|
Post by jb1069 on Apr 14, 2015 8:52:30 GMT -5
Any news on this? Is there a set date on when they will decide? If this has already been covered I must have missed it. Please direct me to the correct posting.
|
|
|
Post by steve46511 on Apr 14, 2015 9:32:29 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by tynimiller on Apr 14, 2015 12:45:18 GMT -5
If it doesn't pass, I strongly encourage legislation that would remove the HPR rounds PERIOD, this whole legal out of a pistol thing but not a long gun is a load of crock...all or nothing. I have more comments on whether it is all a good idea or not but to me allowing it out of "x" but not "y" is asanine.
|
|
|
Post by hornzilla on Apr 14, 2015 12:56:07 GMT -5
If it doesn't pass, I strongly encourage legislation that would remove the HPR rounds PERIOD, this whole legal out of a pistol thing but not a long gun is a load of crock...all or nothing. I have more comments on whether it is all a good idea or not but to me allowing it out of "x" but not "y" is asanine. So if the HPR rule doesn't pass we should take away a legal round that us handgun hunters have used for years safely? So if the crossbow rule hadn't passed should we took compound bows away a few years back?
|
|
|
Post by tynimiller on Apr 14, 2015 13:31:47 GMT -5
If it doesn't pass, I strongly encourage legislation that would remove the HPR rounds PERIOD, this whole legal out of a pistol thing but not a long gun is a load of crock...all or nothing. I have more comments on whether it is all a good idea or not but to me allowing it out of "x" but not "y" is asanine. So if the HPR rule doesn't pass we should take away a legal round that us handgun hunters have used for years safely? So if the crossbow rule hadn't passed should we took compound bows away a few years back? You are missing the point of my argument. It is ridiculous to allow it through x but not y. If it is legal to use out of x make it legal out of y, is what I'm saying. I personally have no use for them, nor do I feel the need for them...however I see zero rational reasoning that would make sense for it to not be either legal across the board or illegal across the board. <<From only that perspective I want them to pass it so the wishy washy illogical stance that exists now will no longer exist.
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Apr 14, 2015 15:55:47 GMT -5
My opinion- this will pass as it has always been my opinion the the DNR wanted center fires legal but was afraid to jump out Full Monty. They then decided to piece meal them in..a little at a time... That's my story and I'm sticking to it..,
YMMV....
.
|
|
|
Post by drs on Apr 15, 2015 4:44:57 GMT -5
My opinion- this will pass as it has always been my opinion the the DNR wanted center fires legal but was afraid to jump out Full Monty. They then decided to piece meal them in..a little at a time... That's my story and I'm sticking to it.., YMMV.... . I agree Woody, on this H.P.R. thing in my home state of Indiana. Currently, shotguns firing sabot loaded ammunition or modern scope sighted M/L; all have about the same ballistics as many centerfire rifle cartridges. NOW, if the State of Kentucky would allow the use of small centerfire rifle cartridges (like a light loaded .22 Hornet) for hunting Squirrels; this would be great. Given the fact that it is becoming difficult to find .22 rimfire ammunition for many Squirrel Hunters. BTW: Kentucky just made it legal to use a .410 for hunting Wild Turkey! Also ANY centerfire rifle is legal for Deer here, BUT I can't use a light loaded .22 Hornet rifle for Squirrels but is is legal for Deer!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by beehunter on Apr 15, 2015 6:29:04 GMT -5
I agree with Woody.
|
|
|
Post by tynimiller on Apr 15, 2015 9:01:35 GMT -5
I'm all for it because I see no use fighting it...however just like waterfowlers have to I think deer hunters should be required to have only a limited number of rounds in the gun. I know it is few and far between but I think semi-autos loaded up do nothing to discourage the spray and pray methodology to harvests...especially when pushing or driving deer (which is a whole nother discussion).
|
|
|
Post by steiny on Apr 15, 2015 9:47:00 GMT -5
Don't like it, but I suspect is is going to be approved also.
The quality of deer hunting in my part of the state has been deteriorating for a decade or so. Much of the problem (habitat loss) is out of the DNR and hunters control, however all of these rule changes aimed at making things easier has done it's share of damage as well.
Don't like the way things are headed with Indiana's deer management, but can't do much about it. I look for Indiana deer hunting to soon be like Michigan; lots of deer harvested but darned few quality bucks, forkhorns and basket racks being the norm. It's a shame we can't adjust rules and seasons structures similar to Iowa or Illinois and focus on quality instead of quantity.
|
|
|
Post by jjas on Apr 15, 2015 9:50:19 GMT -5
I've heard that it's going to pass, I've heard it's going to fail, I've heard that if it passes, the firearms season will be shortened and moved. I've heard if it passes, the firearms season will stay the same....
I'll just be glad when the decision is made.....and THEN....what I hope will happen....is that the IDNR and the NRC will quit "mucking around" with the regs and let them run "as is" for a few years.
|
|
|
Post by hornzilla on Apr 15, 2015 13:58:15 GMT -5
So if the HPR rule doesn't pass we should take away a legal round that us handgun hunters have used for years safely? So if the crossbow rule hadn't passed should we took compound bows away a few years back? You are missing the point of my argument. It is ridiculous to allow it through x but not y. If it is legal to use out of x make it legal out of y, is what I'm saying. I personally have no use for them, nor do I feel the need for them...however I see zero rational reasoning that would make sense for it to not be either legal across the board or illegal across the board. <<From only that perspective I want them to pass it so the wishy washy illogical stance that exists now will no longer exist. Oh I understand. Only in Indiana would I be able to put a rifle cartridge in a pistol and a pistol cartridge in a rifle and be legal.
|
|
|
Post by jb1069 on May 14, 2015 13:40:18 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jimstc on May 14, 2015 15:36:18 GMT -5
Wow! I thought that it was a done deal. Thanks for the reference to the article. Guess that resolves that....
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on May 14, 2015 15:48:03 GMT -5
I'm guessing an overwhelming majority of flat land land owners up north were against it.
There is more than enough given input on dividing the state up into areas where centerfires can be used. Some folks wanted statewide, some wanted no centerfires period and some said it was OK if it was in the more hilly areas.
So the DNR and NRC have multiple choices. It is up to the DNR and NRC if they want to pursue that with an amendment AT THIS TIME. That should satisfy the northern folks.. My guess now, is that they will thimb it down now and come back next year or the year after with changes.
|
|
|
Post by GS1 on May 14, 2015 16:43:31 GMT -5
So the DNR and NRC have multiple choices. It is up to the DNR and NRC if they want to pursue that with an amendment AT THIS TIME. That should satisfy the northern folks.. My guess now, is that they will thimb it down now and come back next year or the year after with changes. Woody, would it be possible to divide the state into two zones and have different firearms tags? Where you were allowed to only buy a firearms tag for one zone.
|
|
|
Post by jimstc on May 14, 2015 16:53:51 GMT -5
So the DNR and NRC have multiple choices. It is up to the DNR and NRC if they want to pursue that with an amendment AT THIS TIME. That should satisfy the northern folks.. My guess now, is that they will thimb it down now and come back next year or the year after with changes. Woody, would it be possible to divide the state into two zones and have different firearms tags? Where you were allowed to only buy a firearms tag for one zone. Actually that was what I expected. I hunt in Clark, Lawrence and Hamilton Counties primarily. Clark and Lawrence have very steep terrain. Perfect for HPR. Not so in Hamilton. Seems like a county by county (or sections of the state) decision based on topography would be a wise approach. Maybe, too much of a bureaucratic nightmare. Can't say and don't know. No problem sticking with my 12 gauge and magnum slugs. Served me well....
|
|
|
Post by dbd870 on May 14, 2015 17:23:59 GMT -5
Flat or hills; all are perfect for HPR's that is what is silly about this whole thing.
|
|
|
Post by jimstc on May 14, 2015 17:40:31 GMT -5
Flat or hills; all are perfect for HPR's that is what is silly about this whole thing. Agreed. Just thinking out loud. I support it. If I am on my place in Hamilton county I'll use my shotgun because the shooting lanes and distance work. Still would like the decision to be mine.
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on May 14, 2015 17:54:03 GMT -5
So the DNR and NRC have multiple choices. It is up to the DNR and NRC if they want to pursue that with an amendment AT THIS TIME. That should satisfy the northern folks.. My guess now, is that they will thimb it down now and come back next year or the year after with changes. Woody, would it be possible to divide the state into two zones and have different firearms tags? Where you were allowed to only buy a firearms tag for one zone. Possible but not likely.. Definitely not with this proposal. Why would we need two different licenses for different areas? One problem I could foresee is the hunter accessibility would get tougher as the centerfires boys from the north would want to come south to use it.
|
|