I look at it this way, I have more range with a centerfire rifle, but that does not mean I have to use it.
I've introduced several youths and women to hunting over the last decade or so...recoil may not matter in the field, but it dang sure does when they are practicing and getting used to shooting their gun. Heck, I have seen grown men in Indiana who are afraid of their slug gun, and shoot it accordingly. Having grown up hunting in CA, WI and MI, in areas where most rifle cartridges are allowed, I can assure you that a wise mentor makes sure a young hunter doesn't have to deal with the punishing recoil of a shotgun or muzzle-loader. It is only in states where there was no choice that "logic" such as yours is accepted in any way. Why do you think Indiana is changing their regulations? It is because recruitment is down and empirical evidence (crop damage, car collisions) suggest deer numbers are up.
If you don't know too many young hunters who are recoil sensitive, then you don't know many hunters. To go on and say that many young hunters are using 357 and 44 magnum rifles is to validate my point. Why are they choosing those two cartridges? If you think it's NOT because of recoil, or that argument isn't valid, then try this little experiment: Have a 12 year-old girl shoot one round from a slug gun and then one round from a 243 Winchester...then tell her they both kill deer just as well and ask which one she wants to use.
We have all seen bucks tending does out in the middle of fields. This occurs all over the Midwest, even in places where normal rifle cartridges have been in use for decades, and it has nothing to do with deer that have learned the effective range of slug guns and muzzleloaders. You are observing a behavior and reaching a conclusion without understanding the biology behind it. Deer are not good at judging distance, due to a very limited scope of binocular vision, and their threat avoidance mechanisms have not advanced to include yardage estimation. Correlation is not causation.
With all due respect, I have hunted the open fields and tree lines of northern Indiana, the woods and ridges of southern Indiana, and the wide open expanses out West...deer live close to cover, and smart hunters leverage this fact. I'm sure you do, without even realizing it. Think about every one of the stands you've ever hunted out of; how many of them are in or immediately adjacent to some kind of cover?
I am not at ALL opposed to opening up the rifle cartridges regulations! I fully support it, for several of the reasons you mentioned. I also agree there will be plenty of situations where the extended range "can be helpful", but changing regulations will not change basic deer biology or behavior. Maybe you've spent too much time hunting in places where there aren't a lot of woodlots left, but the simple fact remains that whitetail deer, particularly northern whitetails, ARE woodland creatures. The vast majority of deer killed in Indiana, and even big game out West, is killed at 150 yards, or less. As you said, these regulations make sense because there is no good reason for us NOT to be free to use most cartridges. However, one of the very best reasons to expand the regulations is lower recoil options for women and children to shoot, as we work to recruit them into a sport that might otherwise fade away. Research the demographics of hunting today and you'll understand what I mean.
In much of northern Indiana, deer have little choice but to live in the slimmest of cover, often quite a distance from a woodlot. However, you are anthropomorphizing deer, when you suggest that they "learn" to live in those places. That is to say, it makes sense to a human mind that this would be the case, but the science is quite different. The truth of the matter is two-fold: Some deer, just like some people, are inherently reclusive, and the home range a yearling buck sets up after dispersing from the doe that cast him is where he is highly likely (about 90%) to live the rest of his life, irrespective of any supposed learning it does. Those bucks that people find living in tiny patches of cover are there because they have been displaced from the best habitat by an aggressive matriarch; doe family groups always dominate the best pieces of ground, both in terms of cover and food availability. What you perceive as deer that have "learned" is really more a consequence of natural behavior. The primary reason older bucks are harder to kill is because they are shy and nocturnal, by nature, and because they represent such a small fraction of the total population. Where selective harvest (and not high-grading) has resulted in an advanced herd age structure, killing older bucks is quite a bit easier, but you have to set aside human notions about how and why deer live where they do to achieve those types of management goals.
My personal goals are to improve habitat quality, promote strong recruitment, and harvest only mature animals, (2.5 or older) and I've been reasonably successful at it. Most people don't manage their land or their harvest decisions at all...they just want to shoot a big buck. Long-range rifle cartridges will only marginally increase the number of big bucks taken in Indiana, simply because there are few of them to be harvested, and close range shots (150 and less) will still result in the vast majority of deer killed. When you set aside preconceived notions, and understand the science instead of thinking like a human, the behaviors of deer become less mysterious. Your hunting success usually goes up a bit, too.
I know I come across as condescending, and it surely rubs some people the wrong way, but that's mostly because of how I write and the fact that I have studied certain subjects extensively. For example, I have been reloading metallic cartridges for 30 years, have developed wildcat cartridges, and if I may be so immodest, I know more about cartridges than 99% of the people in Indiana. I have also studied deer biology, in a formal sense, so I've learned that a great deal of what I "thought" I knew was wrong. In the process of learning about these two topics, I have formed some strong opinions, and express them as such. Some folks get their nose out of joint because they don't like their preconceived notions being challenged, or refuted by science, so I sometimes get under peoples skin. That truly is not my intent, it is simply to share factual information. Read from it what you will.
In much of northern Indiana, deer have little choice but to live in the slimmest of cover, often quite a distance from a woodlot. However, you are anthropomorphizing deer, when you suggest that they "learn" to live in those places. That is to say, it makes sense to a human mind that this would be the case, but the science is quite different. The truth of the matter is two-fold: Some deer, just like some people, are inherently reclusive, and the home range a yearling buck sets up after dispersing from the doe that cast him is where he is highly likely (about 90%) to live the rest of his life, irrespective of any supposed learning it does. Those bucks that people find living in tiny patches of cover are there because they have been displaced from the best habitat by an aggressive matriarch; doe family groups always dominate the best pieces of ground, both in terms of cover and food availability. What you perceive as deer that have "learned" is really more a consequence of natural behavior. The primary reason older bucks are harder to kill is because they are shy and nocturnal, by nature, and because they represent such a small fraction of the total population. Where selective harvest (and not high-grading) has resulted in an advanced herd age structure, killing older bucks is quite a bit easier, but you have to set aside human notions about how and why deer live where they do to achieve those types of management goals.
My personal goals are to improve habitat quality, promote strong recruitment, and harvest only mature animals, (2.5 or older) and I've been reasonably successful at it. Most people don't manage their land or their harvest decisions at all...they just want to shoot a big buck. Long-range rifle cartridges will only marginally increase the number of big bucks taken in Indiana, simply because there are few of them to be harvested, and close range shots (150 and less) will still result in the vast majority of deer killed. When you set aside preconceived notions, and understand the science instead of thinking like a human, the behaviors of deer become less mysterious. Your hunting success usually goes up a bit, too.
I know I come across as condescending, and it surely rubs some people the wrong way, but that's mostly because of how I write and the fact that I have studied certain subjects extensively. For example, I have been reloading metallic cartridges for 30 years, have developed wildcat cartridges, and if I may be so immodest, I know more about cartridges than 99% of the people in Indiana. I have also studied deer biology, in a formal sense, so I've learned that a great deal of what I "thought" I knew was wrong. In the process of learning about these two topics, I have formed some strong opinions, and express them as such. Some folks get their nose out of joint because they don't like their preconceived notions being challenged, or refuted by science, so I sometimes get under peoples skin. That truly is not my intent, it is simply to share factual information. Read from it what you will.
