# Indiana Hunters....I have BAD NEWS!!!



## spec

How many would "double" be?


----------



## S.W.Ill

Aren't insurance companies great?


----------



## flintcreek6412

I personally have no problem with it. I already hunt in a 2 buck urban zone and I'm seeing better bucks every year. I am all about letting people hunt how and what they want. Seeing Waddell take a big buck in this state was a bad thing IMO(Congrats to him though)....When we get lumped into IL/IA/KS we can say good bye to the good old hunting by permission as ground begins to get leased up.


----------



## young_bull44

you have a pm


----------



## arrowaddict

It's just antlerless right?


----------



## Crimefighter

Nope. It's x2 of what you can normally shoot. Does and bucks.


----------



## rodney482

Is this Rep Friend from Macy, In He is the same fool that wanted to have deer removed from the DNR and listed as livestock, to benefit his buddy Bellar, yeah the same Bellar that has the drugged deer hunts:angry:


----------



## rodney482

Citations Affected: IC 14-22-2.

Synopsis: Deer hunting bag limits. Requires the director of the department of natural resources to increase the seasonal bag limit for deer in the 30 counties that had the highest number of collisions involving deer and motor vehicles during the previous year.


Effective: July 1, 2009.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Friend, Fry, Wolkins, Herrell

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



January 16, 2009, read first time and referred to Committee on Insurance.







--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




Introduced



First Regular Session 116th General Assembly (2009)


PRINTING CODE. Amendments: Whenever an existing statute (or a section of the Indiana Constitution) is being amended, the text of the existing provision will appear in this style type, additions will appear in this style type, and deletions will appear in this style type.
Additions: Whenever a new statutory provision is being enacted (or a new constitutional provision adopted), the text of the new provision will appear in this style type. Also, the word NEW will appear in that style type in the introductory clause of each SECTION that adds a new provision to the Indiana Code or the Indiana Constitution.
Conflict reconciliation: Text in a statute in this style type or this style type reconciles conflicts between statutes enacted by the 2008 Regular Session of the General Assembly.







HOUSE BILL No. 1585




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


A BILL FOR AN ACT to amend the Indiana Code concerning natural and cultural resources.




Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Indiana:




SOURCE: IC 14-22-2-6; (09)IN1585.1.1. --> SECTION 1. IC 14-22-2-6 IS AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2009]: Sec. 6. (a) Subject to section 8 of this chapter, the director shall adopt rules under IC 4-22-2 to do the following:
(1) Establish, open, close, lengthen, suspend, or shorten seasons.
(2) Establish bag, sex, and size limits.
(3) Establish limitations on the numbers of hunters and fishermen.
(4) Establish the methods, means, and time of:
(A) taking, chasing, transporting, and selling; or
(B) attempting to take, transport, or sell;
wild animals or exotic mammals, with or without dogs, in Indiana or in a designated part of Indiana.
(5) Establish other necessary rules to do the following:
(A) Administer this chapter.
(B) Properly manage wild animals or exotic mammals in a designated water or land area of Indiana.
(6) Set aside and designate land or water or parts of the land or 
water owned, controlled, or under contract or acquired by the state for conservation purposes as a public hunting and fishing ground under the restrictions, conditions, and limitations that are determined to be appropriate.
(b) Rules:
(1) may be adopted only after thorough investigation; and
(2) must be based upon data relative to the following:
(A) The welfare of the wild animal.
(B) The relationship of the wild animal to other animals.
(C) The welfare of the people.
(c) Whenever the director determines that it is necessary to adopt rules, the director shall comply with the following:
(1) Rules must clearly describe and set forth any applicable changes.
(2) The director shall make or cause to be made a periodic review of the rules.
(3) A copy of each rule, as long as the rule remains in force and effect, shall be included and printed in each official compilation of the Indiana fish and wildlife law.
(d) The director may modify or suspend a rule for a time not to exceed one (1) year under IC 4-22-2-37.1.


SOURCE: IC 14-22-2-8; (09)IN1585.1.2. --> SECTION 2. IC 14-22-2-8 IS ADDED TO THE INDIANA CODE AS A NEW SECTION TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2009]: Sec. 8. (a) The director shall establish a seasonal bag limit for deer as follows:
(1) For each of the thirty (30) counties that had the highest number of collisions involving deer and motor vehicles in 2008, as reported by the state police department, the bag limit for the 2009 deer hunting season must be at least two (2) times greater than the 2008 deer hunting season bag limit for the county.
(2) For each of the thirty (30) counties that had the highest number of collisions involving deer and motor vehicles in 2009, as reported by the state police department, the bag limit for the 2010 deer hunting season must be at least two (2) times greater than the 2008 deer hunting season bag limit for the county.
(3) For each of the thirty (30) counties that had the highest number of collisions involving deer and motor vehicles in 2010, as reported by the state police department, the bag limit for the 2011 deer hunting season must be at least two (2) times greater than the 2008 deer hunting season bag limit for the 
county.
(b) This section expires July 1, 2012.


----------



## rodney482

Send this to as many people as you can. Have them send a message via e-mail to the following four (4) representatives that have sponsored the bill.

To defeat bill 1585 that is currently in the house of rep committee. See attachment bill 1585. 



William Ruppel [email protected]



David Wolkins [email protected]



Bill Friend [email protected]



Craig Fry [email protected]

This is not a good thing for deer hunters/managers! Insurance companies YES, not hunters. 


Jon Cook
Indiana Conservation Officer
District One
9822 N Turkey Creek Rd
Syracuse IN 46567
574 457 8092 (O)
[email protected]


----------



## Crimefighter

Thanks Rodney.

The long post has the new changes at the bottom of the post for those that don't want to read the whole thing.


----------



## willie

*MAYBE *more deer need to be killed in these areas, but I don't like it when the legislature gets involved in setting game bag limits. The DNR sets limits and we, as hunters attempt to help out. I'm sure that some areas could be no limit at all and it still will not make any difference. A full freezer is a full freezer.

I'm not sure that the insurance companies are behind this. Insurance companies are going to make money no matter how many deer/auto accidents there are. They will just increase our premiums to cover these accidents. The money does not come out of their profits.

My guess is that Represenative Friend has still got his you know what in a ringer against the DNR. He is not a "friend" of the sportsman.

http://www.in.gov/apps/lsa/session/billwatch/billinfo?year=2009&session=1&request=getBill&docno=1585

SECTION 2. IC 14-22-2-8 IS ADDED TO THE INDIANA CODE AS A NEW SECTION TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2009]: Sec. 8. (a) The director shall establish a seasonal bag limit for deer as follows:
(1) For each of the thirty (30) counties that had the highest number of collisions involving deer and motor vehicles in 2008, as reported by the state police department, the bag limit for the 2009 deer hunting season must be at least two (2) times greater than the 2008 deer hunting season bag limit for the county.
(2) For each of the thirty (30) counties that had the highest number of collisions involving deer and motor vehicles in 2009, as reported by the state police department, the bag limit for the 2010 deer hunting season must be at least two (2) times greater than the 2008 deer hunting season bag limit for the county.
(3) For each of the thirty (30) counties that had the highest number of collisions involving deer and motor vehicles in 2010, as reported by the state police department, the bag limit for the 2011 deer hunting season must be at least two (2) times greater than the 2008 deer hunting season bag limit for the 
county.
(b) This section expires July 1, 2012.


----------



## TMAX

*Unfortunate*

Wow, that would be right about 30 deer in my county... I suppose if about a hundred guys did fill all their tags we could have a deer free county..wouldn't that be great, State Farm? Think "buffalo" when you read crap like this. Isn't a fifteen deer bag limit and EHD enough ? Just another case of the rich trying to get richer.


----------



## Crimefighter

willie said:


> *MAYBE *more deer need to be killed in these areas, but I don't like it when the legislature gets involved in setting game bag limits. The DNR sets limits and we, as hunters attempt to help out. I'm sure that some areas could be no limit at all and it still will not make any difference. A full freezer is a full freezer.
> 
> I'm not sure that the insurance companies are behind this. Insurance companies are going to make money no matter how many deer/auto accidents there are. They will just increase our premiums to cover these accidents. The money does not come out of their profits.
> 
> My guess is that Represenative Friend has still got his you know what in a ringer against the DNR. He is not a "friend" of the sportsman.
> 
> http://www.in.gov/apps/lsa/session/billwatch/billinfo?year=2009&session=1&request=getBill&docno=1585
> 
> SECTION 2. IC 14-22-2-8 IS ADDED TO THE INDIANA CODE AS A NEW SECTION TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2009]: Sec. 8. (a) The director shall establish a seasonal bag limit for deer as follows:
> (1) For each of the thirty (30) counties that had the highest number of collisions involving deer and motor vehicles in 2008, as reported by the state police department, the bag limit for the 2009 deer hunting season must be at least two (2) times greater than the 2008 deer hunting season bag limit for the county.
> (2) For each of the thirty (30) counties that had the highest number of collisions involving deer and motor vehicles in 2009, as reported by the state police department, the bag limit for the 2010 deer hunting season must be at least two (2) times greater than the 2008 deer hunting season bag limit for the county.
> (3) For each of the thirty (30) counties that had the highest number of collisions involving deer and motor vehicles in 2010, as reported by the state police department, the bag limit for the 2011 deer hunting season must be at least two (2) times greater than the 2008 deer hunting season bag limit for the
> county.
> (b) This section expires July 1, 2012.


I can't imagine anyone else wanting to spearhead a dumb idea like this other than the insurance companies.


----------



## rodney482

willie said:


> *MAYBE *more deer need to be killed in these areas, but I don't like it when the legislature gets involved in setting game bag limits. The DNR sets limits and we, as hunters attempt to help out. I'm sure that some areas could be no limit at all and it still will not make any difference. A full freezer is a full freezer.
> 
> I'm not sure that the insurance companies are behind this. Insurance companies are going to make money no matter how many deer/auto accidents there are. They will just increase our premiums to cover these accidents. The money does not come out of their profits.
> 
> My guess is that Represenative Friend has still got his you know what in a ringer against the DNR. He is not a "friend" of the sportsman.
> 
> http://www.in.gov/apps/lsa/session/billwatch/billinfo?year=2009&session=1&request=getBill&docno=1585
> 
> SECTION 2. IC 14-22-2-8 IS ADDED TO THE INDIANA CODE AS A NEW SECTION TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2009]: Sec. 8. (a) The director shall establish a seasonal bag limit for deer as follows:
> (1) For each of the thirty (30) counties that had the highest number of collisions involving deer and motor vehicles in 2008, as reported by the state police department, the bag limit for the 2009 deer hunting season must be at least two (2) times greater than the 2008 deer hunting season bag limit for the county.
> (2) For each of the thirty (30) counties that had the highest number of collisions involving deer and motor vehicles in 2009, as reported by the state police department, the bag limit for the 2010 deer hunting season must be at least two (2) times greater than the 2008 deer hunting season bag limit for the county.
> (3) For each of the thirty (30) counties that had the highest number of collisions involving deer and motor vehicles in 2010, as reported by the state police department, the bag limit for the 2011 deer hunting season must be at least two (2) times greater than the 2008 deer hunting season bag limit for the
> county.
> (b) This section expires July 1, 2012.



Friend is a good friend of our governor and also hangs out with Bellar.


----------



## solohunter

January 2009 issue of Deer & Deer Hunting, article by Rev. Ezekiel B. Pipher.....I also agree with Willie...
Solohunter


----------



## Finley46044

WOW. I live in madison county and am currently allowed 1 buck and up to 8 antlerless. This is crazy!


----------



## attak

I live in NJ and we can hunt for 5 months straight excluding Sundays.We can bait also.You can shoot 2 does ,check them in and repeat this all day long.Then gun season starts,brown down and most are button bucks.Ive seen guys shoot 20 -30 in one day (deer driving) and then theyre like who wants one.(wasteful). When the deer walk ,they look up in the trees alot.Fight this and good luck.


----------



## Viper69

Maybe thats what they should do in Pa as well.

1 buck and doe with bow
1 buck and doe with X-bow
1 buck and doe with rifle
1 buck and doe with inline
1 buck and doe with muzzleloader
1 extra buck and doe for seniors
1 extra buck and doe for kids from 6 to 16

They would just have you buy a seperate permit for each one and make money like they want!


----------



## rodney482

It is my understaning that this is anterless only!


----------



## willie

rodney482 said:


> It is my understaning that this is anterless only!


I don't know Rodney... It does say "two times the bag limit". There is a bag limit on antlered as well as antlered. In an UDZ that could mean 4 antlered deer.


----------



## willie

Bad news gets worse...the bill will be heard by the Insurance Committee on Feb 4th

Agenda for : Insurance February 4, 10:30 AM, 156B
Bardon, C. Brown, GiaQuinta, Porter, V. Smith.
Borders R.M.M., Burton, Lehman, Murphy, Torr.
Members :
Vice-Chair : Herrell
Chairman : Fry
Authors
HB 1084 Out of country health care.
*Above bill is amend and vote
Hearing : Fry
HB 1086 Coverage for dialysis treatment. Fry
*HB 1585 Deer hunting bag limits. Friend*
HB 1626 Municipality self-insurance. Fry


----------



## 740racing

Its my understanding Ohio has a similar issue pending right now as well. Only antlerless but no limit ? Still only one buck though.


----------



## pTac

I e-mailed those reps, thanks!


----------



## ddworkm

rodney482 said:


> Friend is a good friend of our governor and also hangs out with Bellar.


Don't think Bellar is selling hunts in Indiana anymore. Heard he moved his operation south.


----------



## Crimefighter

I would not have near as big issue if it were doe only. 

I see no reason in shooting extra bucks. :angry:

The does are having the babies. Shooting one doe = three deer. :thumbs_up


----------



## Steeler Fan

Here in Michigan, we've dealt with the overpopulation issues as well. Not long ago, for a few year stretch, in many countires you could shoot an antlerless deer a day if you purchased a permit each day (unlimited doe tags, allowed to purchase one per day). So, a hunter if so inclined, could should roughly 90 does a year in Michigan at that time. I don't know anybody that did so though. Plus, crop damage permits were easy to get as well. This did thin our population (in some areas, this was truly a necessity). We are now back to limited does tags depending on county and one cannot kill nearly as many deer. 
So, don't panic just yet but be concerned at the same time. At the end of the day, the guy or girl pulling the trigger is the manager and many will not fill all those tags...not even close. One benefit of this is that programs for donating deer meat to the hungry will likely get a nice boost in donations, and if this is doe only, may help the herd in some areas. I live in SW MI but am looking for property in Northern Indiana so I willl try to follow this closely as well.


----------



## Crimefighter

Steeler Fan said:


> Here in Michigan, we've dealt with the overpopulation issues as well. Not long ago, for a few year stretch, in many countires you could shoot an antlerless deer a day if you purchased a permit each day (unlimited doe tags, allowed to purchase one per day). So, a hunter if so inclined, could should roughly 90 does a year in Michigan at that time. I don't know anybody that did so though. Plus, crop damage permits were easy to get as well. This did thin our population (in some areas, this was truly a necessity). We are now back to limited does tags depending on county and one cannot kill nearly as many deer.
> So, don't panic just yet but be concerned at the same time. At the end of the day, the guy or girl pulling the trigger is the manager and many will not fill all those tags...not even close. One benefit of this is that programs for donating deer meat to the hungry will likely get a nice boost in donations, and if this is doe only, may help the herd in some areas. I live in SW MI but am looking for property in Northern Indiana so I willl try to follow this closely as well.


I agree. Even with our current system, only 2% of the hunters get their bag limit in a year. Even if they do double it, I'm sure there will be more killed, but not the bag limit. But, you know if bucks are included, hunters will do their best to kill 2 bucks and thats a shame. :sad:


----------



## rodney482

ddworkm said:


> Don't think Bellar is selling hunts in Indiana anymore. Heard he moved his operation south.


No he is not selling hunts, there are only like 13 operations in the state that was allowed to continue, but they too have to stop by a certain year..Dont remember what year that was.


----------



## rodney482

I read the legislation that is in committe but I also received other info that this was being pushed hard by the insurance companies and it was going to be anterless only.

If they try to do bucks it will never make it to the floor.

Not gonna happen.


----------



## Crimefighter

rodney482 said:


> I read the legislation that is in committe but I also received other info that this was being pushed hard by the insurance companies and it was going to be anterless only.
> 
> If they try to do bucks it will never make it to the floor.
> 
> Not gonna happen.


Hope you're right Rodney. If they really want more does killed, then they need to reduce the price of doe tags.....even more than they do now.

As Nuge would say....Whackmaster. I would become more of a Whackmaster if I could keep more dough in my pocket.

But, I'm sure they won't reduce the prices anymore....thats less money for the DNR :angry:

With the economy the way it is, it would be wise of them to reduce the prices of doe tags. They would probably make up the difference of the price cut by selling many more doe tags. :wink:


----------



## Steeler Fan

Crimefighter said:


> I agree. Even with our current system, only 2% of the hunters get their bag limit in a year. Even if they do double it, I'm sure there will be more killed, but not the bag limit. But, you know if bucks are included, hunters will do their best to kill 2 bucks and thats a shame. :sad:


Yeah, I fully understand the two buck limit. It's what we live with in Michigan and many of us would prefer one buck like Indiana and Ohio. The OBR is one reason I am interested in hunting Indiana now. Since I live on the border and spend a fair amount of time and money in Indiana, I have noticed an improvement in both herd numbers and definitely buck quality. I didn't need Waddel to shoot a big one for me to take notice:wink:


----------



## willie

The proposed bill says nothing about antlered or antlerless. It says double the bag limit.

Since the lifetime license holders, landowners, military and youth kill 60% of the yearly take I don't think prices of tags is a big deterent to taking more does. Plus the antlerless bonus tags are only $15 after the first one.

The doubling of antlered deer would only apply to the UDZ buck tag. The other buck tag is statewide. So if this passes one could possibly kill three bucks in an UDZ.

I do not personally care what the anterless limits are *IF* they were set by our state deer biologist instead of some politican that would'nt have a clue as to what he/she is talking about.

Game bag regulations should be set by the DNR...


----------



## Archeroni

Email sent to those reps as well as my rep.
Thanks.


----------



## crambone34

even if it doubles,,,,who has got the time to go out and hunt some 15+deer?
who wants to go out and get 15+ deer?,,i live in indiana and i sure the hell dont need that many!!!
there are alot of ethical hunters who only take what they need,,,,ya,there are some thats going to go try to get all they can,,but the tags cost good money,and there freezers are only so deep you know!!,,i wouldnt worry about it,,,be glad it was not the other way around and they were taking away from what we can get!!!,,you guys would be crying more then!!


----------



## Steeler Fan

crambone34 said:


> even if it doubles,,,,who has got the time to go out and hunt some 15+deer?
> who wants to go out and get 15+ deer?,,i live in indiana and i sure the hell dont need that many!!!
> there are alot of ethical hunters who only take what they need,,,,ya,there are some thats going to go try to get all they can,,but the tags cost good money,and there freezers are only so deep you know!!,,i wouldnt worry about it,,,be glad it was not the other way around and they were taking away from what we can get!!!,,you guys would be crying more then!!



As an out of state hunter, I'd only buy one antlered tag and if I am able, buy one antlerless tag to do my part if possible.


----------



## Archeroni

I think there will be yahoos taking their limit just because they can which will lead to wanton waste.

I like the idea of lowering the cost of doe tags. More does killed by people that need the meat without excessive limits.

I do recognize the fact that there are areas of this state that need high bag limits due to overpopulation. What bothers me though is since this bill is aimed at counties with higher collision rates then it is obviously being pushed by insurance companies, not biologists. :thumbs_do

If the DNR and state biologists said we need to double the bag limits (which they have already done in some counties) due to over population and herd health I would support it because I believe them. This bill reaks of insurance lobbyists however. :thumbs_do


----------



## Archeroni

WOW.

I received a response from Bill Friend to my email already.

It was not a generic auto-response either. He specifically address a remark I made about drivers not paying attention in my note to him. He also included some justification for the bill re: collisions in District 23.

I was kind of shocked to get a response really. I figured the reps get dozens of emails per day and probably don't respond.

I still do not agree with the bill but I feel better that I received a personal response with a degree of logic and justification.

-A


----------



## ddworkm

rodney482 said:


> No he is not selling hunts, there are only like 13 operations in the state that was allowed to continue, but they too have to stop by a certain year..Dont remember what year that was.


No year has been set yet. that proposal was shot down. Lawsuit still in litigation but that's all for another day's discussion.


----------



## ddworkm

Archeroni said:


> WOW.
> 
> I received a response from Bill Friend to my email already.
> 
> It was not a generic auto-response either. He specifically address a remark I made about drivers not paying attention in my note to him. He also included some justification for the bill re: collisions in District 23.
> 
> I was kind of shocked to get a response really. I figured the reps get dozens of emails per day and probably don't respond.
> 
> I still do not agree with the bill but I feel better that I received a personal response with a degree of logic and justification.
> 
> -A


How bout copying and pasting that response?


----------



## Crimefighter

Archeroni said:


> I think there will be yahoos taking their limit just because they can which will lead to wanton waste.
> 
> I like the idea of lowering the cost of doe tags. More does killed by people that need the meat without excessive limits.
> 
> I do recognize the fact that there are areas of this state that need high bag limits due to overpopulation. What bothers me though is since this bill is aimed at counties with higher collision rates then it is obviously being pushed by insurance companies, not biologists. :thumbs_do
> 
> If the DNR and state biologists said we need to double the bag limits (which they have already done in some counties) due to over population and herd health I would support it because I believe them. This bill reaks of insurance lobbyists however. :thumbs_do



Exactly Right. It has INSURANCE written all over it. 

Willie......you have to see that....don't you?

Willie......I know you'd be for it if it was being spearheaded by the DNR because you hate the OBR. :wink:


----------



## Archeroni

ddworkm said:


> How bout copying and pasting that response?


I will PM it to you.


----------



## Archeroni

ddworkm said:


> How bout copying and pasting that response?


Sent it to you in a PM.

I would prefer my email and the response not be posted here. Please extend me the courtesy.

Thanks.


----------



## deer dude

this is just great ,the amish seem to have about poached the deer hurd around where i hunt down to about nothing.if this stupid arse bill passes i will have no deer to hunt. although i will have money in my pocket that otherwise would have went to the dnr and the state.


----------



## willie

Crimefighter said:


> Exactly Right. It has INSURANCE written all over it.
> 
> Willie......you have to see that....don't you?


From te return email it sounds like Rep. Friend got some feed back from his constituants that they were having too many run ins with deer.

I was told Farm Burea took a neutral stance on this.

Again, any accident costs are passed on to the insurace customers. They will not dip into their profits.



> Willie......I know you'd be for it if it was being spearheaded by the DNR because you hate the OBR. :wink:


Nothing to do wth the OBR or my stance on the OBR. Why try and turn this into an OBR debate? I have always said and always will that the DNR deer biologist should manage our herd, not a politician or a wanabee.


----------



## Crimefighter

willie said:


> From te return email it sounds like Rep. Friend got some feed back from his constituants that they were having too many run ins with deer.
> 
> I was told Farm Burea took a neutral stance on this.
> 
> Again, any accident costs are passed on to the insurace customers. They will not dip into their profits.
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing to do wth the OBR or my stance on the OBR. Why try and turn this into an OBR debate? I have always said and always will that the DNR deer biologist should manage our herd, not a politician or a wanabee.


And you think Farm Bureau is gonna tell you the truth? I suppose they'll tell you that if this is passed, that they'll throw a little extra cash towards that State Reps. campaign? UMMMM.....NO!!! But, thats what will happen. 

Do you think they came up with this novel idea all themselves? Constituants, I find that hard to believe. But, some people will believe it.


----------



## Rothhar1

Look even if they do raise the limit to 2 bucks and 8 or 10 does then we are ultimatly in charge of what we shoot we each one know other hunters .If we lay off of the doe herd on our own hunting land if there is a short supply then we did what we could do.As far as bucks go we will all still see and some will shoot big bucks every year that will not change .

But there will be those who shoot none and some who shoot the first 2 by the m and still the top of the class that will take to biguns each year Thats ok two .Its about time .There will be a time very soon that every hunter will get to take two bucks yearly its a matter of political pressure and money!


----------



## willie

Crimefighter said:


> And you think Farm Bureau is gonna tell you the truth? I suppose they'll tell you that if this is passed, that they'll throw a little extra cash towards that State Reps. campaign? UMMMM.....NO!!! But, thats what will happen.
> 
> Do you think they came up with this novel idea all themselves? Constituants, I find that hard to believe. But, some people will believe it.


The person that told me that the Fram Bureau is neutral is in direct contact with a lot of politcians, DNR top dogs and attends just about every meeting that the DNR, NRC and FWCC puts on. He has his finger on the pulse and I believe every word he says.

You may believe what you want.

Do you actullay think that the insurance companies absorb any costs in accidents? It is all passed on to the customers, period. They are in the business to make money and they will make money no matter how many accidents occur. Just jack up the rates..

I do know that I would not put anything past Rep. Friend..He could very well be doing it in spite of the licking he took by the DNR back when he was attempting to get pick and shoots going.

He is not a friend of the sportsman *OR* the DNR....


----------



## Crimefighter

I'm done pissing and moaning about it. :crybaby2:

I'm not going to get too worried about until something does or does not happen.

Time will tell.

Either way, I'm just happy to be able to hunt in the Midwest.


----------



## pTac

Archeroni, I sent you a PM.

All I got from our wonderful reps was the auto "thanks for caring" BS response!


----------



## rodney482

Crimefighter said:


> I'm done pissing and moaning about it. :crybaby2:
> 
> I'm not going to get too worried about until something does or does not happen.
> 
> Time will tell.
> 
> Either way, I'm just happy to be able to hunt in the Midwest.


Dont worry there is a ton of legislation that they try to get passed every year and most never make it out of committee.

Unless they attach this to another bill it aint going anywhere.


----------



## pTac

I decided to send the following e-mail to all the listed state reps. I hope it will give them another option that makes more sense to explore. Fellow Hoosiers, let me know if you like this idea, and if so, send a similar e-mail as well. If we stick together, we can get the state heading the right direction for good QDMA practices here and more balanced deer heards.

_*Mr. Ruppel, Mr. Wolkins, Mr. Friend, and Mr. Fry,

I am writing again about the proposed legislation to double the deer bag limit (house bill 1585). I am somewhat concerned that I received only an automated response in reference to my previous e-mail. As an elected official, I fully expect my correspondence to be replied to in person. That being said, I am very concerned that this bill will do nothing to help in the problem of deer herd management, but will only to serve to make the already unbalanced deer population even more unbalanced, resulting in more problems for the remaining deer population. I think what should be addressed is the fact that the current herds are very out of balance. The best possible balance should be 1 to 1, that is 1 buck for every 1 doe. A properly managed deer herd would reflect that number. This has been researched and proven by the QDMA (Quality Deer Management Association). The problem is that there are to many hunters only hunting bucks, and by doubling the limit they will only shoot another buck, not more does, resulting in an even more unbalanced population. I think, at least as a start, the State should consider legislation to force hunters to take part in balanced herd management instead of relying only on the few hunters that want to practice QDMA. My suggestion would be to implement the "Earn a Buck Rule". In short, what this means is that in order for someone to shoot a buck, they are first required to shoot a doe. Set up properly, this would result in many more does being harvested. As a result, the deer population would become more balanced, and since does are the ones having the babies, this would help control herd numbers as well. If implemented, it should be set up so that the hunter can pre-qualify for his/ her buck tag if they shoot a doe the previous year, that way they wouldn't have to pass on a buck just because they hadn't shot their doe yet this year. However, if the hunter did not harvest a doe the previous year, the would then be required to harvest a doe first this year before being eligible to shoot a buck. Then, they would have to shoot yet another doe to get pre-qualified for the next year. I know other States have used this method very successfully. I think it would benefit Indiana greatly. Please consider this as an option, as simply doubling the limit will not, in my opinion, fix the problem. Thank you for your time.

Jeff Packard*_


----------



## grey squirrel

*Question*

I'm confused.
Is it only for antlerless, or are bucks included?
I'm all for antlerless, but I'd love to see the one buck rule stay the same as it is.


----------



## willie

*Sorry,

EAB.. :thumbs_do *


----------



## pTac

I just received this response from Rep. Ruppel:

_*STATE OF INDIANA

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

THIRD FLOOR STATE HOUSE

INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA 46204


William J. “Bill” Ruppel

909 St. Rd. 13 West

North Manchester, IN 46962

website: www.in.gov/h22

Phone: 317-232-9737



COMMITTEES:

Veterans Affairs and Public Safety,RMM

Environmental Affairs

Financial Institutions








Jeff Packard


Dear Jeff,



Thank you for taking the time to contact my office regarding House Bill 1585, which pertains to deer hunting bag limits in the 30 counties in Indiana that . Your thoughts and concerns are very important to me.

HB 1585 was authored by Representative Bill Friend and co-authored by Representatives Fry, Wolkins, and Herrell. The bill was assigned to the House committee on Insurance, and has been scheduled for a hearing on Wednesday, February 4th. If this bill passes out of committee and is presented to me on the House floor, I will be voting no. I don’t believe that this bill is good policy for these counties as it may have a devastating effect on the size of the deer herds in those areas.

Please contact my office if you are interested in testifying on this issue. I am proud to serve as one of your Representatives in Indianapolis, and I will continue to do my best in representing you and our state. As always, if I can be of assistance to you with state governmental matters, please do not hesitate to contact me or my office.*_
*
Let's show him our appreciation by sending him an e-mail to say thanks!*


----------



## Crimefighter

Golf Clap for Mr. Ruppel :clap:

Thats good hear. :thumbs_up


----------



## Archeroni

Da30Pointer said:


> I just received this response from Rep. Ruppel:
> 
> _*STATE OF INDIANA
> 
> HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
> 
> THIRD FLOOR STATE HOUSE
> 
> INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA 46204
> 
> 
> William J. “Bill” Ruppel
> 
> 909 St. Rd. 13 West
> 
> North Manchester, IN 46962
> 
> website: www.in.gov/h22
> 
> Phone: 317-232-9737
> 
> 
> 
> COMMITTEES:
> 
> Veterans Affairs and Public Safety,RMM
> 
> Environmental Affairs
> 
> Financial Institutions
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Packard
> 
> 
> Dear Jeff,
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for taking the time to contact my office regarding House Bill 1585, which pertains to deer hunting bag limits in the 30 counties in Indiana that . Your thoughts and concerns are very important to me.
> 
> HB 1585 was authored by Representative Bill Friend and co-authored by Representatives Fry, Wolkins, and Herrell. The bill was assigned to the House committee on Insurance, and has been scheduled for a hearing on Wednesday, February 4th. If this bill passes out of committee and is presented to me on the House floor, I will be voting no. I don’t believe that this bill is good policy for these counties as it may have a devastating effect on the size of the deer herds in those areas.
> 
> Please contact my office if you are interested in testifying on this issue. I am proud to serve as one of your Representatives in Indianapolis, and I will continue to do my best in representing you and our state. As always, if I can be of assistance to you with state governmental matters, please do not hesitate to contact me or my office.*_
> *
> Let's show him our appreciation by sending him an e-mail to say thanks!*



I received the same response today from Rep. Ruppel as well.


----------



## bardman

solohunter said:


> January 2009 issue of Deer & Deer Hunting, article by Rev. Ezekiel B. Pipher.....I also agree with Willie...
> Solohunter



I understand your concern in wanting to keep the numbers up but the article above I beleive he is reffering to is most disturbing I can remeber reading in a long time. 

Please correct me if I am wrong and this is not, repeat not my stance but, if I remember correctly it discusses how hunting is not effective at keeping deer numbers in check, nation wide, even though they have extended seasons. That law makers are considering alternate methods because the hunting population was not taking enough game to satisfy the numbers set by the DNR. So that horrible discussion of should be other methods used sterailzation, shooters etc... to remedy the problem. 

I hope that was the article he was refering to, if not there is one out there that was in one of my hunting magazines. N A W or Peter bowhunting or Bowhunting, yeah I read alot. I read in a nut shell what I wrote and like I said it was disturbing to me as a hunter raising 3 hunters.


----------



## Hoosierflogger

*You stole my thunder.*



Crimefighter said:


> Hope you're right Rodney. If they really want more does killed, then they need to reduce the price of doe tags.....even more than they do now.
> 
> As Nuge would say....Whackmaster. I would become more of a Whackmaster if I could keep more dough in my pocket.
> 
> But, I'm sure they won't reduce the prices anymore....thats less money for the DNR :angry:
> 
> With the economy the way it is, it would be wise of them to reduce the prices of doe tags. They would probably make up the difference of the price cut by selling many more doe tags. :wink:


I was going to say the very same thing. They should leave the bag limits as they are but offer the bonus antlerless tags at $10.00 ea.
I am a meat hunter not a trophy taker, as are most of those I hunt with.
I usually put 2 or 3 does in the freezer each year for the family, but I am allowed 5 x-tra doe tags in my county. I would probably take a couple more if it weren't so expensive.


----------



## rodney482

the house bill passed through commitee, on its way to be heard.ukey:


----------



## Crimefighter

rodney482 said:


> the house bill passed through commitee, on its way to be heard.ukey:


Well, thats a crock of you know what :angry:. Any idea when the next step is?


----------



## rodney482

Crimefighter said:


> Well, thats a crock of you know what :angry:. Any idea when the next step is?


Spoke with some IDNR guys yesterday they dont think it will make it through the house and senate.

It is a long process and it has alot of hurdles to get over before it becomes law.


----------



## Crimefighter

rodney482 said:


> Spoke with some IDNR guys yesterday they dont think it will make it through the house and senate.
> 
> It is a long process and it has alot of hurdles to get over before it becomes law.


Roger


----------



## I like Meat

I just seen where Rep. Friend added an amendment of allowing Crossguns to the early season and extend the gun season length by 1 week...., just what the heck is this clown thinking.....

Contact Senate President David Long and tell them to NOT allow this to go to a hearing.....


----------



## Crimefighter

I like Meat said:


> I just seen where Rep. Friend added an amendment of allowing Crossguns to the early season and extend the gun season length by 1 week...., just what the heck is this clown thinking.....
> 
> Contact Senate President David Long and tell them to NOT allow this to go to a hearing.....


This guy is a duesh bag. Obviously he is not a trophy hunter......or for that matter not even a hunter probably


----------



## FAR66

Sounds like Governor Mitch Daniels (317-232-4567)is at it again!!!! Contact Cleo Duncan 800-382-9841 or Johnny Nugent 800-382-9467 they should be able to point you in the right direction or who you need to voice your opinion to!!! I am a former hoosier that worked for the State of Indiana and good ole Daniels is at it again!


----------



## ddworkm

Crimefighter said:


> This guy is a duesh bag. Obviously he is not a trophy hunter......or for that matter not even a hunter probably


No he is not a hunter. He goes where the money is. He did the same when Bellar was supporting him and is doing the same for whoever is pushing him on this one.


When is the next step guys?


----------



## I like Meat

This is sitting in committee right now and hopefully it will not come out......:wink:


----------



## pTac

I like Meat said:


> This is sitting in committee right now and hopefully it will not come out......:wink:


Amen to that!


----------



## I like Meat

Attention !! it is being read/heard in committee....ukey:


----------



## kennie

any info???


----------



## rodney482

kennie said:


> any info???


It is still in the Senate committe

here is the link

http://www.in.gov/apps/lsa/session/billwatch/billinfo?year=2009&session=1&request=getBill&docno=1585


----------



## I like Meat

It has been dropped.....it will not go further at this point.....there will be a "study committee" but thats it......Way to go guys !!!! .....:darkbeer::darkbeer::darkbeer:


----------



## emtarcher

Do we have to worry about this Bill being brought back up at a later date??

Most of the car/deer accidents that occur in my area happen in the same location time after time. These locations are also owned by some tree hugger that does not allow any herd reductions through hunting. You can drive by these locations in the evening only to find 30+ deer feeding at once. Where I hunt, you are lucky to see the same 6-8 deer on a daily basis.


----------



## I like Meat

It went to a "summer study committee".....hopefully all the BS will not be back this fall............properties that do not allow hunting for reductions will always continue to be problem areas....


----------



## trapperDave

its time to start charging those landowners for the damage that "their" deer cause.


----------

