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.