Rifle proposal latest assault on deer hunting by DNR, NRC
By Don Mulligan

www.kpcnews.com/columnists/don_mulligan/outdoors/article_8988dd82-022c-51ba-a855-e42db6d0acd2.html

Don says, "Until now, only shotguns, muzzleloaders and pistol cartridge rifles have been allowed during firearms seasons in Indiana."

I wonder if Don realizes these same HPR rounds have been legal in Indiana firearms deer seasons for years--as long as they are shot out of a pistol.

Let me start off by saying my comments here are from myself and not the IDHA.

Manyyears ago I warned DNR of the future when they wanted to allow the use of hand guns in deer season, I was told it was going to be VERY limited in barrel length and caliber. Then we had an assistant deer biologist who wanted to use his Encore in .243, new proposal and rifle cartidges were allowed, why, because very few people would spend the money to get one of those hand guns.

Next came the smokeless powder muzzleloaders, again I complained that we opened the door with another tool that the present rule (black powder) had never intended. I was told (and is true) the wording said muzzleloading rifle not black powder or equivalent.

Next we move to the pistol cartridge rifle, again there was concern. I was told the straight wall cartridge as well as case length would control usage, funny how after comments and intitial adoption the "straight wall cartridge" was ommitted. that opened the door to wildcat rounds.

Shotgun rounds have also improved to the point they have muzzle velocity of a 30-06 factory loads. Industries MUST improve product performance or they are left behind by competitors.

The deer hunting community has changed over the years, much of this has been by an aggressive campaign by IDNR that we have a surplas of deer and the herd needs reduced. Hunters have killed and killed, many killing and donating all in the name of feeding the hungry......and it continues today.

We also have this "opporunity" thing, we feel it is "our right" to hunt deer as long as possible with whatever tool we choose to use as long as it is effective.

I consider Don Mulligan a friend, there are parts of his article that I DO NOT agree or support. I own a .300wsm and the rifle is capable of killing at 1000 yards, but with me on the trigger it is a 200 yard at best. It will still be up to the individual should the proposed rule pass to determine what is an "ethical shot".

Doug Allman (IDHA board member) is polling the membership to establish our position. Doug has a valid point that many communities are setting strict rules on "projectiles". these ordinances restrict hunting and our ability as hunters to control wildlife populations. Allowing centerfire rifles will only add fuel to the fire.

I have talked to several CO's over the past couple of months and NONE are happy to see this rule change. I visit and read several hunting boards for Indiana daily and all hunters are reporting the same thing, deer numbers are down. Yet IDNR and the NRC want to allow a longer range tool. I have resigned myself to reality, hunters want the "easy route", tradition is gone, "Get R Done" and get back to the routine of everyday life.

To interview Phil Bloom for an article is ridiculous! Did Don think he would get an opinion contrary to the IDNR execuctive staff or the NRC? This rule proposal will sail thru...... IDNR wants it(some people) and the NRC wants it.

When it passes I will use my .300wsm to kill a deer. I like shooting the rifle and I probably wont ever book a whitetail hunt in a state where it is legal today.

Traditional whitetail deer hunting left Indiana several years ago,today it is "opportunity". We all will have to determine how we take advantage of that "opportunity".

One last note, IDNR is seeing P/R money rolling in from the gun/ammo sales, anyone think they might look at increased gun sales as a boost to those Federal dollars. It is ALL about revenue.....

Just my thoughts........

We're lucky so far in that there's yet to be a rule successfully imposed on us to limit the distance from highways or houses that we can hunt. Many states have this rule, and it closes off a LOT of private property to hunting. But so far we have always shot it down when it has been proposed in Indiana. But the more steps we take with allowing longer and longer range weapons, the easier it will be for the antis to nibble at our rights, with rules like "500 yards from any dwelling" and etc.

I oppose the rule change for this reason among others.

.

I have several HPRs that I seldom get to shoot, much less hunt with (from Ga and used them there). But I too am against the proposal, as Greg points out... for many reasons!

Anything to make it easier to kill the allmighty whitetail deer. And so the war against this vile woodland creature continues. That and whatever generates the highest revenue for the state.

Sadly this will pass.

But I am an admitted arrogant elitist bow hunter.

I just saw this. There are a a couple important things to say here for me.

I realize the rounds were available from a pistol. that wasn't the point I was making. I was just giving uninformed readers a little background and telling them the proposed rounds would be new here.

I interviewed Phil bloom via an email because that is what even a pseudo-journalist is supposed to do-let the opposing view explain themselves.

For anyone who reads my column, I can tell you I am writing a follow up to that piece right now. I have interviewed the head deer biologists from other Midwestern states that do not allow rifle rounds to understand why they do not. What they are telling me, I think, exposes the idiocy and lack of foresight by the people managing our deer herd for the past several years.

I won't get into all of it here but will give you guys this one fact to consider: Deer biologists in adjacent states, even without rifles here yet, consistently get the most complaints from farmers and hunters about low deer densities in all the counties that border Indiana. Perhaps it is obvious, but their point is that Indiana has beaten its deer herd to death to the point that it even can be felt across the border.

Joe got it right. It is about a lack of tradition here, or at least one that mostly only values killing a deer at all costs and as easily as possible.

I just saw this. There are a a couple important things to say here for me.

I realize the rounds were available from a pistol. that wasn't the point I was making. I was just giving uninformed readers a little background and telling them the proposed rounds would be new here.

I interviewed Phil bloom via an email because that is what even a pseudo-journalist is supposed to do-let the opposing view explain themselves.

For anyone who reads my column, I can tell you I am writing a follow up to that piece right now. I have interviewed the head deer biologists from other Midwestern states that do not allow rifle rounds to understand why they do not. What they are telling me, I think, exposes the idiocy and lack of foresight by the people managing our deer herd for the past several years.

I won't get into all of it here but will give you guys this one fact to consider: Deer biologists in adjacent states, even without rifles here yet, consistently get the most complaints from farmers and hunters about low deer densities in all the counties that border Indiana. Perhaps it is obvious, but their point is that Indiana has beaten its deer herd to death to the point that it even can be felt across the border.

Joe got it right. It is about a lack of tradition here, or at least one that mostly only values killing a deer at all costs and as easily as possible.

Personally for me it's no fun if there isn't a challenge. Kinda like when I played baseball, I wanted to see everyone's ace on the hill. I didn't want second best I wanted the challenge, hunting goes the same way for me, make us work for it. Allow us to hunt the deer, not just shoot them.

It is obvious that by bringing in a more efficient tool for killing deer that the kill numbers will rise....It has been said by Chad, our ex. biologist that these tools are not needed to achieve the wanted kill numbers we have now...he expected an increase in kills in the first few years, then it will start to drop as once again there will be fewer deer......Heck, I dont expect Indiana to break 120,000 this season....centerfires simply are not needed to control deer in this state......I wont touch rifles for deer...I'll continue on as I usually do...with my trusty bow.... I hate to see what happens in Porter Co/Lake county and the high density counties....even on the F&W areas, you cant pay me to step foot one one now as it is, but with centerfires....yowza !

Don,

Your opinion of the IDNR and NRC was summed up very clearly by using statements such as "idiocy and lack of foresight by the people managing our deer herd for the past several years". If you think that feeling is exclusive to you towards the IDNR, take a few minutes and read some of the posts on forums from Iowa, Illinois, Ohio, and Missouri (among others).

As we all know, most Midwestern states are in the midst of reducing their deer herds and many hunters aren't happy about it. And in reality, what difference does it make how those goals are met? If Indiana does it with crossbows and (potentially) hprs, why is that so much less palatable to you, than say...Iowa doing the same thing with high numbers of does permits and party hunting?

IMHO, you are doing nothing more than trying to further your ongoing crusade against the approval of new equipment choices such as crossbows and hprs by blaming those choices for the herd being reduced.

Finally, I'll offer my opinions as to where Indiana deer hunting is headed.

1. The herd will be reduced to numbers similar to 20 years ago and hunters are going to complain about it, big time.

2. Crossbows will soon account for a larger share of the harvest than vertical bows in the archery season and continue to account for a larger share of the overall harvest as time goes on.

3. Hprs will be approved but we will not see an appreciable increase in the firearms harvest as hunters will just switch from today's allowed equipment to hprs.

4. Once herd reduction goals are met and are being maintained, I think it is likely that the the gun season will be shortened and/or moved.

5. And you still won't be happy........

My column is certainly only my opinion and nothing more.

To say I am the only person who thinks Indiana's deer herd is being managed worse than any other in the Midwest is not even close to accurate, however. That's why I talked to all of the best and brightest, trained deer biologists in the U.S. Either on or off the record most (not all) have an opinion about Indiana's management of deer and it ranges from disbelief to outright condemnation. But what to they know too?

By the way, some of them also told me they were happy for Chad that he got out of here. They consider Indiana no-man's land for biologists.

I won't address what makes me happy. The list is too long.

What goals ?.....where/when has the DNR announced herd goal levels....did I miss something....down 10% from our high, down 5%, down 20% ???....kill numbers like 1999/2000 ?? When will we know ?? When there isnt a deer to be seen in some counties ?

I never said you were the only person who thinks Indiana's deer herd is being managed worse than any other in the midwest. What I said was "If you think that feeling is exclusive to you towards the IDNR, take a few minutes and read some of the posts on forums from Iowa, Illinois, Ohio, and Missouri (among others)." In other words, there are plenty of hunters in midwest states who also think their DNR is full of and I quote you here... "idiocy and lack of foresight".

I assume you are asking me? Here's a quote from Chad Stewart "The goal is to reduce the number of conflicts -- collisions, crop damage, overpopulation in urbanized areas -- between people and deer."

What numbers that equates to is a question only the IDNR can answer. The numbers I offered are only my opinion and based on the numbers other states have cited in their herd reduction plans.

Forty five years ago, there were very few deer in my neighborhood, it was a special deal to see any deer, and there were very few deer hunters because odds of success were so slim.

I don't think the DNR is going to be happy until we are back to that scenario again.

Some have ground where they can control things a bit or the ability to make trips out of state to hunt better places, so that is what they will do.
The vast majority of IN hunters do not have this luxury and will be left out in the cold and just have to find another hobby.

My question is "not only did the straight wall cartridge rule get omitted, but who was responsible for the omission" ? An individual had to be the culprit, so who was it?

My thoughts;

- no reason for anyone to get emotional because what will be will be
- "hunting" has many applied definitions
- blaming the DNR is both ridiculous and shortsighted
- most individuals who deer hunt today have no outdoorsman's skills and don't want to have any
- most individuals who deer hunt today don't really care about the deer
- as has been coming for a long, long time, deer management is about social issue management, not about wildlife biology
- furthering of long range weapons will hasten local municipality weapons use laws and restrictions that could affect not only firearms but archery as well
- the future of "hunting" will be value based financially around access and harvest, not necessarily around hunting
- when anything doesn't have balance between financial cost as an activity and the personalized value of the activity it is under appreciated and demeaned (cost of deer hunting is to cheap)
- it is not the job of the DNR to create social balance acceptance of deer numbers, it is the job of deer hunters to do so and they have failed miserably

What we need is more conservationalists and fewer "hunters".

The proposed rounds are not "new here"

Coyote and pistol toting deer firearms hunters have been using them for years.

It is relevant to the discussion because you later go on to vilify the proposed rounds using ridiculous hyperbole such as "1000 yard rifles" , "elephant gun" and "Moose gun"

The more I shoot my .243, the more I like it. I have a feeling I will be hunting more than coyotes with it in Indiana next fall.

Do you have any data (as in a single study) or evidence which shows high power rifle cartridges are more dangerous than shotguns or PCR?

76 are you saying all HPRs will not be legal under the new rule? Because that is not the way I read it. If they are, it isn't hyperbole to say people will use everything they have including a .416 Rigby elephant gun if they want to.

This propaganda I keep hearing that it is ok to make everything legal because no one will use them anyway is just a misdirection to justify the needs of a few over the many.

And do I really need a study to prove a piece of lead with enough energy to travel miles versus yards is more dangerous in open, populated terrain. Good God, some common sense here. Every other state deer director I have spoken with in the past week says this is a Duhhh issue.

The IDNR uses the "no study" argument too, but what you all fail to admit is that there aren't those studies because no other state around us with similar terrain allows HPRs for deer season. Can't do a study if the situation doesn't exist anywhere out of common sense.

And yes, if there were as many people coyote hunting as there are deer hunting, we likely would have to look more closely at the guns allowed there too. Are you saying there are as many coyote hunters in Indiana as deer hunters? That's shocking news to me.

More important than the safety issue is the deer issue. Our herd is declining like many other states. But unlike every other state, we are responding by making it easier to kill even more deer. Where are the conservationists among the HPR crowd? Where are the people willing to sacrifice for the ecosystem? Their voices are being drown out by a few guys who are singularly focused on what is best for them as an individual hunter.

YUP! ^^^^^^^

DOUBLE YUP ^^^^^^

"Where are the conservationists among the HPR crowd? Where are the people willing to sacrifice for the ecosystem?"

Generally speaking, I don't think it's an HPR crowd issue because I'm not sure anyone (all who visit this site exempt from my point of course), regardless of weapon used are really willing to sacrifice "their" preference. I could be wrong though.

Isn't that why there are BAG LIMITS set??? To "CONSERVE" the resource!!!

Bring on the rifles!!

You want to conserve the deer herd? Allow one deer per hunter per year. I take one deer a year if I'm lucky and I don't starve to death. Do away with 3+ months of bow hunting, 2 weeks just like everyone else. I think that would solve the deer genocide everybody seems to be worried about.

Absolutely. The point there may be though that the bag limits are a DNR initiative. While I don't really know whether an unlimited bag limit would significantly increase the harvest, my guess is that there are a lot of hunters, possibly even a majority, that would openly support unlimited bag limits. I do believe wholeheartedly that the DNR is probably the only thing between mass destruction of the deer herd by hunters and landowners. Generally, I still don't think that a lot of deer hunters, maybe a majority, care about the rules or the ethics except to the only extent that they might get "caught".

Also with the safety issues with the hpr. You want safety? Outlaw deer stands. Every year we hear about hunters falling out of them and getting injured or killed. If hunters were getting killed by being shot by other hunters at the rate of falls from deer stands there would be no gun season in Indiana. Don't forget, turkey season is the most dangerous for hunters behind falls from deer stands & we're using shotguns not rifles.

Amazing what DNR-established bag limits can do to conserve all kinds of game animals!! And, they can do it without reducing the number of days a hunter can potentially hunt using any DNR-legal weapon in the existing season structure. There are thousands of conservationist hunters in Indiana using high-powered rifles, shotguns, handguns, and muzzle loaders. And there are thousands of conservationist hunters who use vertical bows and crossbows. We should not accuse a hunter of not being a conservationist just because of his/her choice of weapon.

the weapon used has not a **** thing to do with the state of the herd. we all still only get one buck. just gonna die by a different tool.

end result will be the same. venison

much ado about nothing

Cedar, i would agree that use of weapon does not equate to a conservationist or not. But, when you assess engagement in issues, all fashions of engagement other then going afield and harvesting, hunter engagement pretty fails horrible from both a social, legislative and financial standpoint.

Well I'll be darn.........

I never realized there would be "no difference in the state of the herd" if we all just hunted with stick bows vs .243's year after year after year.....

What the heck was I thinking!! :rolleyes: LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!

How about moving vertical bow licesnes back to 13.75 and others be. Or lifetime back? Coyote is is in for hpr while deer guys are sluggin or muzzleloadin! So I can aim small miss small or hit mile away. Know a guy with rifle slug in his back to close to spine to remove. Mowin yard. No one knows where it came from many years ago. I own hprs don't know if I need to deer hunt with them? Always controversary!

sorry the weapon has every thing to do with the state of the herd If it was Archery only the season would be 12 monthes a year and sharpshooters used in every county With HPR the next thing you will see is a shorter season My friend is the Deer Bioligist for a military refuge in OKLA and we have gone over this for years and to reach management Goals you have to adjust seasons , weapons, and doe kills to reach those goals. But the Main thing that is striven for is Hunter use and days in the field ..How do we reach our goals and keep hunter use days at the Max without a over kill and what is looked at is and in this order more deer are killed quicker and in this order HPR,Shot gun, MZL,compound and Xbow , Longbows and re curves the longer seasons can be for the smallest harvest or Hours hunted for each deer killed Hope this makes since the Question should be DO WE WANT TO GIVE UP DAYS AFIELD FOR ANOUTHER WEAPON TO BE USED I DONT

No!

Though I could hunt safely using a rifle in Indiana I don't want a patchwork of rules concerning their use so I will agree with you Don on why they shouldn't be allowed but this statement in your article is disingenuous and pure hyperbole at best..

Do you honestly believe that the person who propose this rule change wants you or anyone else to take 1,000 shots at deer?... Really?

Anything south of Interstate 70 gets to use the HPR.....or....... Only designated southern counties will be allowed to use HPR's.

Don't think that is not being seriously considered as a "happy medium proposal" to deal with all the "safety concern uproar".

Some perspective folks.

We have one year of declining deer harvest and a whole lot of anecdotal reports. Public policy cannot be made on that.

Legislators have been pressured to reduce the herd for years. DNR has therefore felt that pressure. And DNR has used us as the method to reduce the herd.

To argue against policy changes because they do what are stated policy goals is not going to be effective.

The sky is not falling. Deer are not absent from our state. And they have an amazing ability to rebound from over harvest. Relax. Breathe. When trends are established, policy will follow. That is the inherent weakness in gauging population by how many from that population we kill. The alternative is a census or at a minimum a statistical count. Both of which are prohibitively expensive.

Also, does anyone really believe that the harvest will substantially increase because of HPRs? I mean we are talking about an increase of effective range of maybe 100 yards for the average guy.

And people who are willing to pay the extra for a substantially better effective range are probably killing all the deer they want already. They won't kill more. They'll just kill them with different things.

Most hunters who are capable of killing deer regularly kill all they want already. Most kill 1 or 2. Some kill 3. Very few kill 4 or more. The limiting factors of a place to hunt or time to do it are much more important than the tool used.

From the public comments I'm reading, it appears to be 2 to 1 for hprs @ this point.

Does that mean it will pass? Personally I think it will, but there are no guarantees. If it does pass, will usage be split it into zones? I have no idea.

But as I've said before about the future of Indiana deer hunting, here's what I see happening...

1. The herd will be reduced to numbers similar to those from 20 years ago and hunters are going to complain about it, big time.

2. Crossbows will soon account for a larger share of the harvest than vertical bows in the archery season and continue to account for a larger share of the overall harvest as time goes on.

3. Hprs will be approved but we will not see an appreciable increase in the firearms harvest as hunters will just switch from today's allowed equipment to hprs.

4. Once herd reduction goals are met and are being maintained, I think it is likely that the the gun season will be shortened and/or moved.

5. And there still will be people who aren't happy.

John Scifres Two good posts, full of common sense.

In the 10 common myths post from Chad Stewart here's one that I think people should remember...

Myth 6: High antlerless quotas are solely responsible for reducing the deer herd.
Indiana historically has had high antlerless limits available to all hunters. Hunters have been allowed to harvest eight antlerless deer in many counties. These limits are high to allow individuals experiencing deer problems the opportunity to solve their problems in the hunting season. It is not meant to be a limit that is reached by all hunters, and it rarely is reached. Despite high quotas in some counties, surveys repeatedly show the vast majority of hunters (85 percent) take three or fewer deer, and less than 1 percent ever take eight deer in a season.

I guess I should clarify for the mentally challenged....

replace my use of the word weapon with firearm

I don't think the gun season should be shortened because of the hpr. We already get the shaft every year because we have to hunt in one of the nastiest months of the year. November weather sucks. It seems every year we have to put up with the cold, rain, high wind or some other act of God. Out of the 16 days of gun season we get maybe 8-10 good weather days if we're lucky. The season is short enough already.

It would shock me if Indiana's regular firearm season ever gets shortened from the 2 week, 3 weekend season. Doe kill is what affects population. That's the tool that managers will use if policy changes are needed to back off the harvest.

"the gun season is short enough already"...bull crap !...it is to long...gun season/ML season/late season gun antlerless, 30+ days of some type of gun....way to much gun for me...... Indiana could be a much better deer state, but not with the dam DNR we have....

:rolleyes: .....but the 100 plus days of "ARCHERY" is fine!!!

Its always about the man with the "GUN" for some... :rolleyes:

SMH...

I think you kinda missed the point of RugerMan's post... But just because it is more gun for your taste doesn't mean it is for others... How many people do you know that hunt from the first day of gun season all the way to the end every day? ... MY guess is probably zero... I don't and I don't know of any others who do... My season ended the day gun season went out... I think I only hunted 7 of the 16 days because of the weather

My guess is that the majority of gun hunters probably only hunt at most less than 10 days that some sort of gun can be used and with most only hunting the weekends...

I have said it before and I will reiterate it again, that I would combine both gun and muzzy seasons into one season because if I can use a muzzy in gun season, then I believe muzzleloaders do not need their own season...

Oh and like Delany pointed out... blaming the DNR is both ridiculous and shortsighted... DNR does not make you or anyone else pull the trigger or release on a bow...

The DNR does not make laws or regs they make suggestions to the NRC same as us the HPR came from public comment from us not the dnr

That's not entirely true. Only a very small percentage of deer hunters participate in the public input process and spend time on forums such as this one. The vast majority glean their information from the pages of the hunting regulations....published by the DNR.

In the past few years, we have added seasons and season lengths, added weapon choices and bundle licensing. Alot of people are going to perceive that as too many deer running around. If the DNR proposes or supports a proposal, they should definitely be held accountable.

Yes, ultimately, it is up to the guy that pulls the trigger....but if THAT was the cure all answer, we wouldn't need hunting seasons or tag quotas at all...now would we?

If you leave deer management to the "guy that pulls the trigger" ...the deer herd is doomed....to many dont have the restraint not to pull the trigger.... to many will kill the last deer in a woodlot/property then complain about not seeing any deer the nest year...cant control your neighbor......not only does it happen here in this state, but in many other states....once the centerfire crap kicks in, we'll just have to wait and we will see what the kill's are for the first several years....I say it goes up for a few years, then drops, bad....we will see.....

When pcrs were being debated the same thing was said. What happened?


According to the IDNR harvest data....

In 2008, shotguns accounted for 53% of total harvest and pcrs accounted for 1% for a total of 54%.

In 2013, shotguns accounted for 37% of total harvest and pcrs account for 15% for a total of 52%.

Virtually the same total percentage of the harvest.....

And while there is no way to know what will happen if hprs are allowed, based on this history, I would imagine the change will consist mostly of hunters trading one firearm for another.

But we'll obviously need the data to confirm that.

We will wait and see.....I hope I'm wrong ...our herd has dwindled in many areas....I just dont see this being a good thing....sure it will make many happy as it makes it "easier" to kill deer...like Ive said I love rifle hunting, just not in this state....except for Yotes and woodchucks... ;0) ......

While there is certainly an aspect of accountability related to the DNRs role, it might be relevant to remember that their role is more directed at biological aspects first and then the social aspects thereafter. Is the Indiana deer herd in peril biologically, I don't think so. So, I think the DNR gets a thumbs up in regard to their primary role. In regard to influencing the trigger pull, not the DNRs role in my opinion, except through bag limits which they have managed reasonably well considering the annual harvest numbers are still pretty strong and general hunter dissatisfaction appears to still be low enough that there is no uprising by deer hunters.

It is not the DNRs job to manage social changes in how sportsmen wish to pursue deer and harvest deer. They do a good job of trying to maintain done sense of ethics and safety in the field but again, where is it stated that a government agency should establish ethics. Arguably this should be an outcome of sportsmen and the general publics will as long as it's done in a safe manner. The DNR manages the resource, not the hunter, and it just hasn't been shown that the resource is in trouble, in my opinion. Do I like many aspects of the deer herd situation, no. But pointing a finger at the DNR is largely wrong and incorrect. IF this deer herd ever becomes biologically threatened I believe the DNR will step up and save the deer herd because generally speaking, I don't think the deer hunters will.

It's pretty easy to get within 100 yards of a deer. I'm not sure how having a rifle in my hand v. a shotgun will make it easier. Still a dead deer. And I'm still going to kill the same max number of deer.

The hacks who can't kill deer regularly now are still going to not kill the same number of deer they don't kill now. [Is that a double negative ]

I hate the idea of HPR here. Hate it. But, whatever. We don't need them. It won't change the harvest one bit. But my Lord will it be scary knowing a guy in the woodlot next to me has a bullet that can travel MILES and can't see me a couple hundred feet away. Slugs are heavy. Regardless of velocity they come out of the barrel "Looking and seeking" the ground. They hit and tumble. HPR'S... Dude they can ricochet off something and wind up in a farmers bedroom window on the other side of the road. Most places they're legal...are in mountains. There ain't nobody around! They go a half mile and hit a mountain. Not here. Like I said...Whatever.

Illinois hunters kill as many deer in 5 days of gun season "Outside of the rut" as we do in 2 weeks IN the rut. The state is quite comparable to ours in size. I highly doubt it's our gun season that's causing us problems. The vast majority of gun killed deer happens in the first few days. The rest of it is nothing more than opportunity. The numbers aren't staggering.
Illinois also allows 2 bucks. They still have people jumping over fences to hunt there.

My point? People in Illinois as well as Iowa and Kansas...don't shoot small bucks. We do. We also rape the doe population...by choice.

PAV makes a great point, that we must have SOME regulations.

I can apply the same theory of the surrounding states to boating and fishing. Did you guys know that Indiana has for years been the most "Boat crazy" state in the nation per capita? Our lakes are FULL of boats with very little water. I boat at Dale Hollow lake in Tennessee and I'm tellin ya if it ain't a holiday weekend, you have the whole lake to yourself. Not here. I go there to boat just like many go to the aforementioned states to hunt.
Hoosiers LOVE the outdoors!

HS Strut - HPR bullets readily fragment they don't ricochet nearly as bad as Slugs which maintain their mass. Thats just a simple fact of Physics.

Didn't say what my opinion was I simply corrected your statement.

Classic scare tactic...Unless you are shooting at the sky HPR's WILL NOT go for miles... Even then, you have to have the right conditions for a bullet to travel that far... :rolleyes:


That just tells me that either Illinois hunters are shooting everything in sight because they have only 5 days to do it in or the 11 extra days we have are not having any impact on the herd and their state is a lot bigger then ours...

And I don't care what state you are hunting in but hunters in other states shoot large bucks, small bucks, and shoot their does up too like they do in Indiana and they complain on their forums about their herds like people do here... :rolleyes:

I don't care WHAT you guys use to take a deer. I'm not trying to "Scare" anybody.

Try this physics test:

Go out to Atterbury and hang out a couple hundred yards or more behind the shooting range...over by the water tower. I used to pheasant hunt area 12 a lot. Every 15-20 minutes, you'll hear a round ricochet through the air making that high pitched "whirling" sound. I promise you that ain't a deer slug. It'll make your hair curl son. It's probably a round skipping off the top of a frame or something. It ain't a deer slug because it would've shattered or bent whatever it hit and wound up in the dirt...not several hundred yards away in a pheasant hunt.

I think Delaney used to pheasant hunt in that area? He might have heard these rounds as well.

Also, every once in a while on the news you'll see where somebody found bullet holes in their house. Through the siding and across the room through another wall. Then, you'll find out some idiot was shooting a rifle across a cornfield several hundred yards away and wasn't certain of what was beyond their target.
Let me know next time you see this happen with a shotgun slug.

Go out in a plowed field and set up a target a hundred yards away. Shoot ten slugs at it and ten 30.06 rounds at it. Bet you can find where the slugs hit the ground right behind it a little ways. The ground will look like hogs were rootin back there. Those 06's will be nowhere around.

Bryan, go to a check station or meat locker around here...you'll see piles of 1 1/2 bucks. We kill a ton of big ones here as well, and our culture IS changing for the better. But we still slaughter young bucks.

Not in Illinois and Iowa. You'll see teenagers talking about passing up 130" deer constantly. It's a completely different culture.
Not saying I want that here...they have tons of problems with rich people buying up and leasing land. I hate that. Just saying it's different.

In regard to Atterbury, I will say that folks who worked down there used to suggest staying way clear of the area behind the shooting range, most of which was blocked off anyhow.

Well "son" I've done it (more than once, too)... Use to sit behind there all the time when I hunted at Atterbury....

I've been to check stations and meat lockers so I have seen it all... I work with a guy who would shoot a fawn in a nanosecond and not care one bit... So yes it is a cultural thing but those same people would kill that deer with 5 days or 16 days of hunting... They are so scared of not getting anything it clouds their judgment...

I think a lot has to do with the hunters out there that have to purchase licenses every year want something to show for their investment... No one wants to eat tag soup but with a LTL I don't care if I get one or not, I'm not out much of anything... I'm 2 years now without a deer but have the satisfaction of hoping that buck will be bigger next year and that does will hopefully produce twins that make it and increase the herd where I hunt...

When I see little deer hanging there ready to be butchered I think to myself what I waste... Spend that kind of money for a little meat... I don't tell others how to hunt, but I don't want to hear them complain about not seeing deer or a big deer because they feel the need to blast everything in sight...

Well the Bryan, You and I are on the same page. I didn't kill a deer last year and it looks like I won't this year either. I too have a LTL.

I don't care what anybody kills. I don't care what they kill it with. None of my business.

I personally will drop a fawn in a heartbeat as long as it isn't a button buck. My preference. LTL, no cost to me, easier drag. To me, there's no macho rating for taking a 2 yr old doe as opposed to the fawn standing next to it.

I do think as a whole, we've taken too many does in the last few years. I feel like EHD has worsened the situation where I hunt, so since my deer sightings are way down, I'm really not upset about not killing a doe. I'm kinda looking for something with about 130" of bone on it's head. I love taking does and love eating them. But I'm just not seeing many. Hardly any shots on opening day of firearms tells me we better lay off a little regardless of what the DNR says.

I brought up Illinois because I personally believe the gun season thing is a little overstated on here. If you FILL every woods in the state on July 4th, you will kill a ton of deer regardless of the rut. That's what happens on the firearm opener here and in our surrounding states. The woods are stuffed with hunters. Deer get smart real quick, hence the drop off as the week goes on. I just get sick of hearing about moving or shortening the gun season.

It's kind of funny....... people are saying they are seeing way less deer in general, yet they want centerfire rifles?

Think about it folks...... do you want a tool to take deer with at a longer range? What makes the experience, dead deer or hunting?

Delaney and others have the correct view....... it aint about conservation or the deer ......it is about "me"!

When you say a dead deer is a dead deer and it doesn't care what it was killed by. Answer me this..... Where are you each year when IDNR issues out of season permits by the thousands and fawns die by starvation? Ahh again the deer doesn't care how it died and neither do we hunters.......

I think that most that feel that way is if they shoot a deer at 100 yrds with a muzzleloader, shotgun, or a rifle what is the difference?

The end result is the same... Now if you take it beyond 200 yards, then yes you have a valid point...

As to your last point... It doesn't make any sense so you might want to clarify that...

Thinking he may be talking about depredation permits.

How can they issue depredation permits if there aren't NO Deer... something DONT add up!!!

I believe I read where only hollow point bullets will be allowed with the hpr, no full metal jacket bullets will be allowed. That should cut down on the ricochets. I've heard many slugs ricochet.

I'm for the hpr, not because of the distance it will allow me to shoot but because of the accuracy and knock down power and dang my .243 is a beauty. Pure romance.

Will the hpr hurt the deer population in Indiana? I highly doubt it. I plan to still take only one deer next year if I'm lucky. If we all shot monster bucks every year what would we have to brag about?

Hope this guy doesn't hunt here because he would hurt the population... LOL

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vc5dKqoFtKk

I promise to only hurt one deer next year.

Couldn't have said it better Dale! I do NOT want to give up my time in the field because a few want to make it easy for themselves! And YES the weapons use has ALL the impact in the world on the herd Trapper Dave!!!

Who the heck ever said anything about giving up days in the field? I really do not understand what you are getting at there.

The less time it takes to reach harvest goals the shorter the season With Her that goal will be reached sooner so seasons will be shortened

i dont see it and i bet bet the numbers prove my point if they are allowed.

harvest will stay about the same. nobody will kill more deer than they do now. sky wont fall. herd wont vanish.


really doesnt matter to me. Im not gonna buy a centerfire. I prefer my muzzleloaders and bows.

nah, just fewer people afield after day one if youre right

The last data I read about depredation permits states...

Deer Damage Control Permits. —A total of 456 deer permits were issued in 2012, nearly
identical to the 460 issued in 2011. Under this program, 6,152 deer were authorized to be taken.
This was a 0.5% increase from the 6,124 deer in 2011. Of the authorized deer for 2012, 2,359 deer
were reported harvested (Table 6) for a success rate of 38%. The number of deer harvested in 2012
increased by 1 deer from 2011 under the deer damage permit program; harvest has increased 84%
from the 1,282 deer harvested in 2003. Of the 2,359 deer harvested, 269 were reported as adult
male (11%), 223 were reported as button bucks (9%), and 1,867 were reported as female (79%).

Here's a link to that report.

http://www.in.gov/dnr/fishwild/files/fw-MR_1051_Deer_Damage_2013.pdf

While the overall numbers of deer don't appear to be that high (assuming the numbers are accurate), Jb makes a good point about the number of fawns that likely won't survive after their mothers are killed.

Throbak,

We don't work on a quota system here. There is no number goal. That works when you have a good population estimate like when you manage a military base. But we manage on harvest trends and some ambiguous other factors. If harvest trends show appreciable declines and/or those other factors indicate the resource is suffering, then we may see reduction in bonus antlerless allotments for counties. But I have never heard a whisper of reducing hunting days. And it's doubtful I ever will.

We will see I'll still get my 4 or 5 I just won't hunt the weather like I do now I don't even think about deer hunting till the weather is such I can hang them and butcher as I want not because of heat

Let me clarify in one sentence...............


People are seeing less deer, yet, they want a longer range tool in which to kill those same deer seen.


Gotta love the "I" want mine........

Let me re-clarify the clarify

People are seeing less deer, so they want a more efficient long range tool in which to kill 'more' of those same deer seen.....(fixed) ;0)

Yep that.

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.

Phil Blooms response to Don's article. It is in the comments and thought it would be something to post here again:

Mr. Mulligan’s column takes the DNR and the NRC to task based on his assumption that they are the architects of this proposal when in fact neither one of them is.
Most rule proposals do come from the DNR or the NRC, but this one did not.
The high-powered rifle proposal originated with petition requests submitted to the NRC from members of the public. The requests came in the form of two letters, one signed by an individual who filed a similar petition in 2012 and a second signed by two individuals. This was not the first time that the NRC and DNR have been asked about high-powered rifles for deer hunting.
NRC policy allows an individual, corporation, association, local unit of government, other state agency, or federal agency to petition for a new rule, an amended rule, re-codified rule, rule repeal or a similar action. In short, it’s one way the NRC incorporates public input into the rule-making process.
DNR staff reviewed these most recent citizen petitions and considered two factors – safety and deer management. First, hunting accidents continue to decline over the long term not only in Indiana but across the country (side note – the majority of accidents involve hunters falling out of tree stands and it is extremely rare when an accident involves a gunshot). Second, Indiana DNR does not formulate its deer management strategy based on a hunter’s equipment choice (shotgun, handgun, bow & arrow, crossbow or muzzleloader) but instead uses season dates, bag limits and license types (most notably the bonus antlerless license).
Consequently, it was decided to move the petition forward in order to engage broader public input on whether or not high-powered rifles would be acceptable for deer hunting in Indiana.
By virtue of the NRC’s preliminary approval of the proposal, that is where it stands – in the public arena where it should be. All citizens are encouraged to have their voices heard on this or any other proposed rule change by either writing to the NRC’s Division of Hearings, using its online comment form (found at www.in.gov/nrc/2377.htm) or attending public hearings once they are scheduled.
Eventually, the NRC’s Division of Hearings will compile all of the public comments and submit a recommendation to the NRC for its consideration.
--Phil Bloom, DNR communications director

Few questions:

1. Who were two letters from?
2. Do they have any connections to the NRC?
3. Can I petition a letter and it be read for a rule change?

It seems odd to me that this has been raised for years, but this time it has such momentum.