Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Deer Hunting Indiana Boys - What rifle will you use in 2015?

I had the exact same reaction to my first Ohio hunts. In fact , my scariest days in the woods have all been Ohio Openers.

It's funny, but where I hunt in KY can have three times the number of shot strings on an Opener, but I never get the same kind of feeling.

Shaman- Here's a quote from a newspaper article that might clear up some things on the rule change:



Getting the rule change through the Division of Fish and Wildlife was the first hurdle. This type of rule change has been denied in the past at this level. Once they proposed the amendment it's open to public comment and possibly a 'hearing'. The NRC has to approve of the rule change to put it in effect. They meet 4 times/year and I think the next meeting is in fact in March.

If you would, please send a citation. I'll make it known on my weblog, and I'll go about trying digging up corroboration as well.

Thanks for the tip.

Here's the news article:
http://www.greensburgdailynews.com/...82c926b-b599-5891-ab77-07ed756f6074.html

Here's a link the Natural Resource Commision website:
http://www.in.gov/nrc/

Here's a link to the actual proposed rule change. This does not just deal with rifles, it's all rules.
http://www.in.gov/nrc/files/lsa14453_proposed.pdf

Schit. I gotta quit killing all those deer with .223 and .243 now.

I've had to track and finish off exactly 3 deer hit fairly well with a bullet out of a Ruger 44 carbine which my late hunting friend claimed was perfect for use in woodlots on whitetails. 2 other occasions, the deer were not found. Probably not the fault of the round, as a deer hit well with a proper bullet out of a 44 magnum inside 150 yards is going to die. But it happened.

I cannot say that I've had any problem with deer going more than a few dozen yards after being hit with a .243, or .223 for that matter.

My suggestion would be to add into the law that a hunter must be elevated 10 feet to hunt with a centerfire rifle for deer, if the folks in your state can't use some fuggin sense with a rifle. Of couse, then all the dumbazzes would fall out of the stand and break their stupid necks, and a whole new issue will be started.

gunwizard, my attempt at satire seemed to fly completely over your head(not surprised). It was done just to show you that your entitled opinion and you are certainly entitled to it, couldn't be more off track. And the fact that you had to resort to disparaging my character shows that you and your opinion are shooting blanks and you are out of ammunition. Typical debate tactic.

Your first post on this topic added nothing to the discussion and you went downhill from there. Your attempt to turn the topic into something else was no better. I've run into a few hunters/shooters like yourself and you add zero to our sport and cause.

gunwizard(an oxymoron) Here is where you said "high powered cartridges"(whatever they are) were dangerous

I know one of the fellows on the NRC. I'll see what he has to say and report back...

Thanks, Pointer. I really did not see a whole lot in there that I had not covered in my weblog. I did, however, edit my story stress that this was not a done deal. I'm going to add another post to let them know where to comment.

The big $$$$ in Indianapolis is pushing this thru comitties so it will pass reguardless of what the common man has to say.

What group or person is the big money behind the proposed rule change?

I can see how some groups might be interested, like insurance companies, rifle manufactures, sporting good stores but I just don't see it being worth that much money to any particular group. Despite all the fanfare it may receive here, I suspect it is going to be several years before there are more rifles than shot guns or muzzle loaders out in the field and I don't believe the deer harvest will jump significantly just because rifles become easier to use.

It was bundled with a bunch of other changes so I thought it was just another DNR proposal.

I'm pretty simple and don't look for conspiracies though...

Thanks for any info you can provide.

Scott

From what I understand, the push to include all centerfire rifle was the reason for the earlier push for straightwall cartridges. I heard one time that this has been a gradual process over a generation or more, trying to get IN away from shotguns only.

The same goes for Ohio. Ohio had about a 30 year fight trying to allow Sunday hunting. Ditto for getting rid of the rifle proscriptions. The latter is just taking longer.

In both states, this kind of change only comes about slowly. You've got the tree-hugging greenies on one side and the traditionalists on the other. Both sides are going to whine no matter what. In the latter case, I just cannot fathom the goo, but I understand how it gets there.

If you learn to hunt in IN or OH, you're taught when you are young. Kids ask questions, like why do I have to hunt with a shotgun. Grandpa or Dad has to come up with the answer, and it usually sounds important. For me, the justification for Ohio's shotgun law as put to me as something like: "In Ohio, it's rather crowded, so they don't want the round carrying too far."

Of course, I was a bright little kid, so I couldn't figure out how you could fire anything up into the trees after squirrels, but you could not fire a rifle at a deer. I kept asking the question, and eventually figured out the law was just . . . well, it was just there. However, along the way, I also collected the drivel that every other Buckeye kid got from their Buckeye Dad. Ohio hunters are crazy. It helps protect the herd. It's part of our tradition. . . ad nauseum. I'm sure the same process happened with Hoosier kids and their mentors. The problem with Hoosier kids and Buckeye kids is that most of them drink the Kool-Aid and stop thinking critically. Kentucky kids never got the Kool-Aid, God bless them.

The more I dig into this, I'm fascinated with the process. The idea that this is a big conspiracy and you need to follow the money trail is cute one to be sure. Well, OF COURSE IT IS A CONSPIRACY, and OF COURSE IT HAS BIG MONEY BACKING. It's been the concern of a lot of people to get this problem corrected for years. The basic assumptions were wrong. The technology changed. The idea of shotguns being safer went out the window sometime about 1970. Meanwhile the numbers of hunters are dwindling and those that remain are getting older. It's hard to hand a kid a 12 GA and tell him to suck it up and learn to love the recoil.

Meanwhile you have counties where the deer are so numerous they're crawling up your leg, and no one would particularly mind except the critters are big and are prone to running out in traffic. Once you find yourself wearing one, you get to thinking: somebody should be doing something about this.

So YES! It IS a conspiracy; not only is big money behind it, but so are most hunters. We've been trying gently and nicely and politely to tell the bow [bleep], the greenies, and all the rest that their idea that the state should limit what you lob at deer is a fraud.

shaman, I agree with what you wrote, but I would add, that is just plain the correct thing to do.

We just had our second year of rifle use statewide in WI. and the predictions of the wild west and blood running in the streets did not happen. In fact it was one of the safest years in the history of 100 years of deer firearm seasons. And all the naysayers are nowhere to be found...

I called my local representatives and senator they told me it was in committees that would make the decision, the DNR had no say in the matter until it becomes a law.

The DNR Division of Fish and Wildlife have had their say. They sent the proposal on to the commission for a ruling. They are the first 'bottleneck' for rule change proposals.

The rule changes, as I understand it, come from the Natural Resource Commission. It is composed of representatives of all the major stakeholders. It gets sent to the legislature, where it becomes a bill and the bill is debated in committee, before being passed and sent on to the governor for signature.

The NRC makes the rules. The DNR enforces them. That way you don't have the enforcement arm making law. If the DNR made the rules, then it would be like your local police department passing ordinances. Most states have something similar.

RED53 is technically right, but DNR would have a lot of input to the NRC as to what can practically done, what can be enforced, etc. In fact, I would say the "FIX" has been on this for some time-- nothing sinister, mind you. It's just a large majority of folks decided this was the right way to go. Most hunters agree, and have been wanting this for a generation.

I said "most" not "all" hunters. In my state, Ohio, I just got tired of waiting and moved all my hunting to Kentucky.

Shaman- From the article I linked earlier:


The Division of Fish and Wildlife is part of the DNR. What I meant DNR as having had a say already is that the proposed rule changes come from the F&W. Some are the result of public comments and some are the brainchild of the F&W. In essence they have some control over the proposals sent to the Commision and therefore have had a say...

Pointer, I don't see any disagreement between us.

I was responding more to RED35's comment regarding the DNR having no say.

Honestly, no dig on you or any other gentle Hoosier for that matter, but this is really not my fight. It's funny, I got another comment on my weblog overnight-- somebody thinks that he likes 44 MAG, so therefore everyone else should give up on high power rifle. That man should put on a dress, and go find himself a 1-room school where he can invoke his will on the young.

I will say this: my last deer hunting trip to IN was 1992. My last Ohio deer hunt was 2001. The IN line is less than 30 minutes from my house in Ohio. 100% of my hunting has been in KY, because it has been the best value for me. I really don't mind KY jacking the non-resident fees up. It's still a better value. That is just my opinion, and any Hoosier or Buckeye can read this and say good riddance.

However, I can take an unlimited number of deer from Sept to January in KY's Zone 1 . I have a good long rifle season in the Middle of November and two Muzzleloader seasons. If I went back to hunting the north side of the Ohio, I'd probably start with Ohio, but only because they will let you bow hunt without serious interruption during the rut. Even though Indiana is just a short drive, I'll probably not be back without serious changes. Allowing me to bring a 30-06 is one of those changes.

Hope to see you here! FWIW, Indiana's bow season is now without a break from 10/1 to sometime in January. They did away with the 1 week 'break' between gun season and muzzleloader a few years back.

Any tips on places to look in KY for a spot to sit?