Learning from What is Happening in Indiana

[hunterconservationist]

Kudos for recognizing the work that both TNC and NICHES has done in that part of the state. My college professor was a founding member of NICHES. However, I do disagree to your position on Pence signing the law regarding rifles. The DNR proposed that as part of the rule change process last year. Yes, there was some vocal opposition, but I'm not sure I would put it even close to being considered "overwhelming" opposition. I know it wasn't among the hunters I know here...

I think you are selling IN a bit short as to the state governments stance on public land. This press release is a great example of what I am talking about:
http://www.in.gov/activecalendar_dn...nformation_id=19006&type=&syndicate=syndicate

This press release points to the state taking on what I see as two of the biggest problem facing hunters here: 1. conversion of lands and 2. access. As stated in the article, the state has added over 12K acres to the total of lands open to the public. Those are lands that we can visit and most can be hunted one. The bigger thing the Initiative has done, IMO, is the amount of conservation easements! Those acres total even more than the acres open to the public. Indiana loses about 60K ac of farm ground/wild lands to suburban and urban development each year. Those easements will help stave off some of that.

So while I understand your disappointment with how things are now where you grew up near the Kankakee, things are not totally bleak in Indiana. That said, I'd move tomorrow...

PS- Where are the BLM lands in Indiana?

1_pointer, the article said nothing about Indiana's stance on public lands. It merely pointed out how few acres exist and the typical hunting conditions on those lands in the NW part of the state. In regards to Niches, I was not recognizing the work they've done on behalf of providing access to hunters, only citing examples of local organizations hunters could work with to attempt to create new access. Niches, to my knowledge, has allowed hunting on a limited number of properties, which is great, but that access seems to be restricted to buddies of staff. I attempted to make a significant monetary donation and volunteer time in return for one week of hunting access on one property, and was denied because friends of the ED had exclusive permission for the duration of hunting season on that property. I do though commend the work they're doing in regards to protecting and improving habitat.

I agree that increasing the frequency of easements through greater incentives, legislation, etc. is an excellent course of action.

In regards to the recent legislative action around rifles. The DNR did not support or recommend this change. Far from it. It was legislative driven and overreach. Even the hunters I know that support, or are indifferent, on rifles in IN for hunting do not support the legislature reaching over DNR and public input to pass legislation they know zippo about. It's pretty clear that the law was written by people uninformed on the issue. Just look at the caliber restrictions: you can use a 50 cal muzzleloader but not a 45.70, you can use a .300 win mag but not a .270. Like most things in IN politics, it makes no darn sense. The sense I get is that special interests drove this action (primarily ag and insurance) and it certainly sets a bad precedent of politicians overstepping into game and fish territory. Everyone I know with a good understanding of wildlife biology and the status of the IN deer herd opposed the legislation because increasing hunter efficacy will exacerbate the problem. Insurance and ag interests would love to see the deer herd wiped out. In the flatter, more densely populated parts, of the state, count me among those that think high power rifles in the hands of under-practiced hunters represents a potential safety concern.

The only people I've talked to that are in full support of the change, without reservation, like it on the merit of "it'll be cool to use a rifle". They aren't thinking about the potential consequences.

 

[Flatland Crusoe]

I hate to chuck that part of the world up as a lost cause as far as hunting is concerned, but it basically is for me.

The Illinois side sure is as good as dead for any hope of improving hunting access as the IDNR is funded at about 40% the level it was in 2004 and every site I've seen has only deteriorated year over last 5 years. The state botches the deer draws and last year publish horribly inaccurate list of leftover tags for the second draw and refuses to lower deer quotas at the site specific level. A great example is Apple River Canyon state park where the firearm deer harvest annually is at 20% of the level it was 5 years ago and they are still issuing 70 firearms tags over the 4 seasons despite killing 2 deer during those seasons in 2014 (the last year we have data on). Why have super complex draws and not use the complex tools you have created. Last year I filled a freedom of information act request to DNR to publish how many people applied for DNR site deer tags and how many were granted and they denied my request because they couldn't figure out how to query it out of their own database. The site managers don't care about anything because they lack resources to put gas in their tractors and probably won't have a pension when they retire. 2.5% of the state is public land and DNR controls about 1% of the state with the rest being mostly Shawnee National forest which might as well be in another state because its a 6 hour drive from 3/4 of the state's population.

I've emailed DU's NE Illinois representatives and those of the Chicago downtown chapter asking if I could help beyond attend a $250/meal banquet on actual projects in Illinois and gotten no response. It almost doesn't matter because I've seen places like the Salt Creek DU project at Clinton Lake (3 hours south of Chicago) and once handed over to IDNR the blinds aren't maintained or brushed to a level that will leave them standing after they are more than 5 years old. Illinois DNR also has a site based policy that you can't hunt legal game on a property unless its specified meaning jump shooting ponds or wood ducks on an area managed for deer and squirrels isn't an option for the creative hunter. Those are hunter days lost that only occur because of policy, not cost or real issue. The state list a ton of duck hunting areas as "Walk-in areas" that require you boat in there. The wetland area managers wouldn't understand the concept of moist soil management if they could afford to do it.

Illinois lacks the political will or pocket book to make any real change. They have started the IRAP program in 2015 to begin leasing private land with federal funding dollars, but thats gonna be a long uphill climb that will likely die a quiet death without most people even knowing the program exist. The conservation congress and regional planning meetings that used to be hosted by DNR haven't occurred in the last 3 years so we can't even voice our concerns. These aren't a new issue, in Sand County Almanac Leopold writes about how no native vegetation was left in Illinois outside of cemeteries as early as the 1930's.

Indiana might be a somewhat brighter spot as it does have a much more established tradition of outdoor activies, but ultimately the state does suffer from funding cuts at the hands of a hyper conservative legislature. A great example was 2 years ago Willow Slough stopped providing rowboats to duck hunt their property, because the state couldn't afford to renew the boat licenses on 2 dozen human propelled watercraft. When you are in a financial system like that its hard to create lasting positive impact. I will say i'm somewhat optimistic for Indiana based on their state funding of some of the best mountain bike trails in country around brown county.

I agree all the points you have made about preserving public land for future generations, but the area you mention fall under the category of cut bait and use the failure as an example of what could be.

 

[1_pointer]

Oh, I agree that the rifle law is just an end around and not one I like even though I fully support rifles being allowed. I do not get the sense that the rifle rule is being pushed by the special interests you mention, even though they are the deer boogie-man for all issues in Indiana. Some folks that want to use rifles got the ear of some state reps to get this passed. I imagine it was the same folks that pushed forward the high fence deal as the lead rep, IIRC, was the same.

It is obvious we have different frames of reference and interact with different folks. Where I hunt, closer to KY than to Chicago, quite a few folks were in favor of allowing rifles. I know many are worried about the deer population, but I fail to see how the method of take is going to change that much. Only thing that will change the herd size is bag limits or season restrictions. Herd management here is all but non-existent IMO due in large part because of the small size of most land holdings. Tough to manage numbers on a 40ac pixel map...

Count me as a person you've "talked" to that is in full support of the change and one that has thought about the consequences. I have two young boys and a 243, IMO, is a better tool for the amount of recoil than other options previously legal. Heck, I wish they'd lower it to .224" min diameter. For reasons I hinted at previously, I don't see it impacting the deer herd all that much. Not nearly as much as $8/bu corn or suburban sprawl. That said, the caliber restrictions placed upon this "test" are ridiculous. A 270 Win is not legal, but a 30 Carbine is...

PS- You still never mentioned where in the state the BLM land is?

 

[hunterconservationist]

1 pointer, down in the southern part of the state, with hills and less densely populated areas, there is definitely less of a safety concern. That said, the overreach is the real issue, not the legalization of rifles. It sets a terrible precedent, as did the game farm legislation. It's typical Indiana politics.

Still not following your BLM question. I'm sure there's a joke here that's going over my head. I'm not real tall.

Flatland, agree with you on most all points. Your last sentence there is the intent of the piece - to look at my experience as an example of what can happen when hunters don't engage in the process.

 

[Flatland Crusoe]

The physics argument against rifles doesn't even hold up as proven by the study commissioned by the US army and PA department of game shows that a 12 gauge slug fired at 0 degrees from 5 feet actually travels further than a 30.06 bullet upon ricochet.

http://www.ihea.com/_assets/documents/AFWA_Presentation_9-18-07.pdf

People in slug only states that don't support rifles lack a basic understanding of ballistics and real world effects of high recoil on any shooters especially youth hunters. Most of them have never owned larger centerfire rifles or toyed with ballistics and reloading and only speak from tradition not hard evidence. The concept that slugs are somehow safer is one of the biggest myths in hunting.

 

[1_pointer]

From your article:

What about public land? Well first, there isn’t much public land in Indiana. Roughly 2.2% of the state acreage is opened to hunting. This includes National Forest, Bureau of Land Management public lands. It also includes State Trust Lands, which are not public lands, and those acres could disappear via sale or lease at any time.

 

[Flatland Crusoe]

From your article:

http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/info/About_BLM/subsurface.html

This doesn't seem to indicate any BLM in Indiana. I've occasionally seen sources that had very small amounts of BLM owners (2,200 acres in IL) but have never been able to confirm anything. The NE field office in Milwaukee could probably confirm or deny.

 

[hunterconservationist]

Flatland, you're looking at distance after ricochet, ignoring how much further a rifle fired projectile travels prior to initial impact, and you're looking at 0-degree comparisons. How many IN hunters hunt from a stand? You're also ignoring how much momentum each projectile still holds at initial overshoot point of impact. I've had plenty of experience with rifles, physics and other hunters and those experiences inform my opinion.

Here's my concern with safety, hunters will head out to their 40 acres of private land with a 300 win mag and start taking pokes at 400+ yards across cut fields with homes and subdivisions bordering them, and miss high. They would never have attempted that shot with their inline muzzleloader or rifled slug gun. How often do you see guys sight their rifle in at the range at 200 yd with a bench rest, and then get out on the mountain and start flinging led at 400+?

There's also the very real concern of increased hunter efficacy. Adding rifles to the equation carries the likelihood of increased hunter efficacy. IN's deer herd is already in less than ideal state.

I hope I'm wrong. In any event, it's an unnecessary change and one that was done outside the process with questionable motivating factors.

 

[hunterconservationist]

1_pointer. Good catch. Doesn't look like there are any BLM lands according to the graphic. I thought there were some acres down south and the NE region site lists Indiana as a state under their umbrella. I suppose at 2.2% though it's somewhat immaterial what the piechart looks like.

 

[Flatland Crusoe]

My experience having hunted half the states in the Midwest is that a rifle versus shotgun/muzzleloader rarely is an advantage as 90% of shots I've been presented with were within 75 yards and I've personally never taken a shot past 120 yards in the Midwest but have made shots 3 times that distance out west so it's not an issue of what I'm capable of. If you read the report the distance traveled on low angle shots over straight ground slugs are traveling about 70% the distance of a rifle but 115% the distance on ricochet with almost 3 times the likelihood of ricochet at low angles. I personally have never been in a situation in the Midwest while deer hunting where I had an uphill skylined shot and the few times of being low and shooting uphill have all been low in timber as is common in the Midwest. Most hunters want to be high for visibility and scent control and most are shooting out of treestands so I'm guessing most bullets bury themselves in the dirt.

I personally think the whole slug deer thing is nothing more than a pain shooting at the range. A 20 gauge slug is going to have 3 times the recoil impulse of a .243. I don't ever find myself shooting slugs or a modern muzzleloader at the range for the fun of it and therefore I am not as proficient with one as my rifle. From what I've seen many more slug hunters run semiautos or pumps than rifles with a very fast reload and the result is guys empty their gun slinging errant second and third shots that if they had a bolt action rifle. I hate when laws gimp technology and engineers are left trying to game the system as best as possible. The perceived safety factor has largely been erased with saboted slugs over the foster style being used when the laws were reasonably passed.

Most guys who put down rifles from slug states do so because of their own lack of experience as pretty much all hunters do about any method or means of hunting they personally haven't tried. My experience is that muzzleloaders are the only firearm type that discourages stupid shots at any reasonable rate.

 

[charliebravo77]

There's also the very real concern of increased hunter efficacy. Adding rifles to the equation carries the likelihood of increased hunter efficacy. IN's deer herd is already in less than ideal state.

Aren't we as hunters and conservationists typically striving to use as effective and efficient a method of take as possible? If the deer herd is in jeopardy why not cut tag numbers and/or increase tag cost instead of relying on hunters using what you're effectively touting as a less effective and efficient weapon?

 

[1_pointer]

1_pointer. Good catch. Doesn't look like there are any BLM lands according to the graphic. I thought there were some acres down south and the NE region site lists Indiana as a state under their umbrella. I suppose at 2.2% though it's somewhat immaterial what the piechart looks like.

No worries. There is a lot of Army Corps of Engineer land that is managed by the DNR that is open for hunting. One of the reasons I bought land where I did was due to the proximity to a lot of public land and water. Anywhere flat enough to farm is not going to have much of that in Indiana.

While I do not disagree with you that the deer herd is less than ideal in parts of the state, but I do not see adding a new type of weapon for take being that big of an issue. Only way to get more deer is to quit shooting so many and to have more or "more better" land for growing deer.

 

[LCH]

The DNR put forth a proposal last year to allow HPRs, but withdrew it after receiving some opposition. I know someone who requested all the public comments, and did a yay/nay tally as best he could; it was split about 50/50. The DNR cited it as a social issue as their reasoning for withdrawing the proposal. So while I, and most others I know, don't like the legislature meddling in the NRC rules process, I believe the DNR brought this on themselves by chickening out on their original proposal last year.

The deer herd may be down in certain parts of the state, but is still flourishing in many others. Hunters are currently allowed to kill an unlimited number of does, given they move counties after filling that county quota. If deer harvest climbs to an unsustainable level, bag limits can be reduced to curb the antlerless harvest.

Many rifles, such as 358WSSM (and several similar .358 calibers) and .35 Remington were already legal. This law increases the number of calibers legal, although stopping short of an ideal ".223 and up" or similar.

 

[hunterconservationist]

Aren't we as hunters and conservationists typically striving to use as effective and efficient a method of take as possible? If the deer herd is in jeopardy why not cut tag numbers and/or increase tag cost instead of relying on hunters using what you're effectively touting as a less effective and efficient weapon?

The weapons legal prior to this new, poorly conceived and written legislation are limited vs. a 300 win mag for example, in range only. Within their given range they are not less effective or efficient at killing animals. More importantly, when you look at the likelihood of increased efficacy with the range extension of the new weapons, in conjunction with the fact that Indiana has shown us it isn't interested in the health of the deer herd - adding rifles despite herd health concerns, elevated antlerless tag allowances in already compromised areas, legalizing game farms. I'm not convinced they'd stop issuing tags if there were two deer left in the state. Tag numbers should have already been cut in many counties based on the data. The rules and regs in Indiana are being written by the insurance and gun lobbies, who have a vested interest in seeing the deer numbers well below healthy carrying capacity. Can you read the new legislation, with its nonsensical choices and omissions of cartridges and the disjointed rationale being given by politicians for ramming it through, and tell me hunters and G&F folks drove the process?

A question for you based on your response, would you rather have longer seasons and hunt with some self restraint, or do it the easiest, fastest way possible, have less tags and shorter seasons?

 

[hunterconservationist]

My experience having hunted half the states in the Midwest is that a rifle versus shotgun/muzzleloader rarely is an advantage as 90% of shots I've been presented with were within 75 yards and I've personally never taken a shot past 120 yards in the Midwest but have made shots 3 times that distance out west so it's not an issue of what I'm capable of. If you read the report the distance traveled on low angle shots over straight ground slugs are traveling about 70% the distance of a rifle but 115% the distance on ricochet with almost 3 times the likelihood of ricochet at low angles. I personally have never been in a situation in the Midwest while deer hunting where I had an uphill skylined shot and the few times of being low and shooting uphill have all been low in timber as is common in the Midwest. Most hunters want to be high for visibility and scent control and most are shooting out of treestands so I'm guessing most bullets bury themselves in the dirt.

I personally think the whole slug deer thing is nothing more than a pain shooting at the range. A 20 gauge slug is going to have 3 times the recoil impulse of a .243. I don't ever find myself shooting slugs or a modern muzzleloader at the range for the fun of it and therefore I am not as proficient with one as my rifle. From what I've seen many more slug hunters run semiautos or pumps than rifles with a very fast reload and the result is guys empty their gun slinging errant second and third shots that if they had a bolt action rifle. I hate when laws gimp technology and engineers are left trying to game the system as best as possible. The perceived safety factor has largely been erased with saboted slugs over the foster style being used when the laws were reasonably passed.

Most guys who put down rifles from slug states do so because of their own lack of experience as pretty much all hunters do about any method or means of hunting they personally haven't tried. My experience is that muzzleloaders are the only firearm type that discourages stupid shots at any reasonable rate.

I've killed big game animals with a 300 win mag, 45.70, 45, 50 and 54 cal muzzleloader, 20, 16 and 12 gauge slug guns, rifled and smooth bore, recurves, longbows, a flatbow, compounds and I have a .308 on the way. I'm not dissing rifles, nor do I lack understanding of ballistics, recoil, etc. The fact is this is a basic momentum equation. A 180 grain bullet fired from a 300 win mag will be carrying more momentum at its first impact point and last ricochet point, than a rifled slug or any modern muzzleloading projectile, and it carries a lot farther before first impact. That makes it more dangerous on an overshoot miss at any elevation of shot. Also, here's some good context on the firm that put together the data you shared.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2009/05/24/AR2009052402947.html.

Given the context, I might suggest it was more propaganda for their client than objective data.

In any event I'm still not looking at this through the lens of whether rifles are in the Indiana deer woods this fall. It was unnecessary and precedent setting legislative overreach, in a state full of socially tone deaf, self interest driven, politicians. On the heels of the game farm bill, it's just another slap in the face to hunters and G&F, regardless of whether some hunters like the idea of shooting a rifle at deer in Indiana, or weather anyone believes legalizing rifles carries safety or long-term herd health concerns.

If your longest shot in the midwest has been 120 yards, and that's representative of the majority of hunter experience in Indiana, then what's the need for cartridges whose primary benefit are increased distance?

 

[1_pointer]

If your longest shot in the midwest has been 120 yards, and that's representative of the majority of hunter experience in Indiana, then what's the need for cartridges whose primary benefit are increased distance?

I do not see that as the primary benefit. Reduced recoil and cheaper ammo (ie more practice) are the main largest benefits IMO. Very, very few folks practice with their slug guns for those two reasons.

PS- Some of the wildcats that have been legal for years are more than comparable to a 308 and 30-06. Some are shooting 180gr bullets at 2800fps or faster...

 

[Flatland Crusoe]

I'm not dissing rifles, nor do I lack understanding of ballistics, recoil, etc. The fact is this is a basic momentum equation. A 180 grain bullet fired from a 300 win mag will be carrying more momentum at its first impact point and last ricochet point, than a rifled slug or any modern muzzleloading projectile, and it carries a lot farther before first impact.

Clearly you don't understand ballistics because the equation for momentum is Mass*Velocity so by that logic 300 win mag 180 gr at 2800 fps actually has 19% less momentum than a 300 gr 12 gauge slug at 2000 fps. I'm pretty sure you meant energy which is 1/2*Mass* Velocity^2 in which case the 300 win mag has 18% more energy.

The reason as 1 Pointer stated is less recoil not more range. I'll take 10-12 ft-lbs of recoil (.243, 7mm-08, 6.5x55) over 30-50 ft-lbs generated by a slug gun any day of the week. Its basically like the state telling you that you can't use a hammer to drive nails, you can only use a wrench as a hammer.

 

[hunterconservationist]

Clearly you don't understand ballistics because the equation for momentum is Mass*Velocity so by that logic 300 win mag 180 gr at 2800 fps actually has 19% less momentum than a 300 gr 12 gauge slug at 2000 fps. I'm pretty sure you meant energy which is 1/2*Mass* Velocity^2 in which case the 300 win mag has 18% more energy.

The reason as 1 Pointer stated is less recoil not more range. I'll take 10-12 ft-lbs of recoil (.243, 7mm-08, 6.5x55) over 30-50 ft-lbs generated by a slug gun any day of the week. Its basically like the state telling you that you can't use a hammer to drive nails, you can only use a wrench as a hammer.

Actually you're not applying the physics correctly. You have to do the momentum equation at point of overshoot impact. This is the same mistake bowhunters make when doing KE or M math. It doesn't matter how fast it's going when it leaves the weapon, it matters how much M it's carrying at impact. I'll use 500 yards as initial overshoot point of impact. Let's say the 300 grain 12 gauge slug is traveling 600 fps when it hits the ground after overshoot and the 180 gr 300 win mag is going 2195. I used two Hornady loads for measurables but had to make an educated guess on the 12 gauge beyond 200 yards. I was probably liberal with the speed.

12 gauge = 180,000
300 win mag = 395,100

219.5% more Momentum at impact.

http://www.hornady.com/store/12-GA-SST-Slug-300gr-SST/
http://www.hornady.com/store/300-Win-Mag-180-gr-SST-Superformance/

I'm sorry but I don't see the benefit of less recoil outweighing the implications of bad precedent setting, poorly written legislation, that may very well carry with it efficacy and safety concerns.

 

[Flatland Crusoe]

Actually you're not applying the physics correctly. You have to do the momentum equation at point of overshoot impact. This is the same mistake bowhunters make when doing KE or M math. It doesn't matter how fast it's going when it leaves the weapon, it matters how much M it's carrying at impact. I'll use 500 yards as initial overshoot point of impact. Let's say the 300 grain 12 gauge slug is traveling 600 fps when it hits the ground after overshoot and the 180 gr 300 win mag is going 2195. I used two Hornady loads for measurables but had to make an educated guess on the 12 gauge beyond 200 yards. I was probably liberal with the speed.

12 gauge = 180,000
300 win mag = 395,100

219.5% more Momentum at impact.

http://www.hornady.com/store/12-GA-SST-Slug-300gr-SST/
http://www.hornady.com/store/300-Win-Mag-180-gr-SST-Superformance/

I'm sorry but I don't see the benefit of less recoil outweighing the implications of bad precedent setting, poorly written legislation, that may very well carry with it efficacy and safety concerns.

I at no point made the suggestion that momentum was not the means of calculating energy transfer during an inelastic collision. I am fully aware that you apply energy to determine velocity at impact, then calculate the momentum through the elastic collision into the relative pieces velocities. At the muzzle the 2 loads you are comparing the 12 gauge slug has 6.5% more momentum despite having 47% less energy. The mentioned 12 gauge slug has 93% of the momentum at 100 yards of the 300 win mag which is to be expected given that they have G1 ballistic coefficients on .200 and .480 respectively so the 12 gauge is going to shed energy much more quickly. Your statement per those 2 loads about the 300 having more momentum is incorrect at distances shorter than 50-60 yards.

The issue at hand is not the momentum on the impacting projectile going into the equation, but the number of pieces resulting from the impact as they must then carry energy efficiently to make an impact beyond the point of ricochet. The fact that the report shows 3 time the likelihood of slug ricochet occurring than rifle shows that velocity and bullet construction is much more important that the momentum going into the collision. Common knowledge says that most soft point rifle bullets don't expand well or fragment below 1600-1800 fps and while slugs will have a lower minimum velocity one stands to reason that the slug is skipping a fairly intact projectile after the collision while the rifle bullet is breaking up completely or creating pieces with very low ballistic coefficients that drop quickly.

The high school physics version of in elastic collisions doesn't really hold up in the final result here because there are so many variable at play during the impact as well as the drag imparted onto the projectiles before and after impact.

Any legislation that is dreamed up by politicians to hold back technology is bad legislation regardless of how it got passed. The only stupid part about the new Indiana rifle law is that it limits it to certain calibers.

You almost never see momentum published in ballastics because what happens when a bullet hits something is not well understood compared to the flight path of that projectile. Mathematically predicting what you are trying to accomplish is very hard to model repeatably and thus yields to experimental data.

 

[hunterconservationist]

Flatland, how much momentum a projectile has at muzzle, or under 50-60 yards is 100% irrelevant in this discussion, and in most ballistics conversations. How much momentum it has when someone misses and it first hits something solid. That's what matters in this instance. We're talking about the potential safety concerns of hunters taking longer shots with the 300 win mag, not 50 yards shots. Hunter is up a tree 15 ft on the edge of a cut corn field in December in flat NWI, takes a 400 yard shot with his new 300 and misses over a deers back. That shot doesn't happen with a slug gun and if he shoots over that deer, his bullet is carrying plenty of M to do damage when it hits something.

How about legislation that "holes back" the technology of drones for hunting? Is that bad?