As of this time... I have no comments on the comments ;0) ....

You may want to start prepaing yourself...."Pandora's Box" is/was opened!!!

Don't look like it gonna shut anytime soon!!

Some good "for and against" comments in the list of comments. And then, a lot of just outright, and I'll use a polite word here, goofy, comments from some who I believe probably shouldn't be allowed to shoot any gun. Just my opinion of course. Just bring baiting on and Indiana will have finally hit the bottom of the barrel. With rifles and baiting, more guys will lose access to private hunting ground then imaginable. Good hunting grounds will lease at $35 per acre and consume large tracts of acreage that 3 to 5 day hunts will cost close to $4,000. The DNR's role in managing deer is coming to an end and the NRC is just to __________ to be able to see it. Maybe that's not all bad.

Most that I read were in favor of the rule but as usual you get your comments from people who lack in proper typing and English skills so it makes their comments not worth reading and them sound ignorant....

You also get your comments from people who know nothing about ballistics and scream OMG bullets will go for miles and miles which is not true...

Then my favorite that I read was from a guy in Ft. Wayne who was against it because he said our herd was being decimated but yet stated that he and his family kill 3-4 deers every year... Gee, moron did it ever occur to you that when you kill 3-4 deer every year that eventually you are not going to see anymore deer... :rolleyes:

You just can't fix stupid folks.... :rolleyes:

The comments about more revenue for the DNR, likely not so. Less wounding rates, possibly but possibly not as well. More people coming into the sport, very questionable. Comments of basically "I want it" were good, honest comments without the need for justification. And I did like the comment by the one gentleman who suggested that there could be more accidents but in essence, so be it. And I thought the comments about less recoil for young kids and woman were pretty good. But what you find, as with many other situations where new weapons have been approved, not much said about the aspect of "hunting". Instead, it's most about shooting and in essence, to a degree, using the deer as a target as opposed to hunting the deer and outsmarting the deer to harvest it. What I really wish I could understand is how many days each of the responders hunt each year.

Probably not many so hit them from a distance and get it over with... I think this is why the majority probably support it... Less in the woods, and more on the couch or other obligations...

I only hunted I think 10 days total this year 2 being with a bow (don't even know why I bothered with the bow) and 8 with a gun... Would have hunted more but the weather was terrible with unfavorable wind conditions for me to use my ladder stand...

I think it would be great if the state would ask people who comment how many days did they spent in the field when asking for comments so you could get an idea on why someone supports or opposes a rule change...

Although I never had the pleasure of meeting him in person, it's threads like this that make me miss Gundude.
About now he'd chime in with something like:

Ice is 4" and gills are hitting bee moths in 6' of water

Big Ten basketball is in full swing


He certainly got my attention with little lines like that...as well as reminding us that life is too short and too precious to spend it at a keyboard trying to be right.

HS, I was honestly thinking the same thing when the Hoosiers didn't show up in East Lansing Monday night. He left his mark on this forum that's for sure!

Someone on another site counted through all of the e-mailed comments ....Here are the results

TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE the following are correct:

YES: 774

Yes with stipulations (such as magazine restrictions, county, etc.): 155

NO: 773

Welp......that's all the NRC needs right now is just that "1" vote that makes it a majority. I wonder if that "1" vote to get it done was from Bryan Pointer or Patrick Early again.

It would have to be overwhelming opposition. Not a 1 vote/count difference like this is so far .

"Overwhelming" is like what happened to proposal #1....

lol

You're right.... I keep forgetting that when 2% of deer hunters responded against Prop #1 and 98% had no complaint or anything to say against Prop #1, and our Top Deer Biologist Chad Stewart was all for Prop # 1 as his first choice.......It was still considered "overwhelming" against Prop #1 by a few members of the NRC. Thanks for the reminder again Brew in what "overwhelming" means when it comes to our NRC and how they make decisions..... And reasons why we lose good people like Chad Stewart in our IDNR as they leave and go elsewhere.

LOL...keep grasping at straws :rolleyes:

There will always be those who are unhappy that 1.0 didn't pass and that crossbows and (likely) hprs are now a part of the deer hunting landscape.

But in the future I see supporters of 1.0 getting one thing they wanted........

I see the real possibility of shortened and/or moved gun seasons after herd reduction goals are met and archery hunters (in a large part due to crossbow inclusion) secure a larger percentage of the overall harvest and thus become a proven, viable management tool.

How long will all of this take? Who knows. But I would imagine it will take several more seasons.

I dont know about the move....my time spent talking to Chad indicated this state will not move the gun dates, they would just use the bonus tags as a means of regulating the yearly kills and over kill in certain areas..... I'm waiting to see what they do with the Urban vs deer "reduction" zones...I havnt seen any indication on how this will be done...

funny, they use the OBR ruling to grow bigger bucks, yet will not take the final step to accomplish this by moving the gun season out of the rut ? hmm....

Makes no difference to me, just don't complain about not having bigger bucks.

[/qb][/QUOTE]Most that I read were in favor of the rule but as usual you get your comments from people who lack in proper typing and English skills so it makes their comments not worth reading and them sound ignorant....

You also get your comments from people who know nothing about ballistics and scream OMG bullets will go for miles and miles which is not true...

Then my favorite that I read was from a guy in Ft. Wayne who was against it because he said our herd was being decimated but yet stated that he and his family kill 3-4 deers every year... Gee, moron did it ever occur to you that when you kill 3-4 deer every year that eventually you are not going to see anymore deer... :rolleyes:

You just can't fix stupid folks.... :rolleyes: [/QB][/QUOTE]


all depends on whether or not those deer were taken off one property or spread out. I take an average of 5-8 deer, but off of 5 properties in 5 different counties.

I think the deer numbers have been down, but if you look at the bow hunters study, its a natural up and down cycle.. you cannot make a fair opinion over a 2 year period.

But I have never heard you complain about never seeing deer and the multiple videos you so kindly share with us every year proves that you are seeing deer...

The point I am making is don't shoot multiple deer a year then complain on forums (such as this) or to the DNR that you are seeing fewer deer or no deer or go out telling others how they should hunt then you go out and blast everything brown and justify it... That is just being a hypocrite...

To me that person was being a hypocrite because he is against HPR's and his reasoning is that deer numbers are down but yet he and his family are killing 3 to 4 deer a year.... Heck I guess you could argue what harvesting multiple deer a year has anything to do with HPR's...

The tbr had nothing to do with the DNR wanting big bucks it was a social issue brought on by hunters not biologist

I agree Bryan.. did not mean for that to be taken bad.. sorry...