is a yes.

Next...IMHO, once archery hunting (due in large part to the inclusion of crossbows) consistently accounts for a larger percentage of the total harvest (and the herd reduction goals have been met and are being maintained) the gun seasons will be shortened and/or moved.

And finally.....

The late antler less season is the DNR's way to be able to add/subtract "gun days" without public input and all the drama that goes along with it and I don't ever see them doing away with that.

I believe you expressed the root of the issues(s) - "I want mine...." Sometime over the years the expression of success seems to have changed from "...I got a ..." to "I got my...." I must have been fishing when the allocation of deer to individuals happened. Deer hunting/taking has changed over the years and will continue to change. It used to be a novelty sport here, now it is an industry. Oh, there is still $port, but it seems to be more and more about the buck$.

I believe the HPR is driven by a) they want to be able to reach out and kill that nice buck that they can't get close enough with the current weaponry to kill b) they like the allure of shooting a long distance because its "cool" and c) guys who don't really want to hunt a lot of days and thus wish to make harvesting easier. I am unconvinced that it will dramatically increase total harvest.

I think this post is spot on.

RE point C:

some guys are more into waterfowl hunting, coon hunting, trapping, college football, (fill in the blank) and only want to go hunt a couple days a year and shoot some venison for their family.

Most of us deer hunters on here prefer to hunt all season long from archery on Sept 15 to the the last day in January, but that does not make the other approach wrong...

These long range hunting TV shows showing 500 - 800 yard shots on game aren't doing the general hunting population any favors.

Do hpr's really make hunting easier? I thought all data shows that the majority of deer, even in hpr states are killed inside of 100 yards.

I do think the are more accurate, and easier to shoot than a shotgun. This should reduce missed shots and wounding rates, but not sure it will result in any long range hunting.

Here is the deal. We have become a flat out lazy society anymore or at the very least a society with too many distractions that afford us too little time to dedicate to certain activities. But I prefer to call it laziness. We want instant gratification. We want success now so we can snap a digital picture and move on to the next shiny thing that life puts in front of us.

Woodsmanship is ... in general ... a thing of the past. No one has time to learn it and no one has the desire to put in the time it takes to actually "hunt" down an animal. I see it all of the time. My business partner is an instant gratification person. He pays big money to go on fishing charters off of Florida so he can pose with a giant fish. He tells some great fish stories and lets you know what a great fisherman he is, when in actually his charter guide did the hard part of the work. He pays every year to go out rifle hunting in Nebraska or Wyoming. Fully guided, just show up with his rifle. Every year he shoots a dandy whitetail or mulley or elk ... all while the guide holds his hand and his 300 WinMag drops the animal at 300 yards. Just ask him and he will tell you what a "great" big game hunter he is, yet he hasn't been able to kill a deer in Indiana in the 10+ years that I have known him. He is excited about rifles in Indiana because in his words "he can finally reach out there and get that buck".

I'm not saying that shooting a rifle cannot be challenging. It certainly can. I have a world of respect for a guy who can center punch a steel plate at 500+ yards shot after shot. But come on, how hard is it to really get within 100 yards of a whitetail? And if he is beyond your range, well isn't that part of hunting? Some days you win, some days you lose. The hunts where the deer wins are a lot of times the best memories. I cannot tell you how many great hunts that I have had when that buck skirted me at the edge of my range and I didn't like the shots offered. Just this year, I had probably the most exciting hunt ever with my daughter as a real nice 10 pointer hung up at 35 or so yards and I wouldn't let her take a shot with her Xbow because I didn't like the small openings and angles presented. Man was it exciting. Sure a longer range more powerful weapon could have taken him. But the best part of the hunt was the flat out adrenaline rushing through us and the thought that we were going to get back in there the next night to try to get him. We never got him but neither of us cared, the rush was there and so was the memory. Maybe he comes back to play next year.

I see this rifle garbage as just making deer hunting easier. Really, how hard is it to lay your .308 on a shooting stick and drop that buck at 200 yards? Not too difficult. That isn't hunting ... that is target shooting. All that is is getting you in and out of the field as fast as possible. That will sell a lot of tags alone for the State. Make it easier to achieve instant gratification and you will sell a lot more tags to your customer base. Next thing that customer base will go "man that was easy I think I will buy more tags and drop a couple does". Don't try to tell me that HPR's won't increase the number of deer taken. They will briefly for certain. Then the overall number will drop like a rock after a couple of years because the overall herd numbers will get depleted ... FAST. The herd has spiraled downward the past 3-4 years already, watch it snowball out of control once HPR's are allowed to be used.

It is a joke. The entire deer hunting formula in this State is an absolute joke right now and we ... the deer hunters ... as a generalized whole are too blind to see it because it is all about the instant gratification that we seek.

Says the man with the "Thumper" rifle..... :rolleyes: SMH

Proficiency is more so in the hands of the shooter then in the ability of most modern firearms. Just mostly means that guys who take bad shots now, will take bad shots with HPRs. Length of shooting will depend on habitat, but in true farm country with a long range HPR it should be as simple as taking a lawn chair, leaving camo and scent control behind, with a cup of coffee and going out to shoot something. And that's fine with me if that's what guys want, but it certainly redefines hunting, which is being redefined daily anyhow.

That I don't "hunt" with. I took it to a state park shoot them in a barrel "hunt". It was a tool to do an efficient job. It was not and is not HUNTING. I was there to do a job. It took zero skill to make those two 60 or so yard shots. I have not and would not use that gun hunting on my private grounds. I have that gun simply because I have a huge gun collection because I like my guns. But in zero case are they used for deer bunting.

Ok...but wasn't you a GAINT supporter of Rifles when they where FIRST introduced in Indiana for DEER Hunting???

Rifles then is WHY were going where we're going now ....."Pandora's Box" was opened!!!

With all the states that allow the hpr why do they still have deer? I mean if the hpr is going to eradicate the deer herd wouldn't it already be the case in the states that allow it?

Nope. I wasn't a "giant" supporter. I wasn't viamently opposed to it, more neutral than anything because at the time it was pushed as a PCR gun package. We heard it all, 44 mag this .357 mag that. All of the many talked about rounds fell for the most part within the typically accepted ranges of slug guns and smoke poles. And yes I bought my 7 year old daughter a 44 mag, to which she killed a couple of deer with. She no longer hunts with it because she will tell you herself that it is too easy.

But then came the wildcats. Next thing we know we have crazy distance shooting guns. I am not a fan of that type of deer hunting but at the same time not every Walmart cowboy can afford or is willing to make the effort to obtain some of these new rounds.

I still and will always argue that there is zero hunting skill required to shoot a deer at 200 yards with a 30-06 or any other hpr. Just as it took zero skill for me to drop 2 deer at 60-70 yards with my thumper at the state park "hunt".

I agree with your last sentence...The rest of your post I think js2397 addresses..

js2397 I agree with your entire post, except the last half of the last sentence. Realistically, just as there are guys lobbing slugs 200 yards, or dumping 5 rounds out of their slug guns as fast as they can pull the trigger, there will be a few guys shooting farther than they should be.

Derek, no offense, but your friend/business partner is not a hunter or fisherman if he has to pay someone to do the grunt work for him...

I totally agree.

I used him as a prime example of the instant gratification I want it easy society that we are a part of ... And I hate that it is in our hunting community and I don't want deer hunting in Indiana to be any easier than it already is. That is my issue with HPR's.

DEC, I couldn’t agree with you any more. It shouldn’t be any surprise, as this whole country is all about entitlements….. I do disagree with your statement that people DON’T have the time to dedicate to learning woodsmanship. People don’t WANT to take the time to learn. There is no DEDICATION to the sport, there is no RESPECT for the game they want to shoot, there is no COMMITMENT, people do not want to have to WORK for anything any more, there is no PRIDE any more………….****, I work 8 to 10 hours a day in a full time job, an hour from home, take care of a farm, and 60 head of cattle daily, take care of a family, and still managed to put in 108 hours of hunting this year. That’s not including pre-season prep. Come on…..no time??

If a guy is “more into other things”, like trapping, duck hunting, etc., including watching sports on TV, and only wants to hunt a couple of days, that’s just fine. But, I’m sorry, he just needs to keep his azz out of the deer woods, or be happy with not getting a deer. Even with the reduced deer #’s, if a guy can’t go out and get a piece of venison to feed his family in a short period of time with what we can use now, then HPR’s aren’t going to do him any good. But, maybe it is not just about that piece of meat……maybe its all about a big set of antlers that he wants to be able to shoot in a couple days time……..That “excuse” for HPR’s doesn’t hold any water with me.

If I hear one more time “The State wants to reduce deer numbers” as an “excuse” to use HPR’s, I’m gonna puke! Who gives a rats butt what the “State” wants?? What deer hunter in his right freeking mind wants to see less deer anyway? Once again, a lame “excuse” to try to justify introducing yet another way to kill a deer that makes it easier. That’s all that is……..period! I'm all about hunters doing their part, and managing the herd. That's our job. But I'm also not so gullible, to realize what it's all about. Its not about the deer #'s…...

Then there’s the “excuse” “we already have them that can be used in pistols.” “ We allow coyote hunting with them. “ “ Guys with more money than me are wildcatting rounds that are ballistically equivalent to HPR’s, and its not fair”….bla, bla , bla. I bet the % of people actually using pistols, and wildcat rounds is less than 1% of the total # of deer hunters out there on opening day. We don’t have 250,000 licensed hunters out there banging away at coyotes on the opening day of coyote season with HPR’s either. Again, doesn’t hold water.

HPR’s more accurate?? Easier to shoot?? Really? My little ole .357 max shoots sub-MOA groups at 100 yards, and is good to 200 yards. My ML shoots 1.5” groups, and good to 200 yards!!! If the “data” shows that most deer are killed within 100 yards, why is there a NEED for HPR’s! We already have the stuff available to do the job! It’s been proven, as the deer numbers are already being reduced. That’s not an “excuse” to introduce HPR’s! Wounding rates going down??? No long range shots being taken??? Give me a break! :rolleyes: I know **** well that the wounding rates will go up, because people that do not have a history with, or experience with HPR’s will think they can shoot if they can see it. That IS the point of having a “long range” firearm isn’t it?? But, that’s ok…..the State wants deer numbers reduced………They really don't care about the ones that are shot, and can't be recovered. Its a dead deer.

So, quit making up all the lame excuses and just come out and say it. We want high powered rifles because we don’t have to take the time to actually hunt. We want to make it easier. It’s just that simple. I can't believe deer hunters are willing to except the ramifications of introducing HPR's on deer hunting for everybody, just to make it easier for "me". Sad…...

Anybody that thinks HPR's won't make it easier and / or be a more effective tool than our present offerings has very little firearms experience / knowledge.

I've hunted western states alot with HPR's, and in big wide open country like that they are needed, and it's still quite sporting and not always easy to get within range.

Have seen friends drop antelope at 377 and 396 yards and I've shot an elk at 340 yards. We are probably above average shooters using decent equipment but not snipers by any means. We shoot .270, 30-06 and 300 mags.

You can't make those kind of shots with a 44 mag, muzzle loader or saboted slugs, and even the legal wildcats drop like a rock when they start getting much beyond 200 yards.

Introduce those HPR's to the open farm country around here, and it's a whole new game.

In all the "debate" above there is not a single bit of credible objective evidence that the NRC could use to deny the petition. And it is clear from the objective evidence available in other places that most of the actionable reasons (safety, negative impact on the resource) to deny it simply don't exist.

The rest is just opinion and guesswork and agenda. And much of it is downright inflammatory, arrogant, and self-righteous who-ha.

I suggest we all calm down, breathe, and understand the process. And take the type to form a credible, reasoned comment to submit to the NRC. And then submit it.

None of what you type here goes much farther than the 10 or so people who are reading this thread. Read Ryan Sabalow's article in yesterday's Star. He characterized all the poetic philosophizing above as "a deep rift". That's not exactly going to sway any political leanings one way or another. In the words of Sammy Hagar, "to me it's all just mental mast...ation".

IMO, this petition will not be accepted or denied based on facts, biology, statistics, or any process of logic or science. To believe that is naive.

The decision will be (or HAS been) made on a social and political basis.

Surely you don't think this is the first time this has been requested by the public? It merely took the proper nudge by an insider to make this happen. Not science or objective evidence.

.

If it passes I couldent see it being any longer than a 2 week period at the most. Or for the first "trial" season have it near the end of the season just to get some actual valid data to base the following seasons on.

Exactly Sticksender! John, you know as well as I do, there is no NEED for this. Just like the full inclusion of Xguns, this is a WANT. It's what I want vs. what you want. Its that simple. The only difference is, HPR's will only accelerate the reduction of the herd. I don't want to hear a dead deer is dead, no matter what kills it. It WILL increase the kill, and quickly. Further range = more dead deer. To think not is tunnel vision due to the "want". Like I said before, what deer hunter wants to see less deer? I don't go deer hunting to watch corn stalks.......And I don't care what the "safety studies"show. In the flat wide open farm country, where you can see houses, barns, and livestock in all directions, safety IS a concern...

Yaz ... I'd hunt with you any day. Your last two posts are spot on and pretty much the point that I was trying to make.

I too agree with Yaz... and I'm even more impressed that in addition to everything he listed that he does in his daily routine, he also appears to be a heck of a striper fisherman as well as typing up a very long and well thought out argument a page back...

I doubt that HPR's will have a HUGE impact on harvest numbers, but I said earlier that in farm country safety concerns scare me to death. People don't realize how far those bullets CAN travel.

When I was a teenager, me and 2 buddies were dove hunting out in an open field. A couple times we accidentally shot towards a farm house that I SWEAR was a quarter mile or more away. A guy came out of that house and drove out to us and was about to whoop our A$$ for bouncing buckshot off his pole barn. That was #8 buckshot people.

It's about $$$ same as crossbows. Perception and reality is longer distance weapons equals less effort spent hunting more success killing. Whether it happens or not that is what's perceived. Crossbows made the number of archery hunters rise making more revenue now the hpr's are gonna do the exact same thing to gun license sales. All the while it appeases the people who think we have too many deer bc they assume kill rates will rise, which I too think they will rise.

Yaz for President....

The DNR realizes the declining deer herd in many areas, yet it wants the herd lower with sustained harvest numbers...the only way to keep the kill numbers up is by introducing a more efficient tool.....thus we have centerfires....

A goal is not a plan. The real question is do they have a plan. For years going back to the days when the DNR had the Deer Advisory Committee to this very moment it has been agreed on that Indiana does not have a State wide deer problem. They have areas where primarily due to access they may have a perceived problem. Allowing rifles does nothing to address this issue unless they have a plan to sharp shoot or allow landowners to do so at will. That does nothing for hunters. Even that will not address urban deer and areas where the landowners will not cooperate. In fact rifles may reduce access and in any event it will not help hunters gain access which is what is really needed. The DNR aside from some management of public lands really is doing little for the sportsmen who hunt private land. The have cut their district biologist, their is no effort to increase private land access. Hunters and landowners are moving quickly towards controlling more and more of the management. I guess if making it easier to kill the fewer deer that one sees then one might be happy. Some believe that our state has more trophy bucks than it used to but that is not something the DNR ever advocated for. Our DNR in the last decade has more than anytime in it history proposed rule changes that have divided hunters and weakened the voice of conservation. The DNR are like those leaders in Washington who have tried to manage a war from afar without understanding the situation on the ground.

At a time when sportsmen need to unite the leadership of Fish and Wildlife as well as the NRC add to the division of sportsmen. Chad Stewart had the brains to bail out.

yea, if I had 500-1000 acres, I'd tell the DNR to go pound sand, more so than I do now.... the more property you own, the easier it is to control the herd the way YOU see fit....dont forget the "suppressors", I think that was always part of this whole scenario with centerfires...to get them into the urban areas, same for the "deer reduction" zones which was set up more for HPR's than bows I believe....

Yaz speaketh the truth...

As I further read through some of these post, it is clear that hunters do not get that they have no guaranteed right to hunt. Even if the NRC passes a rule to allow rifles in this case, Landowners, Municipal government, County government, State government can all weigh in on this in the end. I am sure you will see Marion county react soon after it becomes law and I would guess from past history many if not most of the doughnut counties will follow at some point.
In the county in which I live we have fought back several previous ordinances by county commissioners to place limits on hunting within 400 yards of any dwelling or building. (Their would be few places one could hunt) We were able to convince them at the time that the shotgun and muzzleloader was not a rifle and shot the distances the no hunting advocates claimed. If it happened again I don't believe we would be successful. With rifles added and if an event would occur, most elected official including the Sheriff and other LE officials would cave to the public. It is the public that will ultimately decide. Not the DNR, not hunters, but the public.
When that happens all the logic, facts and statistics mean nothing. Don't confuse people's desire to own guns for personal protection with tolerating irresponsible hunters, perceived or real.

Yup .....

I guess the toughest part of the argument is we are all from so many different areas. Where I live in Harrison County it is always in the top five in harvest for deer and turkeys with no sign of slowing down. This past summer I saw 14 different bucks together in my field every evening. The hunting here is better than it has ever been and there are always a ton of nice bucks checked in at the local check station.

My cousin and his friend came down from northern Michigan, which is not a fair comparison, and they thought they were in heaven. They each told me they thought they should have had a camera crew following them around. The one thing they couldn't believe is they could climb just about any tree in the woods and have a deer walk by within bow range. I'm sure there is some skill involved but where I live if you spend any amount of time in the woods you will kill a deer.