|
Post by parson on Dec 14, 2014 16:46:34 GMT -5
So then mulligans are best ignored.
Sounds like the best way to go.
|
|
|
Post by firstwd on Dec 14, 2014 17:24:47 GMT -5
So then mulligans are best ignored. Sounds like the best way to go. I personally believe this particular Mulligan does not need ignored. He needs put in place publicly and often.
|
|
|
Post by parson on Dec 15, 2014 8:39:44 GMT -5
I understand what you're saying firstwd. His cannot be the only voice addressing this issue. It seems that the consensus here in HI is quite contrary to Mr. Mulligan, although he does have rabid supporters on other Indiana sites.
I don't see how he has any credence as a "reporter" with the ridiculous bias with which he writes (elephant, moose guns, etc.). But then, I don't understand haw a lot of foolish arguments get legs.
Not sure what, if any, publications carry his articles, but if they have "comment" sections, that might be a worthwhile place to offer rebuttal. I need to do some googleing to check this out.
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Dec 15, 2014 8:56:19 GMT -5
Good luck on "commenting". Several have tried and the same three are all that is on there...
|
|
|
Post by parson on Dec 15, 2014 9:19:21 GMT -5
So..., this guy has a somewhat limited outlet for his outdoor "journalism"?
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Dec 15, 2014 9:38:05 GMT -5
The guy has the Internet .... not sure there is any such thing as limited anymore.
He is an idiot, no doubt, but he isnt the only idiot out there.
|
|
|
Post by greghopper on Dec 15, 2014 10:07:34 GMT -5
The guy has the Internet .... not sure there is any such thing as limited anymore. He is an idiot, no doubt, but he isnt the only idiot out there. Not sure "idiot" is the best word..... "Different" is my view of him!!!! Personally I never met the guy.....
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Dec 15, 2014 10:11:56 GMT -5
I figured idiot was better than some of the alternatives .... he may just not know that bits and pieces of what he is posting is factually inaccurate and the rest of it is heavily slanted opinion.
|
|
|
Post by sakorifle on Dec 15, 2014 18:31:41 GMT -5
greetings swilk you are right the man is an IDIOT, that's official. That is his very misinformed opinions. was going to write more but better not, lol regards Billy
|
|
|
Post by freedomhunter on Dec 18, 2014 16:49:27 GMT -5
So how long until local county or town ordinance prevent hunting within 500 yards of a residence? Boom, you can no longer hunt your low pressure honey hole. All it takes is one hpr round in the side of house owned by someone with some influence. Unintended consequences.
|
|
|
Post by GS1 on Dec 18, 2014 17:02:03 GMT -5
So how long until local county or town ordinance prevent hunting within 500 yards of a residence? Boom, you can no longer hunt your low pressure honey hole. All it takes is one hpr round in the side of house owned by someone with some influence. Unintended consequences. We, like a lot of citys, have a no discharge of firearms ordinance eliminating hunting with guns in city limits. Wondering what difference it makes if it's a HPR, PCR or shotgun? Why 500 yards? Why not 1000 or 100? I know Nebraska is 200 yards of an occupied dwelling. Or something like that.
|
|
|
Post by sakorifle on Dec 18, 2014 17:11:56 GMT -5
greetings why would a hpr round hit house at 500yds and not a slug or muzzleloader? to hit a house at 500yds you are going to have to be zeroed for a long way or be shooting squirrels up a tree? houses don't get hit here and we shoot on city boundary's. This is not me being funny or awkward or argumentative this is a sensible reasonable question. Why does it work on this little island and it wont work in your country? I am trying to understand but struggling. thank you Billy
|
|
|
Post by schall53 on Dec 18, 2014 17:58:00 GMT -5
The only problem I see is that you are going to have a bunch of weekend warriors out shooting. Since we have never had this type of firearm legal before we are going to have a bunch of people in the woods that have no experience with them. They will think they can take shots at unreasonable ranges and will. If the rifle was always a legal deer tool I wouldn't be near as worried. Heck I about got shot years ago with a slug fired by someone that didn't have a clue. He shot at a deer that was about 400 yds away from him with a 12ga. I was in line with him another 400 yds. past the deer in a tree stand. His slugs were raining down all around me at my level. I proceeded to go over and have words with him at which time he told me that a slug basically would hit the ground at about 50 yds if the gun was held level, that's why he was holding 20ft high. Needless to say I informed his of his mistake in not too many words and told him if it happened again I was returning fire. I never saw them again. There are just too many uneducated people out there. There will be a learning curve , I just hope nobody gets shot before it happens. It has been stated that we already have these rifles in use. This is true but with these wildcats I would venture a guess that the people using them are well educated in their use I know I am.
|
|
|
Post by sakorifle on Dec 18, 2014 18:19:59 GMT -5
greetings
Thank you schall, its nothing to do with the rifles its the operators. Well education and restrictions are the only answer to that problem, over here we have very strict laws on who can have what, over here there is no right to own a firearm it is a privilege , perhaps it is not too bad after all, very very rarely is there an accident, if there is you can bet your shirt it is someone shooting foxes at night and has taken a stupid shot. But stupid people will be stupid people regardless what they use, yes i agree that someone that has gone to the expense and bother and bought a wildcat is going to take the time and make the effort to use it properly and to its best effect. Well what ever happens everyone needs to remember united we stand divided we fall,getting interesting debates full of opinions locked is not a good thing for any of us. regards Billy
|
|
|
Post by span870 on Dec 18, 2014 18:34:46 GMT -5
I'm really starting to feel ashamed from the opinion some have of our fellow hunters. Although I really doubt safety is the real issue here. Regardless if safety truly is your concern what percentage of your fellow hunters do you feel are idiots. I've hunted heavy hunted state properties all my life. I mean a hunter on every ridge. I have never felt unsafe. Sad. It really is.
|
|
|
Post by jjas on Dec 18, 2014 19:04:12 GMT -5
Phil Bloom's response to Don Mulligans column........ 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
|
|
|
Post by M4Madness on Dec 18, 2014 19:49:19 GMT -5
There it is in a nutshell. The DNR considered the safety aspect and affect on herd numbers before proposing it to the NRC.
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Dec 18, 2014 19:57:05 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by M4Madness on Dec 18, 2014 20:16:36 GMT -5
I get a kick out of this one:
We all know that they support the proposal, so why does its origin make any difference? Because they're wanting those who oppose it to blame someone else. LOL!
|
|
|
Post by freedomhunter on Dec 19, 2014 9:05:25 GMT -5
greetings why would a hpr round hit house at 500yds and not a slug or muzzleloader? to hit a house at 500yds you are going to have to be zeroed for a long way or be shooting squirrels up a tree? houses don't get hit here and we shoot on city boundary's. This is not me being funny or awkward or argumentative this is a sensible reasonable question. Why does it work on this little island and it wont work in your country? I am trying to understand but struggling. thank you Billy You would have to hunt here on opening day of firearms season for deer to properly understand, Billy. I've got a spot next to a nice amish farm you could hunt but you will need to be able to shoot a running deer.
|
|