Here's the website: http://www.in.gov/nrc/2377.htm
Go to the last record 6 of 6. It's called "(LSA #14-453) Amends various rules within 312 IAC 9 such as rules governing deer hunting, nuisance wild animals, cottontail rabbits, wild pigs, birds, reptiles, amphibians, sport fishing. For a complete list of proposed amendments see, the Proposed Rule and Notice of Intent"
You can also see the timeline. It is not a done deal. Public comment and other things will play into its passage/non-passage.
Personally, I am in favor of it.
Some interesting comments on the safety:
http://rule-303.blogspot.com/2009/10/shotgun-only-rationale-for-deer-hunting.html
Wisconsin's rule change allowing rifles (see p. 4 for the safety discussion):
http://www.wisctowns.com/uploads/ckfiles/files/Statewide%20Rifle%20Memo%20v1%202.pdf
One quote:
quote: "In sum: The Dept. appreciates local governments’ concerns for public safety. The Department likewise puts a high priority on safety. However, no evidence exists that hunting with rifles is more dangerous than hunting with shotguns."
Pennsylvania study: http://lbfc.legis.state.pa.us/factsheets/2007/rifle_shotgun_webpost.pdf
One Quote:
"Conventional wisdom holds that shotguns are inherently less risky than rifles when hunting deer. This is evidenced by the fact that the PGC as well as other states have established shotgun only hunting areas. This study, however, has concluded that this is not always the case."
This safety thing seems to have been studied pretty well and a little googling should help you to form a reasoned opinion on it. So far, I haven't found any data supporting the safety side of prohibiting rifles.
Ever since the modern conservation effort began, high powered rifles have been considered a part of the fair chase ensemble of technology allowed. They are part of the modern hunting ethic.
Your choice not to use these accepted tools is simply that, your choice. To describe your choice as somehow more ethical, more fair, more skilled is arrogant and degrades the community of hunters.
I reject the proposal because common sense tells me that a vast increase in the number of deer hunters using weapons of much longer range WILL increase the incidence of poorly considered shots traveling to more homes, schoolyards and highways than they do now. There are a good many hunters with the responsibility and good sense to turn down that opportunity on a dandy buck when it comes into clear view skylined on the next ridge, and there are also a considerable number who will only see their last chance at those antlers disappearing and won't be deterred by the fact that they know nothing of the place where their bullet will come down, far off in that direction. If you have statistical studies showing that to be false, perhaps you could include a reference to them?
I suspect the common reaction to the inclusion of such an increase in danger zone due to the increased trajectory will be more land closures to all firearms hunting, by localities, and probably by individual landowners, and it will be pushed for by insurers.
Do we NEED less hunting land?
Do we WANT to see how long it will take for the first guy with a .270 to miss a deer on that ridge a mile south of town and put a round through the courthouse window?
I understand the sentiment of wanting to kill one with Granddad's ought-six, and I'm a VERY firm believer in the Second Amendment. Been a Life Member in the NRA for forty years, and have gun hunted for fifty-six.
But with every right comes some responsibility.
In this case, I feel the restrictions on longer-range weaponry for deer hunting were the right thing to do back when the seasons began, when there were about half as many people in the state. I can't understand how they would NOT be an even better idea to keep now that we have twice as many people. I don't have any statistics to prove that, but if you think otherwise, I'd sure like to see the logic behind your thoughts.
IMO, the original restrictions' intent, which was to limit the deer hunting ammo to the rounds then available with maximum travels of just barely over a half mile, were appropriate and were effective for a couple of generations.
We have gotten by with allowing the PCR's and the ML's with about the same trajectories to be used for a few years now, with little if any known unfortunate consequences so far. Does that really mean that we should now take "the next logical step in that direction"? Sometimes the next logical step in the direction we are taking turns out to be the step that we should have had the good sense NOT to take.
I suspect we will have a better outcome in the long run if we exercise some prudence in limiting our own actions to accommodate the facts rather than discovering the limitations the hard way.
Intuition aside, there is no evidence that allowing high powered rifles will lead to an increase in the number of deer taken. It has not happened in other states that have moved from shotgun only to HPRs and it is not likely to happen here.
Matt, you can petition for those things.
Well, I've been called worse things than an elitist.
I don't need to see "evidence" that HPR's will result in more dead deer than we would have without them. Regardless what weapon we are talking about....more range equals more opportunity to shoot....period.
I also don't need to see "evidence" that a projectile with the ability to travel 4X, 6X or 8X longer distances than another projectile is inherently more dangerous.
If there's a biological need for this change in our state, I'm all ears. Like maybe that our deer population has increased dramatically? Otherwise, I agree with the guys above...thumbs down on this rule change.
The other way is to use misinformation and emotionalism. That is the heart of our current political system it appears. The masses are easily swayed.
We as hunters need to become more "elite" and not just killers.
"To kill is not success unless accompanied by the chase." Vance Bourjaily eloquently stated this interrelationship in his article “Hunting is Humane” in the February 15, 1964 issue of the Saturday Evening Post. “The two parts of the sequence must occur together, or there is no satisfaction. Killing, and this is generally misunderstood, is not pleasure at all if the challenge of hunting does not accompany it.” Most will agree that the feeling of accomplishment, pride, satisfaction, and culmination of a truly successful hunt, is not the size or score of the animal harvested, but in the effort and energy expended in the pursuit! Rifles WILL make it easier to kill something. I absolutely KNOW this from personal experience. Making it easier to kill deer erodes our image in the non-hunter. It is the general non-hunting population who will determine our hunting future. If the degradation of the hunter, in the minds of Joe Public continues, they will legislate out our ability to pursue game. Let's not throw gas on that fire.
John, I'm surprised at a traditional bowhunter like yourself supporting something that makes it easier to kill stuff. :)
If we all made it as hard as traditional bowhunters we would be overrun with deer. There is almost no effective change in allowing rifles with a 300+ yard range over a shotgun or muzzleloader with a 200+ range for the vast majority of hunters in the vast majority of places in IN. I have shot a bunch of deer in IN. None at more than 75 yards.
Hi Matt,
I have not seen the petition.
More freedom is always better than less if there are no negative effects on the resource or true safety issues.
Almost all hunters who are capable of killing deer regularly can kill as many as they need or want. Most will kill 1 or 2. A few will kill 3. Almost none will kill 4 or more. Adding HPRs won't change that. The other limiting factors are much more important.
I sure hope everyone is commenting on the proposal. What you type here is meaningless unless you go through the process.
bas's Link
http://www.kpcnews.com/columnists/don_mulligan/outdoors/article_31af37af-9b0e-59cf-b578-4f77c3be6535.html
