Guests - If You want access to member only forums on HSO. You will gain access only when you sign-in or Sign-Up on HotSpotOutdoors.

It's easy - LOOK UPPER right menu.

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

New Regulation Change Article From The Star Trib.

4 posts in this topic

I know most know of these and I always recommend to look at the regs on-line or in the real book, but the Tribe has broke down some of the changes.

The rules afield have changed

Last update: September 9, 2008 - 7:07 PM

There are plenty of new hunting regulations this year. Be sure to get -- and read -- a copy of the DNR's 2008 hunting and trapping regulations handbook for details. Here are some key ones:

• The minimum age to hunt big game, including deer, has been reduced to allow 10- and 11-year-olds to hunt. They will have to be under "direct supervision" of a parent or guardian, who must be "within immediate reach" of the youth. Big game taken by the youths must be tagged with the license of the parent or guardian.

• People ages 12 to 15 can now apply for moose and elk hunts.

• The law prohibiting hunters from baiting deer has been clarified. The new definition of bait or feed includes "grains, fruits, vegetables, nuts, hay or other food that is capable of attracting or enticing deer and that has been placed by a person." A person hunting on private or public land adjacent to land that was baited is not in violation if he has not participated in, been involved with or agreed to the baiting.

• Hunters no longer will have to validate (notch) their deer licenses when they harvest an animal, though they still must validate their site tags.

• A law requiring grouse hunters to be at least 20 yards from a vehicle was repealed. It's still illegal to transport an uncased firearm in a vehicle or ATV, or to shoot from a vehicle or ATV.

• The bag limit for pheasants will increase late in the season. The two-bird daily limit will increase to three, and the six-bird possession limit will increase to nine from Dec. 1 to the end of the season, Jan. 4.

• The minimum cartridge requirement for big-game hunting now is a centerfire .22 caliber.

• Beginning March 1, 2009, residents under 16 must obtain a free license to hunt small game.

• People hunting small game with nontoxic shot are no longer exempt from blaze orange requirements.

• State duck and pheasant stamps no longer need to be signed to be valid.


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

.22's for big game yeah it could be done but is it responsible? Who brought up this change and why? I think it is a poacher's cartidge.

Sorry about the negative post,but it's never a bad idea to thoroughly question new laws and find the loopholes and unexpected ramifications. Hans

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Take a closer look. It's a .22 centerfire, not rimfire. I bet you could search forever and not find a .22 centerfire. Basically what that law did was allow varmint guns to be able to be used hunting big game. The balistics are much different using a .223 centerfire and a .22 rimfire. Of course, proper shot placement is still needed much like with a larger gun but a .223 is still plenty to bring down a deer.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

I failed to take a closer look. So my "thoroughly need to explore every new rule" quote from above-has just been proven.

Thanks for the heads up BGB. There is a huge diffence in performance between the two.

I'm a huge 257 Roberts fan for whitetails and there is little practicle differance between that pee shooter and a .223

.22 long rifle rimfire isn't even close. Hans

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Posts

    • Sounds like Trump    
    • We use ours all the time so we can leave the dinette up. Both my wife and I total 325 pounds no problems or additional bracing so far.
    • Our hunter to deer ratio is too high.   We're already slim on adult bucks in this state compared to the number of people looking for them.  You'd just have a lot of unfilled buck tags - a lot more than we already have.
    • Only thing I noticed is that there was a bunch of blue hats and only 1 red one.....
    • Ok, then maybe just change the question to why not more that one buck tag per hunter?  Not sure how feasible it is, but it clearly seems to work in other states.
    • I pretty much stick with Black Cloud.  Since I switched I've had more DOI when I've hit them than back in the day of buying the cheapest steel I could find.   The 4's have been crushing the early season teal, woodies, and mallards.  I absent mindedly loaded 4s when I got into the ring necks and paid for it.  Too many extra rounds spent trying to cap the swimmers when they shoulda just been dead and laying there.  I need 3s and 2s to keep those buggers down.  But when I try to lace these late hanging teal with 2s, they just keep going.   I like 2s but better yet BB for the gooses. Generally the smallest shot size I can get away with is what I like.  More shot = better chance to hit something vital and the BC's will get that smaller shot deeper into the bird.
    • In New Hampshire, Trump stands by universal health care in face of Cruz attacks By MEGAN THIELKING @meggophone FEBRUARY 5, 2016   PORTSMOUTH, N.H. — Donald Trump is remaining firm on a sticking point for many Republican voters — government-funded health care for all. One of his top rivals for the Republican presidential nomination, Texas Senator Ted Cruz, has hit Trump hard on this issue in recent weeks. Cruz’s campaign has dubbed Trump’s plan “Trumpcare” and likened it to “Hillarycare” and “Obamacare.” Last week, a super PAC supporting Cruz ran an attack ad on the subject in Iowa. But Trump isn’t backing down.   “We do need health care for all people,” Trump said at a rally here this week. “What are we gonna do, let people die in the street?”   Trump has said he doesn’t support Obamacare but does believe the government should pay for health insurance for all. “I wanna get rid of Obamacare. I want to get you something good,” he said at the rally. He didn’t offer specifics. This isn’t the first time Trump has taken a health care stance heretical to many in the the GOP. Late last month, he said he wanted to let Medicare negotiate prescription drug prices with pharmaceutical companies. That’s an idea Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders have been pushing. Rank-and-file voters seem to like it, but it’s been anathema to the GOP establishment, which prefers to talk about speeding up drug approvals and spurring competition to bring down prices.
    • Trump’s healthcare plans trouble GOP
      By Peter Sullivan - 06/08/16 06:00 AM EDT   Donald Trump’s inconsistencies on health policy are baffling experts and deepening the doubts that conservatives have about his candidacy. The presumptive Republican presidential nominee has put forward a healthcare plan on his campaign page that leaves out many of the bolder promises he has made during debates and speeches.
      Trump has repeatedly promised to “take care of everybody,” but his health plan includes no major expansion of coverage; one analysis asserted the proposal would actually end coverage for 21 million people. 
      Similarly, he has vowed to keep protections for people with pre-existing conditions, but his plan includes no such provision. The celebrity businessman strayed from GOP orthodoxy in January by endorsing the idea of Medicare negotiating drug prices, something that Democrats have pushed for years. But he then included a different drug pricing idea in his plan that allows for the importation of drugs from abroad.  Then, on Feb. 18, Trump said, “I like the mandate,” referring to ObamaCare’s requirement that everyone have coverage. A day later, he clarified that he wants to repeal the mandate along with the rest of the healthcare reform law. Republican healthcare experts say the contradictions in Trump’s array of statements and positions about the issue have made it nearly impossible to discern what he really wants to do. “I’d say it’s still pretty uncertain,” said Doug Holtz-Eakin, a longtime Republican health policy adviser. “What he has said in the debates isn’t what’s on his page, which makes you wonder which version you should pay attention to.” One of Trump’s most prominent refrains on healthcare is that he “will not let people die on the streets,” adding, “We gotta take care of people that can’t take care of themselves.” James Capretta, a healthcare expert at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, said Trump has not backed up those slogans with policy.  “I think it’s wrong for Trump to suggest that somehow he’s got some idea to try to take care of people on healthcare in a way that other Republicans have been negligent on,” Capretta said. “Beyond asserting that he wants to do this, the explicit plan to try to do something about it has been really inadequate to the task.” In a departure from Trump’s rhetoric, the healthcare plan on his page does not include any major expansion of coverage. The main ideas it contains that could make a difference on coverage are allowing insurance to be sold across state lines and making health insurance premiums tax-deductible.  But the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, using a previous analysis from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, found that these two ideas together would provide coverage for just 1.1 million people. By repealing ObamaCare, the analysis found, 22 million people would lose coverage. The end result of Trump’s plan, therefore, would be that about 21 million people would lose coverage, the analysis found.  Trump has also said that he wants to keep protections so that people with pre-existing conditions cannot be denied health insurance.  “I want to keep pre-existing conditions,” he said in a debate on Feb. 25.  But by repealing ObamaCare, the real estate mogul’s plan would remove those protections, and he has not put forward an alternative idea.  “He’s offered nothing yet that would guarantee anybody who’s got a pre-existing condition that they would be given [coverage],” Capretta said.  Sometimes, Trump has tacked back and forth in his views on healthcare within days.  He said on CNN in February that he wants to “take care of” poor people “through maybe concepts of Medicare,” indicating a government-run health insurance system. Then, the next day, he tweeted that his proposal would use “private plans,” which would not be like Medicare.  Despite the inconsistencies, liberals say they are convinced that Trump’s ideas for the healthcare system would be damaging, mainly because he is adamant about repealing ObamaCare.  Ron Pollack, executive director of Families USA, the liberal healthcare advocacy group, noted that Trump has not proposed any solutions for people with pre-existing conditions and said a tax deduction, as Trump has proposed, would offer far less help to low-income people than ObamaCare’s tax credits.  “If you take all the things combined, what it clearly shows is working families, those with modest incomes, would be the ones who are most hurt,” Pollack said.  He did add that on drug pricing, where Trump has offered proposals usually associated with Democrats, “some of that stuff could be fairly interesting, and depending on the details, could even be helpful.” Republican experts, meanwhile, are hoping that Trump will propose more ideas to address the underlying costs in the healthcare system.  Holtz-Eakin said that he would like to see more of Trump’s plan on ways to bend the cost curve of healthcare spending. 
      Robert Graboyes, a healthcare scholar at the conservative Mercatus Center, said Trump’s main idea on cost containment so far, allowing insurance to be sold across state lines, “would do practically nothing to change anything.” Capretta said he does not have high hopes that more details will be forthcoming.  “He seems like he’s going to try to go through the general election without having spelled out much of anything,” he said. 
    • Intellectual consistency?  Are you kidding me, I don't think you even know what you are talking about, but that would not be out of character with much of the nonsensical gibberish that flows down here, I like to get in here from time-to-time and enjoy with my morning coffee a giggle or two scrolling through the silliness here but some of you people are just pitiful. The saddest part of the current election, to me and a large group of others,  is to discover just how far this country has sunk into the ignorance of the so-called middle class. It is just sad...and I am not at all happy to say that.
  • Our Sponsors