|
Post by tynimiller on Sept 20, 2014 19:27:13 GMT -5
Only thing I would like is limit the amount of rounds loaded. Hard to limit rounds when a lever-action .44 Mag will hold 10 rounds in its tubular magazine. Oh I know...but any logical person knows I could empty a magazine in a .308 AR down range on target well before average joe could work a lever action 10 times. I know no real way to do it and idiots would ignore just the only thing really I don't like about if the new proposal passes.
|
|
|
Post by dbd870 on Sept 20, 2014 19:56:30 GMT -5
You're not going to see very many 308 AR's considering the price of them and very few will be in the hands of the guy who is not a serious shooter.
|
|
|
Post by tynimiller on Sept 20, 2014 20:49:44 GMT -5
You're not going to see very many 308 AR's considering the price of them and very few will be in the hands of the guy who is not a serious shooter. Lotta truth there.
|
|
|
Post by M4Madness on Sept 21, 2014 8:09:18 GMT -5
I could empty a magazine in a .308 AR down range on target well before average joe could work a lever action 10 times. You think those guys aim? www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ppXe5q88DkLOL!
|
|
|
Post by josephwrealty on Sept 21, 2014 13:58:15 GMT -5
Honestly while I am divided on the subject. I am against the proposal because I am afraid it will hurt the herd overall in the long run due to higher harvest numbers reducing everyone's overall hunting experience. Also the issue of many of the individuals in the woods during gun season are dangerous enough with a shotgun or muzzleloader. Give them a high powered rifle and I may have to dig a foxhole instead of hanging a tree stand especially on public land. With all that said and the fact I am a primarily archery/muzzleloader guy I do find it in intriguing to have the choice to use my 25-06. Like I said I'm torn on the matter and I'm not knocking either side.
|
|
|
Post by sakorifle on Sept 21, 2014 16:00:32 GMT -5
good debate, very interesting from over here, and completely the opposite thinking from our law makers. We have an awful job getting shotgun slugs, why, because they are seen as more dangerous than a rifle bullet. I have very very little experience of them accept that my friend has them on his ticket for humane dispatch of cows and bulls, but he tells me when they hit a deer they just keep on going, and if they hit something hard they just ricochet and keep going. Where as a high velocity soft point bullet will more than likely use most of its energy and break up on impact. As for emptying a magazine at a deer? well for anyone doing that they really do need to learn to stalk and shoot. i understand the concerns over the herd as i would expect a good man or woman with a modern rifle to be able to fill there tags easier than with a bow, but surely this would have been taken into account by your rule makers.
I am still not convinced a rifle is anymore dangerous that a shotgun with slugs or a muzzleloader, at the end of the day its the nut behind the bolt and a bit of self control. regards billy
|
|
|
Post by M4Madness on Sept 21, 2014 17:59:29 GMT -5
We have an awful job getting shotgun slugs, why, because they are seen as more dangerous than a rifle bullet. I have very very little experience of them accept that my friend has them on his ticket for humane dispatch of cows and bulls, but he tells me when they hit a deer they just keep on going, and if they hit something hard they just ricochet and keep going. This has been proven by the study conducted by the state of Pennsylvania, but people here still like to doubt the results. It's pretty bad when the UK allows rifles and prohibits shotguns in a much-more populated area than we live in, yet those here react in a completely opposite manner. i understand the concerns over the herd as i would expect a good man or woman with a modern rifle to be able to fill there tags easier than with a bow, but surely this would have been taken into account by your rule makers. That's the thing. The detractors aren't comparing rifles to bows, they're comparing rifles to shotguns. They believe that more deer will be killed by rifles than currently deer-legal firearms, but so far no one has presented facts to back up their assertion of that.
|
|
|
Post by firstwd on Sept 21, 2014 18:22:49 GMT -5
Answer me this. If HPR'S end up taking countless numbers of more deer than current guns do, how is that a bad thing?
We can already only kill one buck. Antlerless harvests are regulated through county limits. If the numbers are overly high then the DNR just accomplished their goal in minimal time. Then they can simply lower county antlerless limits to maintain the reduction they are aiming for.
|
|
|
Post by stevein on Sept 21, 2014 18:58:23 GMT -5
Only thing I would like is limit the amount of rounds loaded. I personally don't think a magazine full of .308 in an AR has a place idiots will be idiots no matter the weapon but allowing that is just a little "not thought out" if you ask me. Again read back through my posts before anyone labels me a HPR hater. I agree. There are a bunch of AK's and SKS's out there that will be used. Limit ALL firearms to 6 rounds. that will not hurt a thing. Waterfowl hunters plug their tube mags so the technolgy is there.
|
|
|
Post by sakorifle on Sept 22, 2014 3:52:52 GMT -5
greetings Chaps it doesn't matter if the rifle holds one like a ruger number one, or twenty. Its down to the operator to use a bit of self control , to stop it one is talking about more legislation, but it would be very easy to write in rules on maximum magazine capability, and if this goes to public discussion then it is your chance to put your views forward and see if they are put into practice. I bet your views on this matter get serious thought. regards Billy
|
|
|
Post by M4Madness on Sept 22, 2014 5:24:07 GMT -5
The NRC already addressed the issue of magazine capacity years ago when they legalized PCR's by stating in no uncertain terms that they had no intentions of imposing magazine limits for deer. Doing so now would be retroactive, affecting firearms already legal.
That said, I have no plans to carry anything larger than a 5 or 10-round mag, but don't want to impose on the rights of others to do as they please. Idiots will be idiots regardless of magazine capacity. The government already controls way too much of our everyday lives. No sense in giving them any more reign.
|
|
|
Post by sakorifle on Sept 22, 2014 5:41:51 GMT -5
greetings Thanks for the information looks like the problem has already been addressed. I am in a different situation and most of my stalking is culling deer for work , so i use two different magazines in the doe season were there are family groups i use a five shot mag with four rounds in it that gives me the chance of three does and a shot if i need it for humane dispatch.
In the buck season i use a three shot mag as bucks are usually single animals, but if i come across two together it gives me two bucks and and a humane dispatch shot if needed. But there is always ten rounds in a pouch in the van
I prefer the three shot mag as it is level in the bottom of the tikka where as the five shot is longer and sticks out catching my jacket, belt etc. No need to have lots of bullets loaded into a rifle even if it is capable of taking them. regards Billy
|
|
|
Post by darinfry on Sept 22, 2014 7:38:24 GMT -5
Im not near as concerned with what people use to hunt with as much as i am how many theyre allowed to shoot. We keep being told our deer herd needs reduced more, but every part of the state to my knowledge is showing significantly lower deer numbers already. As of now in franklin co i only see about a quarter of the number of deer i seen just five years ago. Im just wondering at what point the dnr will be satisfied? Will they finally reduce bonus antlerless tags/ extra doe season at that point?
|
|
|
Post by steve46511 on Sept 22, 2014 17:29:02 GMT -5
How many against are strictly bow hunters? From feedback I've been seeing this is where most of the opposition is coming from. There are many bowhunters that are for this, They are thinking opening up high powered rifles will lead to a shorter gun season and moving it out of the rut which is what they have always wanted since prop 1 of the original rule changes was all about. There are those that can't sleep at night knowing that a firearm hunter may kill one of (their) bucks. EVERYONE can hunt the rut with their choice of weapon now. It simply can't get more FAIR than that. Anyone pushing to move any certain group out of the rut, with this being the case, needs to take a REAL close look at themselves, IMO, and decide if they are the type of "sportsmen" (or women) that is willing to go out on the limb well within the public eye (hunting and non-hunting public) and state that selfishness is a "reason" that they intend others to except as a legitimate one. IF the herd ever got so bad that hunting the rut needed to be withdrawn, the only FAIR way is to stop hunting it at all. This is no where on the current agenda but I'm rather shocked to even see in print that anyone is so selfish that they PLAN on HPR's eliminating too much of the herd (or at least being BLAMED for such) so they can have their way and that is the only reason I'm saying anything about this. With the flexibility of tag numbers available that the state NOW has as a tool to allow or not allow more deer to be taken, as well as the numbers of those bonus county tags being the determining factor if the late antlerless season exists at all in a county, the possibility of it getting to THAT bad of a state, herd wise, is like...........zilch. Imagine HOW low the herd number would have to be for the state take ALL the bonus county tags (for all hunters regardless of weapon of choice), which would eliminate any county of having a late antlerless and the entire state at the point where ONLY the two archery tags, one firearm tag and one black powder tag being ALL there was to buy. It would not be a huge surprise to me to see, if it ever got that low, to see "buck tags" only available through a state wide draw which would ALSO be equally fair to all, regardless of weapon choice. While some unexpected things have brought about changes in seasons, most have been to EQUALIZE the rights of all hunters. Seeing an about face that reduces one type of hunter and hunter's choice of weapon and the right to hunt bucks at the best of times......isn't going to happen. Anyone having any kind of ultimatum to pass anything allowing them specific advantages (more than they already have as far as TIME AFIELD) due to weapon choice is dreaming, IMHO. God Bless
|
|
|
Post by ms660 on Sept 23, 2014 9:32:26 GMT -5
IMHO that was exactly what the first proposed rules the "stake holders" came up with were dreaming about. Lessening the opportunity of the firearms hunter at a buck by shortening the season and moving it completely out of the main rut phase. All know that that attempt failed, but the wheels are still turning to accomplish this. If wasn't for the huge protest from the majority Indiana deer hunters, prop 1 more than likely would have been slid under the table and passed. Below is a quote from another IN hunting form.
Copied and pasted from another Indiana hunting forum
Hoosier Hunter Member # 7984
Bring on the rifles ...... 'Cause I know what that will bring next.
But then again..... "It" is coming anyways.... [Wink]
|
|
|
Post by steve46511 on Sept 23, 2014 11:24:18 GMT -5
I would like to clarify something JIC some readers feel I'm all "pro-firearm" or have ANYTHING against bowhunters. For decades I ONLY bowhunted, and all but for 3-4 years that was with a longbow and / or recurve. I was in my late 50s before I shot a deer with a shotgun slug and to date I've still only shot 5 with a slug gun. Those before when I DID firearm hunt was with a 54 caliber Renegade. I'm about as "pro bowhunting" as you can get but the HPRs and the wildcats up to this year grabbed my interest too. Decades back, some of you other old timers will recall ads for "Be a Two-Season Hunter". Yes, back then there was a huge push to promote bowhunting because there really WASN'T MANY!! Ol' Fred and others spent a lot of their lifetime advocating the many benefits of bowhunting but first and foremost, the sportsmen that blazed the trail before us were THAT first: "SPORTSMEN!" Fred welcome any type of firearm hunter into his camp and never once promoted ANY thoughts or laws giving bowhunters special privileges and welcomed the challenge of hunting along side firearm hunters WHERE LEGAL because back then there were not a lot of places where bowhunters COULD hunt the firearm season AS WELL AS archery season. A great majority of bowhunters back then mirrored that train of thought and those who followed his advice and became a "two season hunter" enjoyed the added challenge and added time afield that bowhunting brought with it. Neither firearm hunters nor bow only hunters or the two season hunter, hunting with both bashed another hunter nor did they EVER ONCE consider walking all over another hunter's possibility of connecting. Realize too that THEN, if memory isn't failing me, deer season was a "one and done" proposition. You got to take ONE DEER, period and you WORKED for that shot. Worked hard. Hunted long hours and many days to GET-----> ONE shot at "A" deer, often going WEEKS without SEEING one. A "good spot" was far more valuable then than one is today even considering the much smaller amount of habitat we have today. Fast forward to now. We have: Longer seasons More seasons More choices in legal weapons MORE DEER Bigger bucks MUCH better technology resulting in MUCH longer shot feasibility and last but not least, the opportunity to shoot multiple deer with almost all these improvements and advantages being at our disposal IN OTHER STATES as well. Back then, other states had equally restrictive low herd numbers and state regulations. One could go to another state for more options, but there was little change in what one could take or how much effort and time it would take to succeed in doing so. WHAT THE HECK HAPPENED that NOW, with all the huge advantages, liberal regulations, long seasons and huge herd numbers all giving us SO MUCH MORE OPPORTUNITY that so many feel that restricting someone ELSE's chances somehow increases their own, and EVEN IF IT DID to any kind of measurable amount, how is it that today this is an acceptable SOP? ? Yes! Should HPRs become the norm, I'm going to use one and look forward to doing so. NO. If that had happened 30 years ago, I wouldn't have but I still would have supported the regulation if numbers THEN were at the level they are now. This is a time where MANY of our rights are under attack. This is also a time where "EQUAL RIGHTS" is under attack, clear down to what I can hunt with? ? Above, the fact that this is a "competition" was mentioned and pretty much, one opinion was "that's how it is within a competition". That is a bunch of bunkum and is unadulterated balderdash. A COMPETITION is where contestants have EQUAL OPPORTUNITY to do well or "win". Such is a battle of wits, strength, stamina and skill. Period. Wanting to restrict one person's chances to increase another party's chances is NOT part of a competition. That is the definition of "cutthroat" or "dirty pool". Do anything to hurt the other guy, all is "fair game" as long as you "win". Another way "trophy rack hunting" is NOT a "competition" is the fact that in order for it to BE such, those competing would have to hunt the same area, with the same deer herd. I've never even HEARD of such occurring. Quickly our sport is not just becoming a "rich man's sport", it's becoming a rich man's, ONLY, sport. Buy it. Lease it. Plant it. Keep all others out. THERE IS NOT ONE OUNCE OF "COMPETITION" INVOLVED THERE any more than those having the funds to hire a top guide year after year and having him locate some "trophy" animal and flying out there when the guide says the time is best and shooting it. The biggest factor of the "winner" shooting even a new record animal in the last paragraph is one thing. Money. If you can BUY your way into a bigger rack that is a fine, legal and great thing. I'm happy FOR you (if that gives you some kind of satisfaction) but it is NOT, on ANY level, "competing" with the guy only able to hunt the neighbors farm. The state would be well advised, when asking for feedback on new weapon proposals to include TWO questions, and two questions only. 1. Would YOU hunt with this weapon? 2. Why or Why Not? Period. This would give those feeling a safety issue is at hand as well as a full opportunity to do just hear from those with an opinion and it would be about THEIR use, ONLY. "It will reduce MY chances of a, or another, or more...big bucks" is NOT a "reason" that should be considered. That's not a "reason".....it's nothing but GREED. LET OTHERS HUNT WITH WHAT THEY WISH. SOMEONE out there would like to see YOUR choice of weapon taken off the board too, possibly hundreds of thousands of "someones" called "non-hunters". IS THEIR opinion or any HUNTER'S opinion a justifiable one to remove YOUR weapon of choice?? Bet not. Same should apply for all. God Bless
|
|
|
Post by tynimiller on Sept 23, 2014 11:56:08 GMT -5
Steve...you've had some discussions in real life with some very staunch anti-HPRs haven't ya? I can feel your frustration and to be honest like I've stated I'm not necessarily for them, but if passed I fully support the legal and proper use of them. The reason I'm okay with it despite not entirely for it is there are much bigger things for the hunting community to figure out how to combat and that is illegal activities like poaching, family tagging, illegal/unlawful use of bait, illegal/unlawful abuse of landowner tags not verified by the state....these are much bigger things which hunters should be concerned with, not what weapon someone is gonna use...but alas that is for another thread.
|
|
|
Post by onebentarrow on Sept 23, 2014 15:01:38 GMT -5
I would like to clarify something JIC some readers feel I'm all "pro-firearm" or have ANYTHING against bowhunters. For decades I ONLY bowhunted, and all but for 3-4 years that was with a longbow and / or recurve. I was in my late 50s before I shot a deer with a shotgun slug and to date I've still only shot 5 with a slug gun. Those before when I DID firearm hunt was with a 54 caliber Renegade. I'm about as "pro bowhunting" as you can get but the HPRs and the wildcats up to this year grabbed my interest too. Decades back, some of you other old timers will recall ads for "Be a Two-Season Hunter". Yes, back then there was a huge push to promote bowhunting because there really WASN'T MANY!! Ol' Fred and others spent a lot of their lifetime advocating the many benefits of bowhunting but first and foremost, the sportsmen that blazed the trail before us were THAT first: "SPORTSMEN!" Fred welcome any type of firearm hunter into his camp and never once promoted ANY thoughts or laws giving bowhunters special privileges and welcomed the challenge of hunting along side firearm hunters WHERE LEGAL because back then there were not a lot of places where bowhunters COULD hunt the firearm season AS WELL AS archery season. A great majority of bowhunters back then mirrored that train of thought and those who followed his advice and became a "two season hunter" enjoyed the added challenge and added time afield that bowhunting brought with it. Neither firearm hunters nor bow only hunters or the two season hunter, hunting with both bashed another hunter nor did they EVER ONCE consider walking all over another hunter's possibility of connecting. Realize too that THEN, if memory isn't failing me, deer season was a "one and done" proposition. You got to take ONE DEER, period and you WORKED for that shot. Worked hard. Hunted long hours and many days to GET-----> ONE shot at "A" deer, often going WEEKS without SEEING one. A "good spot" was far more valuable then than one is today even considering the much smaller amount of habitat we have today. Fast forward to now. We have: Longer seasons More seasons More choices in legal weapons MORE DEER Bigger bucks MUCH better technology resulting in MUCH longer shot feasibility and last but not least, the opportunity to shoot multiple deer with almost all these improvements and advantages being at our disposal IN OTHER STATES as well. Back then, other states had equally restrictive low herd numbers and state regulations. One could go to another state for more options, but there was little change in what one could take or how much effort and time it would take to succeed in doing so. WHAT THE HECK HAPPENED that NOW, with all the huge advantages, liberal regulations, long seasons and huge herd numbers all giving us SO MUCH MORE OPPORTUNITY that so many feel that restricting someone ELSE's chances somehow increases their own, and EVEN IF IT DID to any kind of measurable amount, how is it that today this is an acceptable SOP? ? Yes! Should HPRs become the norm, I'm going to use one and look forward to doing so. NO. If that had happened 30 years ago, I wouldn't have but I still would have supported the regulation if numbers THEN were at the level they are now. This is a time where MANY of our rights are under attack. This is also a time where "EQUAL RIGHTS" is under attack, clear down to what I can hunt with? ? Above, the fact that this is a "competition" was mentioned and pretty much, one opinion was "that's how it is within a competition". That is a bunch of bunkum and is unadulterated balderdash. A COMPETITION is where contestants have EQUAL OPPORTUNITY to do well or "win". Such is a battle of wits, strength, stamina and skill. Period. Wanting to restrict one person's chances to increase another party's chances is NOT part of a competition. That is the definition of "cutthroat" or "dirty pool". Do anything to hurt the other guy, all is "fair game" as long as you "win". Another way "trophy rack hunting" is NOT a "competition" is the fact that in order for it to BE such, those competing would have to hunt the same area, with the same deer herd. I've never even HEARD of such occurring. Quickly our sport is not just becoming a "rich man's sport", it's becoming a rich man's, ONLY, sport. Buy it. Lease it. Plant it. Keep all others out. THERE IS NOT ONCE OUNCE OF "COMPETITION" INVOLVED THERE any more than those having the funds to hire a top guide year after year and having him locate some "trophy" animal and flying out there when the guide says the time is best and shooting it. The biggest factor of the "winner" shooting even a new record animal in the last paragraph is one thing. Money. If you can BUY your way into a bigger rack that is a fine, legal and great thing. I'm happy FOR you (if that gives you some kind of satisfaction) but it is NOT, on ANY level, "competing" with the guy only able to hunt the neighbors farm. The state would be well advised, when asking for feedback on new weapon proposals to include TWO questions, and two questions only. 1. Would YOU hunt with this weapon? 2. Why or Why Not? Period. This would give those feeling a safety issue is at hand as well as a full opportunity to do just hear from those with an opinion and it would be about THEIR use, ONLY. "It will reduce MY chances of a, or another, or more...big bucks" is NOT a "reason" that should be considered. That's not a "reason".....it's nothing but GREED. LET OTHERS HUNT WITH WHAT THEY WISH. SOMEONE out there would like to see YOUR choice of weapon taken off the board too, possibly hundreds of thousands of "someones" called "non-hunters". IS THEIR opinion or any HUNTER'S opinion a justifiable one to remove YOUR weapon of choice?? Bet not. Same should apply for all. God Bless Well stated! I am glad some one can put on paper what I feel but did not know how to say. I remember those days when just seeing a deer made your weekend hunt sucessfull. And IF and I mean IF! U happened to get a deer that was a great thing, gun or bow didn't matter. Gun hunters would come see a bow kill and bow hunters would do the same with hand shakes back slapping and congrats all the way around. Now days some guys grumble cause youth season is before they get a chance to hunt. Who's deer do u think it is anyway? It ain't mine and it is not yours either. Do I like to hunt? Oh ya. Use to take 3 weeks vacation, hunt every Friday night sat and sunday, archery, gun and muzzelloader. Put as much meat in freezer as possible so we had meat to eat. Did my own butchering. I never complained about someone else hunting or killing a deer with what ever they used as long as it was dune legally. Sorry about the rant, but people that are inconsiderate of others and ME ME ME tick me off Onebentarrow
|
|
|
Post by shouldernuke on Sept 23, 2014 16:19:28 GMT -5
There are many bowhunters that are for this, They are thinking opening up high powered rifles will lead to a shorter gun season and moving it out of the rut which is what they have always wanted since prop 1 of the original rule changes was all about. There are those that can't sleep at night knowing that a firearm hunter may kill one of (their) bucks. EVERYONE can hunt the rut with their choice of weapon now. It simply can't get more FAIR than that. Anyone pushing to move any certain group out of the rut, with this being the case, needs to take a REAL close look at themselves, IMO, and decide if they are the type of "sportsmen" (or women) that is willing to go out on the limb well within the public eye (hunting and non-hunting public) and state that selfishness is a "reason" that they intend others to except as a legitimate one. IF the herd ever got so bad that hunting the rut needed to be withdrawn, the only FAIR way is to stop hunting it at all. This is no where on the current agenda but I'm rather shocked to even see in print that anyone is so selfish that they PLAN on HPR's eliminating too much of the herd (or at least being BLAMED for such) so they can have their way and that is the only reason I'm saying anything about this. With the flexibility of tag numbers available that the state NOW has as a tool to allow or not allow more deer to be taken, as well as the numbers of those bonus county tags being the determining factor if the late antlerless season exists at all in a county, the possibility of it getting to THAT bad of a state, herd wise, is like...........zilch. Imagine HOW low the herd number would have to be for the state take ALL the bonus county tags (for all hunters regardless of weapon of choice), which would eliminate any county of having a late antlerless and the entire state at the point where ONLY the two archery tags, one firearm tag and one black powder tag being ALL there was to buy. It would not be a huge surprise to me to see, if it ever got that low, to see "buck tags" only available through a state wide draw which would ALSO be equally fair to all, regardless of weapon choice. While some unexpected things have brought about changes in seasons, most have been to EQUALIZE the rights of all hunters. Seeing an about face that reduces one type of hunter and hunter's choice of weapon and the right to hunt bucks at the best of times......isn't going to happen. Anyone having any kind of ultimatum to pass anything allowing them specific advantages (more than they already have as far as TIME AFIELD) due to weapon choice is dreaming, IMHO. God Bless Steve your memory is right Deer hunting was one and done no mater the season until mid 1970s .Then it went to two bucks or one buck and 1 doe . Then in the early 1980s to one doe and one buck woth bow and one buck with gun or ML, . And in the early mid 1980s it was finally two bucks and two doe total. But a hunter could only take a buck with archery gear and a buck with a Shotgun or ML .It was that way until the mid 1990s . Then one year and one year only it was legal to kill 4 bucks or any combination other than a doe with a Shotgun in gun season still had to be a buck one buck - ML one buck or doe ,1 buck only Gun season unless you drew a coveted bonus antlerless tag in the one county you applied for. And two bucks with bow or one buck and one doe or two doe .Then the next year it was 3 bucks , one bow buck, one gun buck and ,one ML buck. That only lasted one year as well .Then it went back to two bucks one in gun or ML not a buck in both, and one buck in bow and one doe or two doe in bow .And if a gun hunter killed a doe he could then in ML season kill a antlerless deer only .Then it all changed with the OBR in 2001...The rest is history .And we here in IN have seen many changes this is nothing new . Its about hunting first and equity of those days in the deer woods bay all hunters .And all hunters will or have the right to hunt just as many days and take the very same deer as every other hunter .If they choose to be one or two weapon specific then shame on em its simply their call to limit themselves . There are a bunch of hunters who have only hunted deer for the last 5-20 years have a missconception as to what deer hunt and the bag limits have been and not long ago changed to how it is now .FYI guys deer season was not held every year until the early 1960s !!!! It was every other year ..LOL
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Sept 23, 2014 17:50:10 GMT -5
Not sure where you got that every other year at.. I started deer hunting in 1968 and have deer hunted EVERY year since then. You might have to go back to the '50s to skip any years..
|
|