HB1231 passes in house- (Centerfire rifles for deer hunting)

[avboiler11]

Maybe not done yet. If it fails one of the houses it is back to the drawing board..

I asked a senator if this was the final version and he said..

Any idea when the conference committee language will be posted on the Legislature's webpage for the bill?

https://iga.in.gov/legislative/2016/bills/house/1231

 

[Expatriated]

A step in the right direction? Yes, absolutely...but a beyond needless overcomplication.

To me, this sums up everything I've seen related to hunting in Indiana over the last few years. Improvement in the most roundabout way possible.

Hopefully the small steps eventually add up to the one large step that a logical person would've just made in the very beginning.

.

 

[Willie]

Any idea when the conference committee language will be posted on the Legislature's webpage for the bill?

https://iga.in.gov/legislative/2016/bills/house/1231

Later this evening or tomorrow morning...

 

[brotherbill3]

The fat lady has not tuned up yet. This could very well go down in flames in either the house or the senate..

The Farm Bureau is not too happy that the purple paint on boundaries trees got dropped..

Flames sounds acceptable. IDNR was moving (albeit slowly) towards resolving this. Did they scrap the "emergency" language?
I had a meeting and didn't see this ... until just now ... this is one why people scream about 'backroom' deals.

 

[Willie]

The "emergency " is still in there. I guess they wanted to make sure that the DNR did it, even if it took an "emergency order" to do it.

The DNR said that they could do it, but lets take a wait and see first.

I was glad to see a few things go such as the "north - south" rule and the ten foot up a tree rule BUT I sure have scratched my head on why they dropped the original calibers and came up with just the certain calibers (skipping over intermediate calibers) and dropping the purple paint on boundary trees.

THIS is why I always say that the legislature should not be involved in game management. Very few know what they are talking about when it comes to hunting or guns.



.

 

[cedarthicket]

The "emergency" is in the bill so that DNR could have the rule in place by July 1 and be effective with the 2016-17 deer season. The only way that could happen is through the Emergency Rule process. The "normal" Administrative Rule process takes considerably longer with the public comment periods, public hearings, extra administrative steps, etc.

Not saying I agree with the Emergency Rule being applied to this, but that is what is in the bill.

 

[M4Madness]

The Farm Bureau is not too happy that the purple paint on boundaries trees got dropped..

Everyone complaining about low herd numbers hates Farm Bureau anyway and blames them for antlerless quotas, so I doubt they care about their happiness. LOL!

Me? I think the herd is stable.

 

[Willie]

The pols that take the Farm Bureau money care about Farm Bureau..

 

[brotherbill3]

The "emergency" is in the bill so that DNR could have the rule in place by July 1 and be effective with the 2016-17 deer season. The only way that could happen is through the Emergency Rule process. The "normal" Administrative Rule process takes considerably longer with the public comment periods, public hearings, extra administrative steps, etc.

Not saying I agree with the Emergency Rule being applied to this, but that is what is in the bill.

Yes - the "Emergency" status means that the law goes into effect immediately, rather than waiting until July 1.
If they remove the "Emergency" it would go into effect on July 1 like most legislation, and would only be available the following fall (2017) as the rules for 2016 would already by set.

Is it still only for a 4 yrs trial period? if so, why the rush ? after we've all waited this long ...

 

[Willie]

As I understand it from the DNR they can do this without an Emergency Rule. Emergency Rules are for one year, not four.

july 1 is plenty of time to get the word out...

personally I don't think it will pass the senate and will go back to conference. It will be a push to get it back on the floor before time runs out.

 

[M4Madness]

personally I don't think it will pass the senate and will go back to conference.

I'm the opposite. I think that it will pass the Senate by a greater majority than it did before conference. I guess time will tell. Lol!

 

[Willie]

The conference video...

Archives - Indiana General Assembly, 2016 Session

 

[Expatriated]

So i can use my 308 tomorrow?

 

[Hookeye]

Why didn't they just say, "You can use whatever you currently can use for coyotes." ?

For the life of me, I just can't understand why people in Indiana want to regulate calibers for deer only. I just don't get it. Why isn't every other game in Indiana subject to this same caliber debate? No one cares what you shoot a coyote or a squirrel with, why the obsession with what you shoot a deer with? Too small a caliber will be an unethical shot? Is that really what people are worried about? If anything, people will go larger than necessary, not smaller. Are legislators really worried that some guy is going to spend the money for a license, go freeze in a deer stand, only to have his deer always get away cause he's only shooting a .22? Is that really what we are worried about?

I know guys that hunt yotes with a .22 Hornet.

 

[ilikeguns]

If it becomes law in that form, it is a pure embarrassment. There is no other way to describe it. The absolute absence of any logic is so glaringly obvious, it's pathetic.

 

[Expatriated]

I know guys that hunt yotes with a .22 Hornet.

I may or may not have a friend that routinely puts down deer with. .22lr to the head when they get in his garden.

As others have said deer arent hard to kill. We're not talking Cape Buffalo here.

 

[M4Madness]

Along the same lines, I had a friend text me Thursday and tell me that he's buying a .221 Remington Fireball to squirrel hunt with. Yet people say that the argument that a HPR is legal for squirrels but not deer holds no water.

 

[Paul30]

I have no issue with "stepping stones".

The issue is one of logic.

Allowing 243 Winchester but not 6mm Remington or 6mm Creedmoor isn't logical.

Allowing 30-30 but not 300 Savage isn't logical.

Allowing 300 AAC Blackout but not 300 Whisper isn't logical.

Allowing 300 Win Mag but not a 7mm Rem Mag or 338 Win Mag isn't logical.

A step in the right direction? Yes, absolutely...but a beyond needless overcomplication when a simple "6mm minimum bullet diameter" serve the same frickin' purpose.

Then again, we are talking about politicians.

Actually, I believe the 300 Whisper / 300 or 221 Fireball are already legal. They meet the bullet diameter and case length minimum to be legal.

https://www.ar15.com/archive/topic.html?b=8&f=30&t=284567

 

[avboiler11]

Actually, I believe the 300 Whisper / 300 or 221 Fireball are already legal. They meet the bullet diameter and case length minimum to be legal.

https://www.ar15.com/archive/topic.html?b=8&f=30&t=284567

Pistols, yes; rifles, no.

 

[Expatriated]

I'll confess--I had to go look up the .221 Fireball. I'd never heard of that one.

I like to shoot squirrels with my Holland and Holland .500 NE double rifle. I do it cause I can. Same reason I like to strap on two AK's when I go to Walmart for milk.

After all, a right not exercised is a right soon lost.

Just kidding, of course. I use a .308 for squirrels. I could never afford a Holland and Holland.