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!