Dropping deer in their tracks
Michael Courtney
I shoot a lot of deer with a 30-06 and the hunting conditions make
it difficult to locate deer if they go very far from where they are shot.
My experience is that lung shots will bring down every deer, but most will
go 50-100 yards before dropping. I tried Nosler Ballistic Tips, but
the one 75 lb doe I shot with one went 75 yards after the bullet exploded
on her hide. Deer drop readily enough when shot in the head or spine, but
I'm not confident enough to hit these smaller target areas beyond 100 yards.
Two options are a bigger gun (338-06 or 35 Whelen) or shoulder-to-shoulder
shots. The shoulder-to-shoulder shot is appealing because it gives a
large target area, and a slight miss still results in a dead deer and
100 yards of (at the most) tracking/dragging through a swamp. I can live
with the lost shoulder meat provided the deer drops in its tracks.
The bigger calibers are appealing because I am assuming that the greater
energy and larger wound channel will drop deer faster with a lung shot
damaging no more than a few ribs.
Comments?
--
Michael Courtney, Ph. D.
mic...@amo.mit.edu
Jonis by way of Alex Vitek <alexvit@ix.netcom.com>
Certainly.
Never shoot at anything BUT the shoulder. That's bad hunting moral.
The head is so small a target that if your scope has gotten a small
knock on the side, the bullet hits anything between you and the deer
or maybe you shoot a bad shot - the chance for wounding is much, much
bigger than if you shoot at the shoulder. When you do shoot at the
shoulder, you've got several inches to go on both vertically and
horizontally. The brain of a deer is as small as a fist - and not
especially suited for target practice.
The woundings you may get when shooting at the head are also worse
than woundings elsewhere in the deers body. You can bow one of the
antlers off, which leads to infection - and the deer CAN run off, and
if it does, it won't drop before the infection kills it (In most
cases, the deer will loose its consciousness, and you get there before
it runs off). You may also blast its jaw off. The result of this is
that the deer can not eat, neither drink, and it slowly dies from
thirst or hunger (or both). The spinal Chord is neither a good target,
but can be accepted on close range. But don't do it to impress your
buddies - one extra wounding out of thousands isn't worth it.
Conclusion : 1-Aim at the shoulder
2- If you're not sure wether the calibre you've got is
powerful enough- get a bigger one.
3- The third alternative is to get yourself a
dog that can trace the deer those 50-100 yds.
This is not meant as a personal attack - this goes for everyone in
this group who call themselves hunters.
Jonis
Visit Jonis Huntingpages
http://home.sn.no/~sbragsta/hunters.htm
Member of the Huntingtrail.
Merrill Jay Hopkins
Something I didn't hear you mention along the lines of bullet type was
bullet size. IMHO the biggest factor along with shot placement for getting
the "drop dead" results that you are searching for. The .30 caliber round
is the most successfully used caliber of all time! To say that you have to
go to a larger caliber gun is a bit premature!
I use the 150gr spitzer BT from Sierra. I have had good results and will in
all probability continue to do so.......however, if I thought that the
knock down potential was lacking I would go to the 165gr or 180gr spitzer
BT before I would consider a new rifle. With a shot placement just behind
the shoulder, a double lung holing AND a heart punch should result and be
enough to bring down any NA deer.
As for the shoulder-to-shoulder shot you mentioned........I personnally
witnessed what happened to a friend of mine when he tried this. His shot
went true and hit right on the left shoulder. BAM a dead dear right? Well
sort of. He was using a 7mm mag with 140gr spitzer BT and the shot almost
took the deers leg right off .....hurray right? NO
The bullet veered up after hitting the leg bone square on and left out the
back with out taking any vitals with it!!!!
We had to track the @#$%^@ three legged running deer for almost half a mile
before it laid down and succumbed to the blood loss!!!!!! Talk about sore.
After that my friend went to 165 gr bullets and decided NOT to
shoulder-to-shoulder again. He hasn't missed at dropping any yet ( 4 for 4)
by going with my recommended shot above.
Also most deer that I have seen will not run to far unless they are
waaaayyyy out in the open and need to get to cover before they lay down to
die. If you rush a deer too quick after it's been shot that will greatly
increase the running range due to adrenalin. Best wait a good 10 minutes or
so before persuing .
> I shoot a lot of deer with a 30-06 and the hunting conditions make
> it difficult to locate deer if they go very far from where they are shot.
Maybe a different hunting location would be better? I know of no hunter
where I live that wouldn't be perfectly happy to track for only 50-100 yds.
Even in a swamp. The key I guess is to expect and be prepared to go into
the muck/bramble/thatch or what ever. Dress for it and bring what you need
if hunting where you go is what you have to do. On the other hand a .375
H&H MAG or a .378 Weatherby MAG would probably take any deer down with just
the one shot with no after thought movement on the part of the game.( or
any NA game for that matter! HA HA)
Len Thomsen
Michael Courtney <mic...@amo.tamu.edu> writes: > I shoot a lot of deer with a
30-06 and the hunting conditions make
>
> shots. The shoulder-to-shoulder shot is appealing because it gives a
> large target area, and a slight miss still results in a dead deer and
> 100 yards of (at the most) tracking/dragging through a swamp. I can live
> with the lost shoulder meat provided the deer drops in its tracks.
>
I try to avoid a shoulder shot. There is very little meat on a deer
for starters. I would prefer a head shot or a lung-heart shot
Len Thomsen
WbwIV
When I first bought my .338 a few years ago, I was pretty excited about
using it right away. So I loaded up some 225 gr. Nosler Partitions and
went after a big fat mulie doe.
I shot one in the lungs at 150 yds. and the bullet did not expand. It was
as if the bullet was a FMJ. It just went straight on through . And the
deer was probably dead on its feet but it definitely didn't go down like I
thought it would.
It is important to match the caliber and speed of the bullet with the
distance you want to shoot. Too fast and/or too big at close distances
isn't going to drop them in their tracks.
I shot a whitetail doe at 25 yds with my .41 mag revolver and a 210 gr.
Hornady XTP bullet and that load knocked that deer right over and it
stayed where it was.
Bill Webster
Tim Calvin
Michael Courtney <mic...@amo.tamu.edu> wrote in part:
>I shoot a lot of deer with a 30-06 and the hunting conditions make
>it difficult to locate deer if they go very far from where they are shot.
and
>Two options are a bigger gun (338-06 or 35 Whelen) or shoulder-to-shoulder
>shots.
It's not what you shoot them with, but where you shoot them that determines
the result. The key is to break the shoulders. Angling shots are most
common and should break one or both shoulders. Angling-away shots can be
intentionally aimed to take out the offside shoulder. Side shots can take
out both shoulders. Angling-from-the-front shots require that the near
shoulder be broken. The exceptions are front-on shots that should miss the
shoulders, as should going-straight-away shots. From a position above and
behind, the shot can be aimed through the spine. In each case, the bullet
should pass through the forward part of the chest disrupting the major
blood vessels of the heart and lungs. The 30-06 is plenty of power for your
task, though you could use heavier 180-200 gr bullets for more mass to
smash bones or to penetrate end to end. This strategy willingly sacrifices
meat for a quick kill, perhaps from a follow-up shot, and requires bullets
that stay together as opposed to hollow point or ballistic tip types.
Many elk hunters prefer to shoot elk this way, and use heavier loads to
insure smashing the elk's much larger bones. A shot through the lungs, or
even the heart, will be lethal, but not produce an instant kill. The animal
only has a lethal injury; it is not dead on it's feet. Some minutes later,
death by suffocation--lack of sufficient oxygen to the brain--will occur.
An elk (or deer) can run a long way in a few minutes. Breaking the bones
required for running usually shortens the distance traveled after the shot,
and may permit a quick follow-up.
Tim Calvin <timh...@quiknet.com> NRA Life Member
Get the CD-ROM "Tim Calvin's Hunting the West"
Call me to order with VISA/MC, 1-800-215-9045.
Price: $59.95 plus $1.24 postage. CA residents must add $4.35 tax.
mel sorg
> It is important to match the caliber and speed of the bullet with the
> distance you want to shoot. Too fast and/or too big at close distances
> isn't going to drop them in their tracks.
>
> I shot a whitetail doe at 25 yds with my .41 mag revolver and a 210 gr.
> Hornady XTP bullet and that load knocked that deer right over and it
> stayed where it was.
>
> Bill Webster
and no matter what you shoot, sometimes you still won't drop them in
their tracks! The only whitetail I have had go down on the spot that
wasn't a spine hit was a small doe that I hit through the heart and
lungs at 75 yards with a .30-06 and 150 grain bullet. By the time I
racked another shell into the gun and got the scope back on target it
had vanished......until I spotted a little bit of white which was the
tail sticking out of the low spot it had fallen in to.
Still, I shot another fairly large doe with an identical shot, at less
than 40 yards, and with a .300 Win mag., the 180 grain slug left a
jellied mess going in and coming out under the shoulders, and
disintegrated the lungs, but it still ran some 50 yards before piling
up. Another heart/lung shot with a .35 remington, that destroyed the
lungs and lower half of the heart, resulted in a buck that ran some 200
yards before expiring.
On each the bullets did what they should, expanding, doing a lot of
damage, and exiting to leave a good hole for a blood trail, but each
deer reacted differently to similar wounds. I have come to think
that the one big factor not accounted for was that the one that
travelled the furthest was already spooked and moving away from other
hunters when I got a shot at it, while the one that dropped immediately
was feeding. If your game already has the adreneline pumping, chances
are they aren't going to drop immediately unless the spine is severed.
madpoet
rutledge
I've come into this discussion a bit late, but ...
First off, a 165 grain .30-'06, even a bullet as fragile as the Nosler
BT, should down a deer without a problem. On the other hand, there are
no guarantees ... on paper that is a good combination, so I wouldn't
give up on it without considerably more field testing. When stuff that
makes sense doesn't work out, figure out what other non-obvious factors
might have played a role.
I shot a deer with a 7mm-08 and a 140 grain nosler solid base. The
wound channel was as if the deer was facing the other way ... tiny exit
and huge entrance. Since I don't smoke dope nor eat funny mushrooms,
about all that is left is maybe I hit a twig and the bullet was half
expanded before it ever whacked bambi; all that was left to exit was the
solid base. I saw that bullet whack enough antelope and deer at 7mm mag
speed to know it *does* work, just ... *mine* didn't.
Second ... what the heck ".30 caliber round" are you claiming is the
most successful used caliber of all time? The only one with any
authentic claim to that title is the .30-30, and it very seldom gets
loaded with 165 grain nosler ballistic tips so I'm not sure you know
what you're talking about. If you're trying to hype the .30-'06, *go
home.* It is the darling of the gun guru wanna be and loudmouthed
idiots across many decades, but most successful it is not. So far,
"most successful" has not been defined in any way that we would all
agree on, so to crown one cartridge with that title is either ignorant
or arrogant.
Third ... I've launched enough Sierra 180s from a .30-'06 to know that
the 150 would suck the big twinkie!! The only thing I ever saw that
they performed adequately on were robbins. (I mean, hypthetically, in
case any game wardens might be reading.) They failed miserably ..
core/jacket separations, etc. on every deer or bovine I ever shot.
Sierra makes a real accurate, consistant bullet but their performance on
game is questionable at best, at least in my experience. Speer and
Hornady are not as accurate quite, in most guns, but perform much better
on game.
Fourth ... I would agree that if you aren't getting your deer killed
cleanly with a .30-'06 you must be doing something wrong.
Fifth ... however, I would consider a 50-100 yard track a disaster. In
much of the country I hunt in, 50 yards horizontally may include near
1000 feet of vertical drop!! I can think of several 300 foot vertical
drops I hunt near the tops of, and some of 'em are stacked vertically
with a small ledge between 'em. Not everybody hunts the flat, swampy
ground. Different conditions, different needs.
Sixth ... I agree about the shoulder to shoulder shot. I would use it
on elk, but I've blown up enough deer meat (that becomes dear meat after
you carry it a ways) by hitting bone ... shoulder, spine, hip (oops) ...
not to do so intentionally.
Seventh ... I've only had to track one deer and it had it's guts tangled
around a bush so it couldn't get very far. I like head shots where the
critter is still, unaware, and I have a good rest. Otherwise, heart and
lungs. I don't know much about tracking 'cause with the shots I pick,
I've only had the one bad failure. The rest have been either in their
tracks or less then 10 feet.
I guess I might as well add that, while the .30-'06 will kill any North
American deer, that is no reason not to use a .338 or .375 or whatever
you like. This is about having fun, trying stuff, and attempting to be
sporting about it ... not some sort of conformity contest to see how
much we can all be just alike. If you like the '06, use it. I don't
'cause I'm plain sick and tired of '06 bigots spewing their crap about
it being the end all, do all, most successful and so on bullshit
cartridge of all time and I won't wear that label.
Well ... looks like I'm rev'ed up and ready to preach, but I've picked
on you long enough, so I guess I'll go find someone else to "stump" at.
Have a good afternoon!
Tom
Jeff
>I shoot a lot of deer with a 30-06 and the hunting conditions make
>it difficult to locate deer if they go very far from where they are shot.
>My experience is that lung shots will bring down every deer, but most will
>go 50-100 yards before dropping. I tried Nosler Ballistic Tips, but
>the one 75 lb doe I shot with one went 75 yards after the bullet exploded
>on her hide. Deer drop readily enough when shot in the head or spine, but
>I'm not confident enough to hit these smaller target areas beyond 100 yards.
>
>Two options are a bigger gun (338-06 or 35 Whelen) or shoulder-to-shoulder
>shots. The shoulder-to-shoulder shot is appealing because it gives a
>large target area, and a slight miss still results in a dead deer and
>100 yards of (at the most) tracking/dragging through a swamp. I can live
>with the lost shoulder meat provided the deer drops in its tracks.
>The bigger calibers are appealing because I am assuming that the greater
>energy and larger wound channel will drop deer faster with a lung shot
>damaging no more than a few ribs.
>
>
>Comments?
>
>
>--
>Michael Courtney, Ph. D.
>mic...@amo.mit.edu
I have found shoulder shots to be the most effective for bringing deer
down quickly. If you need more than a .30-06 to bring down a
whitetail, I'd like to hunt where you do! I have never shot a deer
with a .30-06 where the bullet did not penetrate all of the way
through the deer. Same goes for a .284 Win. that I use occasionally.
Shooting through the front shoulders basically knocks out the front
end of a deer. By smashing the shoulder blades, the deer cannot stand
up or run. Conversely, a deer can drag a shattered back leg a long
ways. I know because I lost one this year due to a deflected bullet.
When the front legs are incapacitated, the deer has only its back legs
to push away with. The front legs are useless and the deer goes
nowhere. Something else that usually results from a good shoulder
shot is bone fragments are thrown into the lungs, severing many blood
vessels.
As it is often said, if you want to eat lots of deer, the best shot is
the heart and lungs. If you want clean kills and minimal tracking,
with a certain loss of some meat, go for the shoulder. The tradeoff
is losing meat. The gain is less tracking.
Jeff Capell
Cary, NC
jca...@pipeline.com
John Clifford
You don't mention the bullet weight you're using. If you're using the
125 grain Ballistic Tip, be warned that it is NOT a deer bullet -- at
least, not at '06 velocities -- and will not penetrate sufficiently. I
think the best all-around deer bullet weight for the '06 is 165 grains,
in a boat-tail pointed soft point like the Ballistic Tip, but depending
on how big your deer are, you might want to go with the 150 grain Nosler
Ballistic Tip. This would be especially true if they run under 100
lbs., as your post indicated. Within 200 yards, the increased energy
due to the increased velocity should result in faster kills.
I find that a chest shot that hits the vertical center of the chest
cavity seems to do more damage and kill more quickly than a lower heart
shot or a higher lung shot. I think it kills more quickly because it
tends to take out the aorta. I try a modification of the elephant
hunter's trick: visualize a grapefruit in the exact center of the deer's
ribcage and then try to put a bullet through that grapefruit from
whatever angle you're shooting at.
FWIW, if your .30-'06 isn't knocking 'em down, I don't think that any
larger caliber would do any better if put in the same place. You might
want to consider something SMALLER... like perhaps the .257 Weatherby
Magnum with 117 grain bullets. This was supposedly Roy Weatherby's
favorite caliber, with which he made numerous instantaneous kills on
everything from small Thompson's gazelles (100 lbs.) up to zebra, eland,
and even a Cape Buffalo! (Weatherby admitted that the .257 Wthby was,
regardless of his experience, no buffalo caliber....) Or, even the .243
Winchester -- it's my favorite for smaller deer at under 300 yards.
John Clifford
Weapons Safety, Inc.
13215 SE 30th Street
Bellevue WA 98005
phone: 206-649-8623
fax: 206-644-5302
email: john...@ix.netcom.com
url: http://www.weaponssafety.com
Disclaimer: Who needs 'em? I represent myself now!
Gary M. Stegmiller
I've been reading this thread for some time now, and there seems to be
quite a bit of mixed opinion on this subject. I don't know the
definitive answer to this question, but can share my experiences on the
subject.
I started hunting with a 30-30. The flat nosed 150 gr bullets had good
knockdown, but since I live in North Dakota (open country), its very
limited range made it unsuited for hunting here. I shot 4 small
whitetail bucks with it. All four dropped in their tracks, two were
still breathing when I got to them. Good bullet performance.
I purchased a 6mm Rem and loaded it with 100 gr bullets. I shot a half
dozen deer and antelope with it, and when I met up with my first Big
buck, a chest shot at 50 yds was not enough to prevent him from running
2 miles until he stopped. That gun became my varminter after that. The
24 cal is just not enough for large northern deer.
I purchased a 7MM Rem Mag. Some 25 years and 30+ head of Whitetail &
Mule deer and antelope later, only 2 have failed to drop right where
they were. One of them was a poor hit on my part (hind quarter), and
the other was an exceptionally long range shot (600 yd). Both left
blood trails that a blind man could follow and were picked up minutes
later.
The remaining 30 or so simply fell where they were hit. About half were
still breathing when I got to them, but I never had one that could get
up again.
I have used the 154 hornady spire exclusively for 25 years, and with
this kind of results, will never try anything else. If it works, don't
mess with it.
People sometimes tell me that magnums are overkill for deer, but none
of the deer were ever too dead for my tastes.
Michael Courtney
John Clifford (john...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: You don't mention the bullet weight you're using. If you're using the
: 125 grain Ballistic Tip, be warned that it is NOT a deer bullet -- at
: least, not at '06 velocities -- and will not penetrate sufficiently. I
: think the best all-around deer bullet weight for the '06 is 165 grains,
: in a boat-tail pointed soft point like the Ballistic Tip, but depending
: on how big your deer are, you might want to go with the 150 grain Nosler
: Ballistic Tip. This would be especially true if they run under 100
: lbs., as your post indicated. Within 200 yards, the increased energy
: due to the increased velocity should result in faster kills.
The original post mentioned that I used a 165 grain ballistic tip,
but that fact might not have been carried through to follow-up
posts. I tried the 150 grain ballistic tip, but it did not shoot as
accurately as the 165. In addition, the 75 lb doe was abnormally
small for our farm. Most does a year or older go 150 lbs or so,
and bucks go from 180 lbs to 300 lbs, so I am abandoning the ballistic
tips in favor of a bullet which I am sure will not explode on the
surface.
: I find that a chest shot that hits the vertical center of the chest
: cavity seems to do more damage and kill more quickly than a lower heart
: shot or a higher lung shot. I think it kills more quickly because it
: tends to take out the aorta. I try a modification of the elephant
: hunter's trick: visualize a grapefruit in the exact center of the deer's
: ribcage and then try to put a bullet through that grapefruit from
: whatever angle you're shooting at.
Up until now, I've always aimed for the center of the chest, just behind the
shoulder, basically shooting for the geometric center of the chest,
from whatever angle. I am considering trying shoulder-to shoulder/spine
shots and head shots to get quicker kills, but I am still undecided.
: FWIW, if your .30-'06 isn't knocking 'em down, I don't think that any
: larger caliber would do any better if put in the same place.
I'm putting the bullets in the center of the chest, and every deer
is dropping within 100 yards. I'd like to drop them more quickly
because swampy terrain, darkness, and possible multiple kills make
tracking difficult.
Jonathan M. Spencer
Michael,
Your email address bounces.
In article <5mf498$d...@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU>, Michael Courtney
<mic...@amo.tamu.edu> writes
[BT failures snipped]
>Two options are a bigger gun (338-06 or 35 Whelen) or shoulder-to-shoulder
>shots.
You don't need a bigger gun -- the 30-06 is plenty big enough for your
need.
>The shoulder-to-shoulder shot is appealing because it gives a
>large target area, and a slight miss still results in a dead deer and
>100 yards of (at the most) tracking/dragging through a swamp. I can live
>with the lost shoulder meat provided the deer drops in its tracks.
>The bigger calibers are appealing because I am assuming that the greater
>energy and larger wound channel will drop deer faster with a lung shot
>damaging no more than a few ribs.
The wound inflincted by your 30-06 is a function of bullet construction,
weight, and velocity. You only need to switch to a different bullet,
one that is more solidly constructed. A 150gn is plenty enough. I
commend to you the Lapua MEGA if you can get it, or the Norma semi-
pointed. Alternatively, any of the standard spitzer flat based bullets
(Hornady, Speer, Sierra etc) will do the trick for you without breaking
the bank. And shoot for the shoulders. You shoot well with that 30-06
so stick with it.
Oh, and be aware that you'll need to break *both* shoulders because deer
can run plenty far enough with just three legs.
--Jonathan
============================================================
Jonathan Spencer -- forensic firearms examiner
Mountjoy Research Centre, Durham, England, DH1 3UR
tel: +44 191 386 6107 fax: +44 191 383 0686
============================================================
rutledge
Michael Courtney wrote:
(snip)
> Up until now, I've always aimed for the center of the chest, just behind the
> shoulder, basically shooting for the geometric center of the chest,
> from whatever angle. I am considering trying shoulder-to shoulder/spine
> shots and head shots to get quicker kills, but I am still undecided.
>
I think it is the "whatever angle" that is getting you. To me that
implies you may try to shoot through the shoulder or take some decently
quartering shots. The ballistic tip probably won't hold up to that.
You might give the 180s a try, but I'd change to a different bullet
type.
I'm not an '06 fan, but when I just have to use one, I prefer to keep
the bullets heavy and the velocity down so as to maximize penetration
and minimize the amount of meat I blow up. I'd suggest the Barnes X ...
the front of the Nosler partition opens pretty quickly; they get away
with it because the back doesn't open much at all. (Usually.)
Finally, I'll suggest again that you might want to try your load on a
few more deer before giving up. Might have been some sort of fluke.
Since hunting stuff isn't real repeatable, it takes a couple successes
to prove success and a couple failures to prove failure. Or, at least,
that's how I look at it.
Tom
JimDodd
Making a proper shoulder shot with a .30-'06 will drop a deer PDQ, if not
in its tracks. The schoolhouse solution from the Gunsite Rifle course
(COl. Cooper teaching) is:
for broadside shot, center the foreleg and hold one-third the way up the
body. if it looks "far" hold half-way up the body.
for quartering shot center the vee of the two front legs.
This assumes a .30-'06 class rifle sighted conventionally (2" to 4" high
at 100 yds), not holding off for range.
Lots of people in the US/Canada go for the heart/lung shot to avoid losing
meat in the shoulders. The teaching method is to visualize a basketball in
the chest of the critter, and aim for the ball, not some point on the
skin. In Africa, meat loss seems not a concern. John Taylor wrote quite a
bit on his good experience with the shoulder shot as a killer. I think
many people shoot too high with their version of the shoulder shot, you
want to be between the "elbow" and the "shoulder".
As for moving up to a bigger bullet, I shot some deer sized gazelles &
antelope in Africa with the .375 H&H, and used the heart shot with almost
instant results. But if you want to anchor the animal, you have to disable
the front end or the nervous system...jim dodd
San Diego
Deadeye
Jonis by way of Alex Vitek wrote:
>
> On Tue, 27 May 1997 14:09:48 CDT, Michael Courtney
> <mic...@amo.tamu.edu> wrote:
>
> >I shoot a lot of deer with a 30-06 and the hunting conditions make
> >it difficult to locate deer if they go very far from where they are shot.
> >My experience is that lung shots will bring down every deer, but most will
> >go 50-100 yards before dropping. I tried Nosler Ballistic Tips, but
> >the one 75 lb doe I shot with one went 75 yards after the bullet exploded
> >on her hide. Deer drop readily enough when shot in the head or spine, but
> >I'm not confident enough to hit these smaller target areas beyond 100 yards.
> >
> >large target area, and a slight miss still results in a dead deer and
> >100 yards of (at the most) tracking/dragging through a swamp. I can live
> >with the lost shoulder meat provided the deer drops in its tracks.
> >The bigger calibers are appealing because I am assuming that the greater
> >energy and larger wound channel will drop deer faster with a lung shot
> >damaging no more than a few ribs.
> >
> >
I consider myself a hunter (killed over 50 deer)and I disagree with a
lot of what you say. I say aim where you can kill most efficiently. In
most cases this will be a shoulder shot, but I have killed deer with
neck shots, quartering shots, an occasional head shot, and twice with
spine shots. The caliber of rifle that I have used hasn't seemed to
matter whether or not I dropped them in their tracks. Head, neck and
spine shots in my experience have always dropped them. I have had them
drop from .30-.30, .270, .243, .257, .30-06, and .308 shots. I have
also had them run for short distances from hits from all of these
calibers. Usually when they drop it is when I have shot them inside of
100 yards, but that is not always true. The first deer I ever killed
was dropped in its tracks by a single shoulder shot from a .270 at a
measured 127 yards (I'll always remember that first one). When they
have run after being hit, usually they drop within 30 yards, the
farthest I have found one from where I shot it was about 80 yards away.
If you can't sit still at least 30 minutes after you hit a deer that
runs and then track it, you shouldn't be in the field.
Its not caliber as much as it is shot placement. If you can shoot well,
you will drop them close enough to find them.
Michael Courtney
rutledge (rutl...@sou.edu) wrote:
[I'm sick of all the 30-06 hype]
I use a 30-06 because I needed a deer rifle and a friend recommended
this as a good caliber for a newbie. After studying the available
rifle calibers from a quantative point of view, I've determined that
the 30-06 is nothing more than a 30 caliber cartridge which falls
between the 308 Winchester and the 300 Win Mag in power. Beyond that
it is a convienient choice because ammo and components are readily
availaible in locations where ammo for other rifles might not be.
Each cartridge seems to have a sweet spot of bullet weights where the
trade off between BC and muzzle velocity is optimum. For the 30-06,
this seems to be 165 grains with the bullets available from most
suppliers. Likewise, each case seems to have a sweet spot where there
is a high-BC bullet with a high muzzle velocity. For the 30-06 case,
this cartridge appears to be the 270 Winchester with a 140 grain boat-tail.
And finally, each caliber seems to have a cartridge which gives a high
velocity, and to achieve higher velocities, one has to go to cartridges
with substantially more recoil. In most calibers, this distinct recoil
line is crossed by the magnum cartridges. This usually makes the 30-06 based
case the highest-velocity non-magnum cartridge at each caliber. It is
also usually the highest-velocity non-belted cartridge at each caliber.
This is important for those who believe that shoulder headspacing is usually
more accurate than belt headspacing.
Just some quantitative observations from studying the reloading manuals
and surfing the net.
Jeff
I also read the negative hype about the '06. Take it with a grain of
salt. The '06 is perfectly capable of dropping any deer in North
America. "Don't believe the hype!"
Ironically, after spending lots of $$$$ trying to find a premium load
to hunt with, and trying them in the field, I have gone to using
$10/box Winchester soft points. They have worked better than any
other ammo I tried.
Tim Mickelson
At 08:38 PM 5/29/97 +0000, you wrote:
> of what you say. I say aim where you can kill most efficiently. In
>most cases this will be a shoulder shot, but I have killed deer with
>neck shots, quartering shots, an occasional head shot, and twice with
>spine shots. The caliber of rifle that I have used hasn't seemed to
>matter whether or not I dropped them in their tracks. Head, neck and
>spine shots in my experience have always dropped them. I have had them
>drop from .30-.30, .270, .243, .257, .30-06, and .308 shots. I have
>also had them run for short distances from hits from all of these
>calibers. Usually when they drop it is when I have shot them inside of
>100 yards, but that is not always true. The first deer I ever killed
>was dropped in its tracks by a single shoulder shot from a .270 at a
>measured 127 yards (I'll always remember that first one). When they
>have run after being hit, usually they drop within 30 yards, the
>farthest I have found one from where I shot it was about 80 yards away.
>If you can't sit still at least 30 minutes after you hit a deer that
>runs and then track it, you shouldn't be in the field.
>
>Its not caliber as much as it is shot placement. If you can shoot well,
>you will drop them close enough to find them.
>
>
.220 swift to a 375 H&H mag and they all drop quickly if shot placement is
good. I have very rarely ever seen a deer drop in its tracks without being
shot it the head, neck, or spine, but it must happen more often than I have
ever seen. I've seen many have the front shoulders shot out from under them
and they drop, but can still stuggle down steep hillsides for quite a
distance. If you hit an animal in the heart lung area, then the animal will
die rather quickly. If you have to drag it 100 yards or so, then I guess you
earned it.
Tim M/OR
ELI...@mail.bev.net
Jeff wrote:
> I also read the negative hype about the '06. Take it with a grain of
> salt. The '06 is perfectly capable of dropping any deer in North
> America. "Don't believe the hype!"
>
> Ironically, after spending lots of $$$$ trying to find a premium load
> to hunt with, and trying them in the field, I have gone to using
> $10/box Winchester soft points. They have worked better than any
> other ammo I tried.
This shouldn't surprise anyone. W-W and the other big ammo companies have a lot
of money to spend on R&D, they have the resources that smaller companies lack
for testing and evaluation, and they have, most importantly of all, a BIG stake
in market share. They want to produce the best product they can for a specific
niche market, and have people buy their product above all others. They want to
keep the cost as low as possible without sacrificing accuracy or performance.
So they poured a lot of money into making ammo specifically **designed** to hunt
deer and deer-type animals and they have come up with a nice balance of accuracy
and power and expansion and price. So have Remington and Federal.
Most hunters don't reload. few hunters shoot as much as a box of ammunition a
year. Probably not a third of them check their sights each season. The stuff
that W-W and the rest make has to meet some very tough criteria and do so at the
price Bubba is willing to pay. That's a tough job, but if you're a mega-buck
operation that's part of a giga-buck corporation and you can afford to take your
time, you will make a lot of money doing it.
Me, I always use factory loads. I reload, sure. But the bullets the reloader
buys have to be suitable for any rifle that has the same bore diameter...and
it's damned hard to make a bullet that is suitable for, say, a .30-30 AND a .300
Weatherby Magnum. The two rounds are so different that any generic .30-caliber
150-grain bullet is going to be a compromise. The factory ammo in .30-30, on
the other hand, made in the millions of rounds, can be fitted with a bullet that
will perform well at whatever the intended velocity is. Even if it looks
identical, even if it has the same name, it probably isn't the same bullet you
buy as an after market product, any more than the powder in the factory
cartridge is.
Factory ammo is loaded for consistent and reliable performance, and while years
ago it may have been true you could make better stuff than you could buy, the
very competitive marketplace and the increasing demand for premium performance
at a bargain price have changed all that.
The Elitist
Michael Courtney
I thank everyone for their comments. I think it's true that you need
to get both shoulders to drop the deer in his/her tracks. I've switched
to a 165 grain Hornady interlock and shot another small doe quatering
away. Distance until drop didn't matter in this case since she was in
the middle of a cornfield which hasn't sprouted yet, and not at the back
near the swamp. I took out her heart and far shoulder. She was aware
of my presence when I shot since I had walked right by her and had
made some noise getting into my stand. I followed her in the scope as
she broke across the field and touched the trigger when she paused.
After being hit, she jerked, ran 25 yards at a full gallop, stumbled
another 25 yards, then fell. She flopped around for about 10 seconds,
but was good and dead by the time I reached her a few minutes later.
She was very pretty, having just got her red coat. She still had her
grey coat when I saw her 300 yards away on Monday morning. (She was
one of three deer which come to the farm every morning and evening
via the same route.) From the damage to her heart, I'm suprised she made
it 50 yards.
Formies
high lung shot just below spine is always immediate, but this is available
only on broadside (or near broadside) shot. every deer i've heart shot has
run at least 100 yards, and this is with no heart left. the texas heart
shot (straight up the anus, just below tail) also is immediate with a
bullet with good sectional density. this ia available only on a straight
away shot. must have steady hold to avoid ruining a ham. but if this shot
ever presents itself, take it. you would not believe how fast a deer can
crumple until you've made this shot. good hunting. pablo
Sstone847
ELI...@MAIL.BEV.NET writes:
>Factory ammo is loaded for consistent and reliable performance, and while
>years
>ago it may have been true you could make better stuff than you could buy,
the
>very competitive marketplace and the increasing demand for premium
>performance
>at a bargain price have changed all that.
>
Yupp!
Ran a couple of boxes of "Premium" through the (gasp, dare I say) '06
about a month ago and was VERY impressed with the accuracy.
As for the "bigger is better" (also known as "more boom for the buck")
boys, I'll keep this pitiful ole '06...horrible weapon that it is.
(grin)
Stephen Stone
Bill
IN RESPONSE TO THE POST 'Dropping deer in their tracks', IN 'rec.hunting', ON
Tue, 27
May 1997 14:09:48 CDT:
>>I shoot a lot of deer with a 30-06 and the hunting conditions make
>>it difficult to locate deer if they go very far from where they are
>>.....................snip............................
One rule to remember... nothing is written in stone and no two
situations are the same relating to deer hunting ... catalog each
experience and remember the lesson learned... it probably won't happen
again, but it will give you something to build on...
Always expect the unexpected and you'll be better prepared... although
never fully prepared...
There is no such thing as too much gun but definitely such a thing as
too little....
If you question the shot... don't take it. It's better to wait for a
standing or very slow moving target... I personally can count the deer
I have lost on one hand in a little over 30 years of hunting but I never
took a shot I wasn't pretty damn sure of and most were standing stock
still at the shot. (hard to do if you are hunting with dogs as in the
south) I generally hunt from a stand.
A good scope on a cheap gun is better than a cheap scope on a good
gun...
After the shot... count to 100 very slowly and give the deer a chance
to lay down and stiffen up.................... don't jump up and go
after it too quickly... a deer won't run far if he's wounded unless he
is being chased... also, if possible he will go to water. Make a note
of where he was when you shot so you can hopefully find some blood and
try and make sure you see which way he left... also blood splatters in
the direction of travel. Move from blood spot to spot and if you lose
the trail return to the last blood spot and start circling very slowly
in the general direction of travel. Try not to do too much moving
around in the area in question... stand still and look before you
move...
Please don't misunderstand me here but you are actually making a shot
just behind the shoulder... not too far but to the immediate rear of
the meaty part and slightly low of center... you will most likely be in
the heart/lung area that you need to be in for a good kill. I've put
the shots there for years and had very few move off more than a few
yards... experience will reflect as you gain time in the field.
Bill,
whi...@msinets.com
James Willimann
Where are you hunting that has a spring deer season ... especially for
does that are about to drop their fawns???
rutledge
Well ... so long as you'll not try to convince me that it is the *best*
thing for mice and moose (I'll offer the olive branch by saying, yes, it
*can* do that) ... I'll have to say "congratulations" and say I'm glad
your gun shoots good and you're happy with it.
I'll say again what I've said before ... my beef with the .30-'06 is the
attitude of some hunters who insist if they have one, nobody should use
anything else. I'm related to one such SOB and I get a little
thin-skinned ... maybe you noticed! :-) If'n I didn't have to put up
with that attitude every family holiday, I might just own an '06
myself. Not *just* an '06, but there might be one in the closet among
whatever else I thought I wanted.
I dunno about the the "more boom for the buck", though ... last time I
bought factory .338 ammo, I think it was more buck for the boom. Them
there belted cartridges cost lots. :-( The good thing is it kicks
enough I don't usually use it for squirrel shootin' so a box of ammo
lasts a lot longer.
Factory ammo must have come a long ways since I shot much of it.
'Course, I never really *wanted* to shoot factory ammo 'cause the whole
point for me is to work up accurate handloads. The shootin' game is not
the focus, the gettin' the gun to shoot *perfect* is the focus. The
shootin' game is sort gravy. Gravy isn't much fun to me without stake
and taters.
Take care ...
Tom
Jonathan M. Spencer
In article <33902B...@ameritech.net>, James Willimann
<jwi...@ameritech.net> writes
>Where are you hunting that has a spring deer season ... especially for
>does that are about to drop their fawns???
Michael shoots on agricultural land, where the deer are a pest causing
substantial economic damage and he has out-of-season licences for the
purpose. It's pest control more than hunting. Same result as far as
the deer are concerned, of course.
But I can understand your concerns.
Michael Courtney
James Willimann (jwi...@ameritech.net) wrote:
: Where are you hunting that has a spring deer season ... especially for
: does that are about to drop their fawns???
I'm not hunting. I'm executing Nuisance Kill Permits issued by the
Ohio Division of Wildlife to control deer damage. The Akron-Cleveland
urban area is extremely overpopulated, and farms in the area are
having a very difficult time.
D. Proske
I shoot my deer either in the heart or neck area(depending on range)
with a .300 win mag using Nosler 165grn BT's. I have never had one run
off, they fall right in their tracks. I let them lay while I get my gear
ready in the blind, and I radio back to camp. I take the radio with me
just in case.
--
Mr & Mrs. Proske
ProK...@ix.netcom.com
--------------------------------------------
Yes, I have had a good day; but this
ain't the one.
David Price
In article <339a53f4...@NETNEWS.WORLDNET.ATT.NET>, whi...@msinets.com
says...
>
>IN RESPONSE TO THE POST 'Dropping deer in their tracks', IN 'rec.hunting', ON
> Tue, 27
>May 1997 14:09:48 CDT:
>>>I shoot a lot of deer with a 30-06 and the hunting conditions make
>>>it difficult to locate deer if they go very far from where they are
> shot........
>>>.....................snip............................
>
Just shoot them at the base of the neck. After having the largest Buck of my
life run 150 yards down a hill lung shot, and some asshole claim he shot it, I
started to neck shoot them. I can tell you that them don't run vary far if
shot there, About ONE STEP, and that's all. But as I am sure someone else is
sure to say. You can't shot them there all the time and that's true if you
take any shot that comes along. Just remember time is generaly on your side,
just be paient.
David Price
JayStr
To go for the neck shot from any angle, as long as you can get at
reasonably good range (150 yards max; this having more to do with shot
placement than the killing power of your gun at any given range) is what
I have been told by many an experienced hunter. But none of them have
told me what part of the neck, if any, I ought to hold on. 'Any part,'
they say. 'Blap 'em in anywhere in the neck with a high-velocity bullet
(7mm Mauser seems to be a favorite) and they'll keel over with no meat
lost.' Does that square with your experience, & would you care to
elaborate?
-- Jay Stranahan
rutledge
JayStr wrote:
>
> To go for the neck shot from any angle, as long as you can get at
> reasonably good range (150 yards max; this having more to do with shot
> placement than the killing power of your gun at any given range) is what
> I have been told by many an experienced hunter. But none of them have
> told me what part of the neck, if any, I ought to hold on. 'Any part,'
> they say. 'Blap 'em in anywhere in the neck with a high-velocity bullet
> (7mm Mauser seems to be a favorite) and they'll keel over with no meat
> lost.' Does that square with your experience, & would you care to
> elaborate?
Jay - yes and no. My dad is a 'neck shot' fan. I waver. I'll use it,
but with reservations.
If I can get a head or *very* high neck shot, I'll take it but I've come
to prefer the heart/lung area. The head and neck are small, moving
targets, and anything short of a perfect hit leads to cripples. I've
seen several deer with their jaws shot off from missed head shots, and
several that had non-fatal necks shots. If you miss the central mass of
the spine, even if you hit one of the protrusions, you're likely to only
stun the deer and have it escape.
My dad, being the neck shot dude, has given me the opportunity to see
that neck shot deer *do* have meat loss. He like to use either the
.30-06 or .30-40 Krag with 180 grain bullets. On mid to lower neck
shots, it "shakes" the whole spine and I've seen bloodshot meat along
the spine two feet or more from where the bullet hit.
In my experience, the farther you get from the body, the less this
happens, so if you do choose a neck shot, I recommend high in the neck
or even in the head if possible.
You are much better off with heart/lung shots when possible; as I gain
experience and see for myself, I'm less inclined to buy into the ol'
"neck shot" hype.
Thinking about my dad's background and my grandpas' backgrounds, it made
sense for them ... they did much of their hunting out of season and used
small cartridges to minimize the chance that the game warden might hear
them. I think we've brought along their "shot" without understanding
why they used it.
Finally, high velocity isn't enough. To kill with a neck shot you need
to snap the spine in half ... essentially knock a couple vertebrae
really far out of alignment. Breaking bone is a "momentum" job. I'd
stick to .243 or .25 rifles with at least 100 grains of bullet,
otherwise .270 130 grain or up, 7mm/.284 cartridges with 140 grains or
up, or .30s with 150 grains or up. Great speed isn't needed, but
momentum is. If you can do great speed, ok, but that will transmit
"shock" down the spine and bloodshot meat unnecessarily.
What I'm recommending, if you take neck shots, is your average, run of
the mill middle of the road deer cartridge shootin' average, run of the
mill middle of the road bullet weights. Nothing fancy needed. What you
do need is accuracy and confidence in your ability to place your bullet.
I don't recommend the .22s at all for neck shots. My experience is that
the bullets blow up or mushroom out on the outside of the spine and
occasionally stun deer but don't kill. On head shots, they'll often
blow the head up as if you'd stuffed an M80 or six up the deer's nose
... VERY effective.
Tom
ELI...@mail.bev.net
JayStr wrote:
> To go for the neck shot from any angle, as long as you can get at
> reasonably good range (150 yards max; this having more to do with shot
> placement than the killing power of your gun at any given range) is what
> I have been told by many an experienced hunter. But none of them have
> told me what part of the neck, if any, I ought to hold on. 'Any part,'
> they say. 'Blap 'em in anywhere in the neck with a high-velocity bullet
> (7mm Mauser seems to be a favorite) and they'll keel over with no meat
> lost.' Does that square with your experience, & would you care to
> elaborate?
It squares with mine. I've killed three deer with neck shots in the past two
years,
and none of them moved so much as an inch from the spot where they were hit.
The
first was a 6-pointer I shot at 20 yards, front on, just below the chin, with a
.30-06. BOOM, down he went. The second was a spike shot in the base of the
neck,
about 6" above the place where it joins the chest; range about 40 yards, on the
right
side, with a .50 caliber round ball. BOOM, down. The third was a 4-pointer,
range 25
yards, .50 caliber round ball. This one was hit on the left side of the neck,
facing
towards me (one dumb deer, BTW) and the bullet traveled down the back of the
neck and
came to rest just past the shoulder. BOOM.
I'd think it wouldn't matter at all where you hit them in the neck with a 7mm
Mauser
or .30-06 or such like, and the range wouldn't matter much, either. There are
so
many importnat things in the neck that with any sort of expanding bullet you
will
certainly hit a vital structure. Anywhere between the back of the head and the
point
where it joins the trunk, shading the shot towards the top edge ought to work
fine:
as you get back to the trunk there's more muscle and such and the spine is along
the
top. For an instant stop you want to break the spine, so nearer the top than
the
bottom is better; though at the head end the neck is thin enough that it won't
matter.
The Elitist
ste...@universe.digex.net
Jay,
I have seen deer and antelope anchored by neck shots from everything from
.243Win to 7mmREM Mag. Anywhere in the neck, does the job, from the withers
on out to where the head begins. Head shots are another issue, as you chance
destroying your trophy. Evidently massive trauma of the nervous system
results from shots to the neck/vertebrae area. They do go down, NOW! Range
for a neck shot is only restricted by the shooters own limitations.
Steve Ashe in Md.
>Jay wrote
>To go for the neck shot from any angle, as long as you can get at
>reasonably good range (150 yards max; this having more to do with shot
>placement than the killing power of your gun at any given range) is what
>I have been told by many an experienced hunter. But none of them have
>told me what part of the neck, if any, I ought to hold on. 'Any part,'
>they say. 'Blap 'em in anywhere in the neck with a high-velocity bullet
>(7mm Mauser seems to be a favorite) and they'll keel over with no meat
>lost.' Does that square with your experience, & would you care to
>elaborate?
>
>-- Jay Stranahan
>
Tim Mickelson
At 10:58 AM 6/6/97 CDT, you wrote:
> Jay,
>
> I have seen deer and antelope anchored by neck shots from everything from
>.243Win to 7mmREM Mag. Anywhere in the neck, does the job, from the withers
>on out to where the head begins. Head shots are another issue, as you chance
>destroying your trophy. Evidently massive trauma of the nervous system
>results from shots to the neck/vertebrae area. They do go down, NOW! Range
>for a neck shot is only restricted by the shooters own limitations.
> Steve Ashe in Md.
>
>
>
shot or kill it quite quickly if the shot is through the arteries. But I
still will never on purpose teach my kids to shoot any deer or elk in the
neck. If you compare the size of the neck vertebrae to the size of the
heart/lung/liver area I don't see why anyone would want to risk the shot. I
once shot a deer high in the neck that ripped out a chunk of meat and hide,
but was to high to hit the spine. The deer dropped in its tracks, then got
back up and started walking off with its head held down. I was then able to
follow the shot up with a one to the chest and the deer dropped. I only
missed the spine by about 3 inches. A three inch miss in the chest area is
still in the kill zone and the animal will not go far. That was the last
and only time I will try a neck shot. Is everyone to lazy to drag a deer an
extra 100 yards? If I have to work for the animal, so be it, I guess I
earned it that way.
Joe B. Taylor
Can't this all be solved by good marksmanship and using enough gun (
thanks Robert.) Nice big hole right through the chest does not waist
much meat and kills qick. Make mine .35 or larger thank you. Joe
and shoot it again.
and don't take risky shots at game, you never "have to" this is a soprt
not a slaughter house.
ste...@universe.digex.net
There is seldom, if ever, one simplistic answer to a complicated question.
Too many variables are at work. Marksmanship and cartridge used, are only
two of the ingredients.
In terms of risking a wounding shoot, successfully making the shot is
*always* a serious tasking for the shooter. Making blanket statements of
whether to ever take head/neck shots, or not, is folly. Given that the
shooter is accomplished with his weapon, I fail to see any difference in the
risk involved in attempting to kill a deer by a broadside heart/lung shot at
250yds. or in taking a neck shot at the same deer within 100yds. Very few
knowledgeable hunters would advise against the former shot. Yet, we hear
some of these same folks gnashing teeth over someone who would take the
latter shot.
On opening day, deer are scattered and confused, following the early
morning volleys. My stand borders my neighbor's cut-over corn fields. On
several occasions, I've had groups of deer, usually does, run across the
open fields toward me and stop to check their back trail, before entering my
woods. When this sort of shot is presented, I will take a neck shot. If the
deer is facing away from me, I will go for the spine, above the withers. If
facing toward me, the throat is my target. Mark, that I've shot groundhogs
all summer with this rifle. I've also been to the range and fired the deer
load at various ranges. I'm familiar with my rifle and I know my own
limitations. I consider the shots that I take to be not only prudent in
terms of being able to make same, but humane, in that they are instant kill
hits.
Steve Ashe
>>Finally, a semblance of sanity in this thread. Advocates of neck/head
>>shots are full of deer doo-doo.
>>
>>Don't believe me? Well, I could tell you about a small doe that was
>>never recovered, even though her jaw was blown off with a .300 Wby
>>magnum. Or a cow moose that was shot through the throat, with her
>>esophogus, jaw and tongue severed. Fortunately, another hunter came
>>upon her about a week later and was able to put the starving and
>>severely dehydrated animal down.
>>
>>So go ahead and make your "drop-'em-in-their-tracks-or-a-clean-miss"
>>neck and head shots. And the next time I come across another dying
>>animal or rotting carcass on which you made a "clean miss," I'll think
>>of you.
>
>While I generally agree that heart/lung shots are most often the best
>choice, I would make the case for the occasional use of the head or neck
>shot. I, too, have killed a deer with its jaw shot off that had run a mile
>(and would have run many more if I hadn't seen the blood). I've also had to
>track a deer that I shot in the head that traveled several hundred yards
>and was still suffering when I found it. These stories, and a warning
>against the "clean kill or clean miss" philosophy of head shots, are on my
>CD-ROM.
Greg Brown
This is ridiculous. The theory and responsibility of hunting is to ensure
the humane harvest of your quarry, not to show your marksmanship skills or
abilites of your rifle. And it is absolutely inhumane to try to justify
the taking of anything but a carefully placed shot at the vital area of a
deer..which is the area just behind the front quarter....not the head and
or neck. Your rifle may shoot perfectly at the range under controlled
conditions, but in the field there are simply too many variables to rely on
its performance at this type of shot...especially at longer ranges. And if
the deer stop to check the backtrail before entering your woods, then why
not use your hunting skills and wait a little longer for them to come
closer to your stand where you may get the best shot of all...one at a
calm, broadside deer. Surely it would be worth the wait to ensure a quick,
humane kill and a recovered animal rather than to risk the chance of
wounding the deer and losing it. After all..that is our ultimate
responsibility of hunting. And for those of you that feel that you must
take any shot presented to you, including head or neck shots...then you
have my pity..for you are not hunters...you are merely part of the problem
that is resulting in the decline of hunting. And if this is you, then I am
proud to say "I hope I never have the misfortune of meeting you".
And as to the question of taking a broadside shot at a 250 yd deer.....no
thanks...I'll be the first to admit that I'm not a S.W.A.T sharpshooter.
Lets cut out the macho attitudes and get back to what hunting really
is...heritage, skill, and patience.
ste...@universe.digex.net wrote in article
<2.2.32.19970613...@universe.digex.net>...
> There is seldom, if ever, one simplistic answer to a >complicated
question. Too many variables are at work. >Marksmanship and cartridge used,
are only two of the >ingredients.
> In terms of risking a wounding shoot, successfully making the >shot is
*always* a serious tasking for the shooter. Making blanket >statements of
whether to ever take head/neck shots, or not, is >folly. Given that the
shooter is accomplished with his weapon, I >fail to see any difference in
the risk involved in attempting to kill a >deer by a broadside heart/lung
shot at 250yds. or in taking a >neck shot at the same deer within 100yds.
Very few >knowledgeable hunters would advise against the former shot. Yet,
>we hear
> some of these same folks gnashing teeth over someone who >would take the
latter shot.
> On opening day, deer are scattered and confused, following >the early
morning volleys. My stand borders my neighbor's cut->over corn fields. On
several occasions, I've had groups of deer, >usually does, run across the
open fields toward me and stop to >check their back trail, before entering
my woods. When this sort >of shot is presented, I will take a neck shot. If
the deer is facing >away from me, I will go for the spine, above the
withers. If
> facing toward me, the throat is my target. Mark, that I've shot
>groundhogs all summer with this rifle. I've also been to the range >and
fired the deer load at various ranges. I'm familiar with my >rifle and I
know my own limitations. I consider the shots that I >take to be not only
prudent in terms of being able to make same, >but humane, in that they are
instant kill hits.
> Steve Ashe
>
>> Finally, a semblance of sanity in this thread. Advocates of >>neck/head
shots are full of deer doo-doo.
>>Don't believe me? Well, I could tell you about a small doe that
>>wasnever recovered, even though her jaw was blown off with a >>.300 Wby
Tim Calvin
Greg Brown <gr...@dynasty.net> pompously and incorrectly stated:
>This is ridiculous. The theory and responsibility of hunting is to ensure
>the humane harvest of your quarry, not to show your marksmanship skills or
>abilites of your rifle.
Rifle hunting is all about marksmanship skills and rifle ability. Great
satisfaction comes from having selected the right rifle and load for the
task, and to have executed the perfect shot for which one has
conscientiously trained. Equal satisfaction comes from passing up the
marginal opportunity because the hunter understands his and his equipment's
limitations, and is unwilling to break his personal ethos by risking
wounding and loss of his quarry. Hunting is a pursuit of personal
satisfaction that will be fulfilled in different ways by different hunters.
>And it is absolutely inhumane to try to justify
>the taking of anything but a carefully placed shot at the vital area of a
>deer..which is the area just behind the front quarter....not the head and
>or neck.
The brain and cervical spinal cord are the most vitally important tissues.
Hearts can be transplanted. A creature without brain function is dead. A
correct head or neck shot produces a quicker, more humane kill than a
heart/lung shot. Any shot can be botched and the animal lost--and that is
the subject that started the thread, "Dropping deer in their tracks".
Plenty of deer are punched through the lungs and run off not to be
recovered. A botched shot is a botched shot.
>Your rifle may shoot perfectly at the range under controlled
>conditions, but in the field there are simply too many variables to rely on
>its performance at this type of shot...especially at longer ranges.
If your point is that hitting the heart/lung area is generally easier than
hitting the brain/spine--that is true, and is why that shot will most often
be the correct one. As far as variables are concerned, they are the essence
of hunting. No hunter knows what circumstances will present themselves, or
what course of action will be required on any particular hunt, though
presumably, the hunter has prepared himself through his experience and
training to make the right choices.
>And ifthe deer stop to check the backtrail before entering your woods, then why
>not use your hunting skills and wait a little longer for them to come
>closer to your stand where you may get the best shot of all...one at a
>calm, broadside deer. Surely it would be worth the wait to ensure a quick,
>humane kill and a recovered animal rather than to risk the chance of
>wounding the deer and losing it. After all..that is our ultimate
>responsibility of hunting.
This is a personal decision and is the essence of hunting--the correct
choice is different for different hunters. Part of gaining experience as a
hunter is to make these decisions and to base future decisions on the
personal satisfaction attained or not. A new hunter may be happy to shoot
his deer through the chest and have it travel some distance before dying,
while a more experienced hunter might pass that shot in hopes of getting a
chance for a head/neck shot.
>And for those of you that feel that you must
>take any shot presented to you, including head or neck shots...then you
>have my pity..for you are not hunters...you are merely part of the problem
>that is resulting in the decline of hunting. And if this is you, then I am
>proud to say "I hope I never have the misfortune of meeting you".
Hunters who have never made a misjudgement in the field haven't hunted very
much. It's fine to state that no one should ever make a mistake--and that
is a fine goal. While I agree the chances should be taken in the "hunting"
and not in the "killing", learning to hunt entails possibly making some
mistakes. No one is born a perfect hunter; he has to learn to hunt. Those
unwilling to risk making a mistake while hunting should get their meat at
the supermarket. The satisfaction from hunting comes from overcoming
adversity, not through reckless or endangering behavior, but through skill,
patience, and good decision making.
>And as to the question of taking a broadside shot at a 250 yd deer.....no
>thanks...I'll be the first to admit that I'm not a S.W.A.T sharpshooter.
250 yards happens to be the zero range on my hunting rifles--at least my
high-velocity deer rifles. I expect to hit within three inches at that
range, but shoot for a larger target zone. If this isn't sporting to you,
fine; don't shoot 250 yards. Don't condemn me because I do. I have no
problem letting each hunter decide for himself how he wants to hunt.
>Lets cut out the macho attitudes and get back to what hunting really
>is...heritage, skill, and patience.
Well said. You should have started and ended there.
Tim Calvin <timh...@quiknet.com> NRA Life Member
Get the CD-ROM "Tim Calvin's Hunting the West"
Call me to order with VISA/MC, 1-800-215-9045.
Price: $59.95 plus $1.24 postage. CA residents must add $4.35 tax.
rutledge
(snip)
> >Lets cut out the macho attitudes and get back to what hunting really
> >is...heritage, skill, and patience.
>
> Well said. You should have started and ended there.
Thank you, Tim. Well said. I appreciate your attitude.
From my own perspective, I believe that as responsible hunters and
shooters our first job is to keep our own "house" clean ... focus on
recognizing *our own* limitations and either live within them or work
hard to improve ourselves. It is fine and good to try to help others
along in that process, but, as some have done here, to take the attitude
of *dictating* what other folks limits should be, beyond the limits of
the equipment involved, is arrogant and inappropriate.
Tom
Ted Riedel
In message <33A079...@tracy.com> - Fri, 13 Jun 1997 11:56:34 CDT"Joe B.
Taylor" <tay...@tracy.com> writes:
:>
:>Can't this all be solved by good marksmanship and using enough gun (
For about 3 years and six or seven deer (with Buck and Doe tags) I had a
string of "One Shot Drops" going on Blacktail deer in western Oregon. Useing
a .257 Roberts and 100gr HPs. It was accurate and I shot it well. I was also
lucky as all get out. Nowdays I mostly hunt with a .35 Brown Whelen. A 250
gr bullet at 2600 fps, you can eat up to the hole (I lost one or two quarters
with the Roberts and my .270 Win - which I love, may Jack O'Conner sit at the
right hand of god) and I don't worry about makeing a ranging shot.
For what its worth my only neck shot was a clean miss. It was only
about
125 - 150 yards at a running doe accross a canyon. I lead her to far and
severed her spine about an inch behind her skull. I was aiming for her chest.
For Lack of anything fancier to use as a signature.
Ted Riedel
-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: 2.6.2
mQCNAzJHmscAAAEEANupbj/j+MLqJlOiJUI8CaBNdVe/c9KQ6TiagjfXf9ZIDxzy
CCTEMbH4UJhD95pO9WIobSEHqnjmR79q/vc7OjLuJmy6+PNXVi7MIqin2tVR0v6g
Gge16YrHnBwO47zs7yNOAcRj/KUUXnyMydvwWbr3DmWHKxRLlwox8Ad4pLVBAAUR
tCVUaGVvZG9yZSBXLiBSaWVkZWwgPHRyaWVkZWxAanVuby5jb20+
=GclO
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Jonis
>> From the damage to her heart, I'm suprised she made
>> it 50 yards.
>>
The brain contains enough oxygene for the deer to "live" for ten
seconds, even if the heart is out of function. A deer shouldn't have
too much problems with 50 yards in that time. It also depends on
adrenaline and probably a few other factors that I do not know of.
Jonis
Visit Jonis Huntingpages
http://home.sn.no/~sbragsta/hunters.htm
Member of the Huntingtrail
Sstone847
In article <01bc7837$879ed8c0$bcadc8d0@greg>, Greg Brown
What does one have to do with the other? You are munching on apples here
and declaring them oranges.
. And it is absolutely inhumane to try to justify
>the taking of anything but a carefully placed shot at the vital area of a
>deer..which is the area just behind the front quarter....not the head and
>or neck.
Horse poop! Your pontifiction on what is humane or inhumane is ridiculous
at best. If YOU are uncomfortable with this shot then DON'T TAKE IT. But
who the hell are you to decide that many of the men and women who utilize
this forum aren't marksmen enough to use a perfectly good, perfectly
humane shot in killing their quarry. Your bs above is nothing more than
opinion, and in this case, one I disagree with.
By the way, sir, before you make another ridiculous statement about
"vital" areas, perhaps you need to review some deer anatomy. And don't
even bother responding with garbage about "shot off jaws" as there are
just as many "shot off front legs" by practitioners of heart/lung shots.
>Your rifle may shoot perfectly at the range under controlled
>conditions, but in the field there are simply too many variables to rely
on
>its performance at this type of shot...especially at longer ranges.
And these variables don't, of course, effect heart/lung shots? In MY
opinion (certainly as valid as yours) a marksman well versed in his/her
firearm is ALREADY aware of the limitations of one particular shot over
another. The marksmen on this forum, (Woody, Elitist, etc.) can probably
tell you immediately the drop of their favorite cartridge at any range
from 50 to 350 yards. I can. They can also tell you the drift in their
favorite cartridge, within an inch, at 250 yards with a 10 mile an hour
quartering wind. I can. And if YOU can't, perhaps you need to spend more
time on the range.
And if
>the deer stop to check the backtrail before entering your woods, then why
>not use your hunting skills and wait a little longer for them to come
>closer to your stand where you may get the best shot of all...one at a
>calm, broadside deer.
What a wonderful assumption you make here. Gee golly gosh, once the deer
checks out his/her backside they just calm right down and stroll right
over to the stand for that marvelous, "ho-hum, another day of deer
hunting" shot. Yeah, right!
Something tells me you don't equate being a good shot, being familiar with
your weapon of choice, and knowing the vital areaS of a deer with "hunting
skills". You care to share with us your hunting wisdom on this?
Surely it would be worth the wait to ensure a quick,
>humane kill and a recovered animal rather than to risk the chance of
>wounding the deer and losing it.
It is becoming very apparent you know little or nothing about deer hunting
in particular and hunting in general. Each and every time a hunter, using
whatever weapon in his/her arsenal be it rock or cannon, draws a bead on
quarry, there is a risk of wounding the animal and losing it. It makes no
damned difference if the quarry is three inches or three miles away. And
how long do we wait for that deer that is going AWAY from the shooter?
If you can only put your rounds in a pie pan sized area at 100 yards, then
YOU need to wait. But, when others can put THEIR rounds in a quarter
sized area at 200 yards, then your verbage above is nonsense. And YES,
neighbor, there are people in this group that can CONSISTENTLY shoot that
well.
After all..that is our ultimate
>responsibility of hunting. And for those of you that feel that you must
>take any shot presented to you, including head or neck shots...then you
>have my pity..for you are not hunters...
If this statement wasn't so assinine,it would be humorous. But, if
pitying me makes you feel better, then I am glad I can be of service. In
the meantime, I think I'll go have some of that summer sausage from last
years deer while you still wait out that "perfect" shot.
you are merely part of the problem
>that is resulting in the decline of hunting. And if this is you, then I
am
>proud to say "I hope I never have the misfortune of meeting you".
The sad truth, sir, is that your arrogance will prevent you from meeting
some of the finest marksmen and hunters in the world. Men and women who
can impart, in fifteen minutes, more hunting knowledge than your few YEARS
have provided. And THAT is the problem. People like you who are so
convinced that THEIRS alone is the ONLY way that they refuse to learn
anything more about their responsibilities to what we label so
simplistically, "hunting".
>And as to the question of taking a broadside shot at a 250 yd deer.....no
>thanks...I'll be the first to admit that I'm not a S.W.A.T sharpshooter.
And for those western and southwestern hunters who rarely see those
wonderful 50 yard deer you are so fond of, what are they to do? Simply
pack up and head home?
Taking a "broadside" shot at 250 yards has absolutely nothing to do with
machismo or how many hairs one has on ones chest. Again, only let me add
THANK YOU this time as a surrogate for your quarry, if YOU are
uncomfortable with the shot, DON'T take it. For many of us here, a 250
yard, broadside shot is a godsend; something not to be wasted because of
YOUR discomfort with it.
>Lets cut out the macho attitudes and get back to what hunting really
>is...heritage, skill, and patience.
Yes, lets practice what we preach and cut out the "macho" attitudes.
Stephen Stone
Tom and kelly Niemiec
So you know I snipped some portions of Tim's post to reply.
Tim Calvin wrote:
>
> Rifle hunting is all about marksmanship skills and rifle ability.
Totally disagree with this statement Tim. Hunting definition:
hunt - 1. to kill or catch (game) for food or sport. 2. to try to find;
search; seek 3. to chase; harry. also 1. a hunting 2. a group of people
who hunt together 3. a search. This is all from websters.
To test marksmanship and rifle ability is "shooting" this is from me.
To hunt is much more than my rifles ability, it is my ability and skill
to learn about the animals ways, habitat etc., there are successful
hunts when you do not take an animal.
> Great satisfaction comes from having selected the right rifle and load > for
the task, and to have executed the perfect shot for which one has
> conscientiously trained. Equal satisfaction comes from passing up the
> marginal opportunity because the hunter understands his and his
> equipment's limitations, and is unwilling to break his personal ethos > by
risking wounding and loss of his quarry. Hunting is a pursuit of > personal
satisfaction that will be fulfilled in different ways by > different hunters.
Are you calling hunting a task? or the shot? a task is defined as a
piece of work which needs to be done, or any difficult undertaking. I
agree with the second part but hunting to me is not a difficult
undertaking. It is enjoyable and fun. You are definitely right on the
the last sentence but change the last word to people, because to me you
are including shooters. To see an animal at 300 yards 400 yards or 500
yds and to shoot is not hunting (in my ethics and opinion) it is
shooting, shooting skills are needed in hunting but hunting skills are
not needed in shooting.
> The brain and cervical spinal cord are the most vitally important tissues.
True.
> Hearts can be transplanted. A creature without brain function is dead. > A
correct head or neck shot produces a quicker, more humane kill than a
> heart/lung shot. Any shot can be botched and the animal lost--and that is
> the subject that started the thread, "Dropping deer in their tracks".
> Plenty of deer are punched through the lungs and run off not to be
> recovered. A botched shot is a botched shot.
When was the last successful heart transplant in a deer conducted? When
was the last human shot in the heart and received a heart transplant?
Doesn't happen. A heart shot is a good shot.
> This is a personal decision and is the essence of hunting--the correct
> choice is different for different hunters. Part of gaining experience as a
> hunter is to make these decisions and to base future decisions on the
> personal satisfaction attained or not. A new hunter may be happy to shoot
> his deer through the chest and have it travel some distance before dying,
> while a more experienced hunter might pass that shot in hopes of getting a
> chance for a head/neck shot.
Or a more experienced hunter will read the above comment and laugh. A
heart lung shot is a killing shot. There are variables involved which
can make a head shot undesireable. A more experienced hunter would
probably pass on most head shots.
>
> Hunters who have never made a misjudgement in the field haven't hunted very
> much.
> It's fine to state that no one should ever make a mistake--and that
> is a fine goal. While I agree the chances should be taken in the "hunting"
> and not in the "killing", learning to hunt entails possibly making some
> mistakes. No one is born a perfect hunter; he has to learn to hunt. Those
> unwilling to risk making a mistake while hunting should get their meat at
> the supermarket. The satisfaction from hunting comes from overcoming
> adversity, not through reckless or endangering behavior, but through skill,
> patience, and good decision making.
I agree.
>
> 250 yards happens to be the zero range on my hunting rifles--at least my
> high-velocity deer rifles. I expect to hit within three inches at that
> range, but shoot for a larger target zone. If this isn't sporting to you,
> fine; don't shoot 250 yards. Don't condemn me because I do. I have no
> problem letting each hunter decide for himself how he wants to hunt.
>
> >Lets cut out the macho attitudes and get back to what hunting really
> >is...heritage, skill, and patience.
>
> Well said. You should have started and ended there.
Tim I know you were responding, but some of the things you wrote were
kinda on the other side of the fence from some peoples views on hunting.
I match my skills with the animals skills. I have taken One deer and two
elk with spine shots, and many more with heart and lung shots. Range is
normally but not always the deciding factor on the spine shot. I have
never passed on a heart lung shot. In my opinion shooting is shooting.
Hunting is learning the land, animals, and your abilities.
--
Tom's hunting page: http://www.pioneernet.net/kellyntom/tom2.htm
rutledge
Tom and kelly Niemiec wrote:
(great gobs of stuff snipped)
>
> Or a more experienced hunter will read the above comment and laugh. A
> heart lung shot is a killing shot. There are variables involved which
> can make a head shot undesireable. A more experienced hunter would
> probably pass on most head shots.
>
More experienced than *who*?
I don't know who *you* are, but I've been reading Tim's posts and
corresponding electronically with him for long enough that if he was not
the genuine article, he'd have stumbled and I'd have caught him. He
knows what he's talking about.
The implication of Tim being inexperienced is pathetic and laughable.
I'll let him take exception to your comments if he chooses instead of
picking his fights for him, but you might as well know that you're
barking up the wrong tree.
Perhaps your choice of words has pushed my button today and I might
overlook it some other time, but I want to be very clear that what
you're saying tells me either you've taken Tim's comments out of context
or you don't know what you're talking about. Either way, you're wrong
and I intend to correct you.
I don't want to get into a weenie waving contest here, but I have over
20 years of deer and elk hunting under my belt. I have, and continue
to, use the head shot when possible, to the degree of passing up a chest
shot if both present themselves and both are equally easy. So, bluntly
put, any time I get a head shot opportunity that is a lead pipe cinch,
I'll take it. *My* choice. I don't need your permission.
Tom
Michael Courtney
Joe B. Taylor (tay...@tracy.com) wrote:
: Can't this all be solved by good marksmanship and using enough gun (
: thanks Robert.) Nice big hole right through the chest does not waist
: much meat and kills qick. Make mine .35 or larger thank you. Joe
My experience is that deer run 50-100 yards when shot cleanly in the
heart/lung/liver area with a 30-06. I started this thread by asking
advice on how to reduce the difficulty of recovering deer under difficult
field conditions (swamp, cliffs, dark, etc. ) by literally dropping
the deer in their tracks. My three options were
1. Shoulder to shoulder shot. The consensus seems to be that this
is an effective dropper but wastes more meat thatn many hunters like.
2. Head/Neck/spine shot. No one doubts it's dropping ability
with a hit, but the area is smaller and near misses lead to wounded
game.
3. Larger caliber. You're the first to suggest hat 35+ calibers are
effective at stopping deer with a chest shot. By effective, I mean
the shooter sees the deer drop in the same spot it was when he shot.
Several seconds and 50 yards later is not good enough if the deer
goes over a 100' cliff or into a thichly vegetated swamp at dusk.
So by saying a nice big hole right through the chest with a 35 Whelen
will routinely allow me to drop 'em where they stand?
Greg Brown
Sstone847 <ssto...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19970615125...@ladder02.news.aol.com>...
> In article <01bc7837$879ed8c0$bcadc8d0@greg>, Greg Brown
> <gr...@dynasty.net> writes:
> >This is ridiculous. The theory and responsibility of hunting is to
> >the humane harvest of your quarry, not to show your marksmanship skills
> >abilites of your rifle
>
> What does one have to do with the other? You are munching on apples here
> and declaring them oranges.
Gee..follow the thread and you might understand
>
> . And it is absolutely inhumane to try to justify
> >the taking of anything but a carefully placed shot at the vital area of
a
> >deer..which is the area just behind the front quarter....not the head
and
> >or neck.
>
> Horse poop! Your pontifiction on what is humane or inhumane is
ridiculous
> at best. If YOU are uncomfortable with this shot then DON'T TAKE IT.
But
> who the hell are you to decide that many of the men and women who utilize
> this forum aren't marksmen enough to use a perfectly good, perfectly
> humane shot in killing their quarry. Your bs above is nothing more than
> opinion, and in this case, one I disagree with.
> By the way, sir, before you make another ridiculous statement about
> "vital" areas, perhaps you need to review some deer anatomy. And don't
> even bother responding with garbage about "shot off jaws" as there are
> just as many "shot off front legs" by practitioners of heart/lung shots.
First of all..lets keep the language a little more friendly..thats part of
the problem which fuels the fires with the anti's.....conflict amongst
ourselves. Second, I dont and will not under any circumstances take a head
or neck shot because the margin for error is too small. Third, hunting
isnt about markmanship, it is about skill. The skill to anticipate the
animals movements, the skill to anticipate the result of your actions, etc.
Fourth...check YOUR charts and hunting manuals...for what good they might
be in place of experience...the preferred shot is one at the vital area of
the heart/lungs which is located just behind the rear edge of the front
quarter and at the lower side of the torso and is roughy 18 inches in
diameter..compared to...what?....5 inches for the brain and
what????um.....1 for the spine? Gee....take your pick..tough one.
>
> >Your rifle may shoot perfectly at the range under controlled
> >conditions, but in the field there are simply too many variables to rely
> on
> >its performance at this type of shot...especially at longer ranges.
>
> And these variables don't, of course, effect heart/lung shots? In MY
> opinion (certainly as valid as yours) a marksman well versed in his/her
> firearm is ALREADY aware of the limitations of one particular shot over
> another. The marksmen on this forum, (Woody, Elitist, etc.) can probably
> tell you immediately the drop of their favorite cartridge at any range
> from 50 to 350 yards. I can. They can also tell you the drift in their
> favorite cartridge, within an inch, at 250 yards with a 10 mile an hour
> quartering wind. I can. And if YOU can't, perhaps you need to spend
more
> time on the range.
>
Of course the affect it..but where is the effect more exaggerated...on a
150 yard shot or on a 20 yard shot? And I am well aware of Woody and
Elitists opinions and skills..in fact..I hunt some of the same woods as
Woody Williams..so I probably know more about his ability than you do.
But...calculate the drift on a 150 yard downhill shot with winds gusting
from 10 to 20 mph.??? Will the shot be out of vital area of the
brain?...how about the chest?..gee...another tough one
> And if
> >the deer stop to check the backtrail before entering your woods, then
why
> >not use your hunting skills and wait a little longer for them to come
> >closer to your stand where you may get the best shot of all...one at a
> >calm, broadside deer.
>
> What a wonderful assumption you make here. Gee golly gosh, once the deer
> checks out his/her backside they just calm right down and stroll right
> over to the stand for that marvelous, "ho-hum, another day of deer
> hunting" shot. Yeah, right!
> Something tells me you don't equate being a good shot, being familiar
with
> your weapon of choice, and knowing the vital areaS of a deer with
"hunting
> skills". You care to share with us your hunting wisdom on this?
>
Gee..what are you saying..if the deer chooses to do otherwise..then the
hunts wasted? I thought hunting was hunting..not killing 100% of the time?
And as far a a good shot and familiarizing yourself with your weapon and
knowing vital areas, these are important...but not near as important as
doing everything you can to get the best possible opportunity at harvesting
the animal humanely, even if it means not shooting..which I would rather do
than to take a chance at a borderline shot.
> Surely it would be worth the wait to ensure a quick,
> >humane kill and a recovered animal rather than to risk the chance of
> >wounding the deer and losing it.
>
> It is becoming very apparent you know little or nothing about deer
hunting
> in particular and hunting in general. Each and every time a hunter,
using
> whatever weapon in his/her arsenal be it rock or cannon, draws a bead on
> quarry, there is a risk of wounding the animal and losing it. It makes
no
> damned difference if the quarry is three inches or three miles away. And
> how long do we wait for that deer that is going AWAY from the shooter?
> If you can only put your rounds in a pie pan sized area at 100 yards,
then
> YOU need to wait. But, when others can put THEIR rounds in a quarter
> sized area at 200 yards, then your verbage above is nonsense. And YES,
> neighbor, there are people in this group that can CONSISTENTLY shoot that
> well.
>
Well said...you DO take that risk..but at least do everything in your power
to minimize that risk. And if the animal is going away from you...pass it
up buddy..you dont have a clear shot at a vital area..sorry...check your
anatomy again. And as far as my skill...I dont hunt with a rifle as many
of you do..but my muzzleloader places shots in a 1 1/2" group at 150 yards
from the bench....but do I shoot at these distances in the field???
Nope..not unless I find a benchrest out there in the middle of the
woods..sorry again.
> After all..that is our ultimate
> >responsibility of hunting. And for those of you that feel that you must
> >take any shot presented to you, including head or neck shots...then you
> >have my pity..for you are not hunters...
>
> If this statement wasn't so assinine,it would be humorous. But, if
> pitying me makes you feel better, then I am glad I can be of service. In
> the meantime, I think I'll go have some of that summer sausage from last
> years deer while you still wait out that "perfect" shot.
>
Sorry to dissappoint you..but last year I got 6 deer....1 10 pt with a
bow....1 8 point with a muzzloader....1 doe with my bow...and 3 does with
my muzzloader..can I send you some country ham?
> you are merely part of the problem
> >that is resulting in the decline of hunting. And if this is you, then I
> am
> >proud to say "I hope I never have the misfortune of meeting you".
>
> The sad truth, sir, is that your arrogance will prevent you from meeting
> some of the finest marksmen and hunters in the world. Men and women who
> can impart, in fifteen minutes, more hunting knowledge than your few
YEARS
> have provided. And THAT is the problem. People like you who are so
> convinced that THEIRS alone is the ONLY way that they refuse to learn
> anything more about their responsibilities to what we label so
> simplistically, "hunting".
>
You want to know my responsibilites? Have a little more open mind and you
might find them here...but let me tell you a couple....Mainly..to ensure
the future of hunting through education..I want to be able to pass hunting
on to my kids...and to know that I can hunt without necessarily
killing...and to be at one with nature..sorry..but thats what hunting is.
> >And as to the question of taking a broadside shot at a 250 yd
deer.....no
> >thanks...I'll be the first to admit that I'm not a S.W.A.T sharpshooter.
>
> And for those western and southwestern hunters who rarely see those
> wonderful 50 yard deer you are so fond of, what are they to do? Simply
> pack up and head home?
Sorry again buddy..but I've hunted Texas and Oklahoma..and 50 to 75 yard
shots were common..
> Taking a "broadside" shot at 250 yards has absolutely nothing to do with
> machismo or how many hairs one has on ones chest. Again, only let me add
> THANK YOU this time as a surrogate for your quarry, if YOU are
> uncomfortable with the shot, DON'T take it. For many of us here, a 250
> yard, broadside shot is a godsend; something not to be wasted because of
> YOUR discomfort with it.
>
I didnt mean broadside...or anything...250 yards is generally too far for
most hunters..and thats what this thread was origionally directed
towards..but again...back to my first comment to you.
> >Lets cut out the macho attitudes and get back to what hunting really
> >is...heritage, skill, and patience.
>
> Yes, lets practice what we preach and cut out the "macho" attitudes.
>
> Stephen Stone
>
Well said....but lets learn some responsibility to our quarry and to our
ranks along the way Stephen.
Good hunting
Greg Brown
Scott Jacoby
In article <v01510100afc9a9c56bcf@[207.183.241.193]>, Tim Calvin
<timh...@mail2.quiknet.com> wrote:
> Greg Brown <gr...@dynasty.net> pompously and incorrectly stated:
>
> >This is ridiculous. The theory and responsibility of hunting is to ensure
> >the humane harvest of your quarry, not to show your marksmanship skills or
> >abilites of your rifle.
>
> Rifle hunting is all about marksmanship skills and rifle ability. Great
> satisfaction comes from having selected the right rifle and load for the
> task, and to have executed the perfect shot for which one has
> conscientiously trained. Equal satisfaction comes from passing up the
> marginal opportunity because the hunter understands his and his equipment's
> limitations, and is unwilling to break his personal ethos by risking
> wounding and loss of his quarry. Hunting is a pursuit of personal
> satisfaction that will be fulfilled in different ways by different hunters.
>
I thought that your response to Mr. Brown was right on. Just a comment on
the above. I've always likened the selection of rifle, load, and
marksmanship skills to a fly fisherman. The proper fly must be tied,
selected, and presented precisely and accurately to entice the fish into
doing something you want it to do. Both involve personal satisfaction and
that satisfaction is multiplied when you tied the fly or invested in the
persuit of the "perfect" load. Same song, different ballroom. The hunter
who is also a "gun nut" (I hate that phrase) probably knows his equipment
much better and will be a better marksman due simply to the off-season
practice at his range sessions. Unfortunately, many hunters don't even
take the time to check the zero of their gun prior to the hunt, let alone
practice. Those are the ones who are the poor hunters and the ones we need
to convince. How about it Mr. Brown, how are your marksmanship skills, or
are you a "natural" shot. I LOVE natural shots, I'll take their dollars at
the skeet range all day. ;-)
> Tim Calvin <timh...@quiknet.com> NRA Life Member
> Get the CD-ROM "Tim Calvin's Hunting the West"
> Call me to order with VISA/MC, 1-800-215-9045.
> Price: $59.95 plus $1.24 postage. CA residents must add $4.35 tax.
*********************************************************************
Scott Jacoby - sco...@essex1.com - NRA Endowment; Life -Illinois State Rifle
Association (www.prairienet.org/isra); The Wildlife Society; USPSA/IPSC - - - -
Illegitimi Non Carborundum - - - - - - -
THOSE who trade essential liberty for a little temporary safety deserve neither
liberty nor safety.
Benjamin Franklin
The dinosours died because they didn't have a space program!
*********************************************************************
Jonis
At 14:57 18.06.97 -0400, you wrote:
>On Mon, 16 Jun 1997, Jonis wrote:
>
>> If it's too dark to find the deer, let it go, and return later. It is
>> the hunters responsibility to be able to find what he's shot. I would
>> also recommend that you get yourself a dog that can track a
>> bloodtrail. I've got one, and he follows it even when the track is a
>> day old.
>
> We have to be careful about that: in some states
>it is illegal to have a dog along, even for that.
Here in Norway, all hunters who hunt roe deer, rein deer, red deer,
and Elk (Scand. moose) are required to have a deal with a trackdog
owner. If not, it is not legal to hunt. This law came through in -95.
It was just after that I got mine. The dog and the owner have to pass
a test, and are approved as a team. So it's not only the dog that has
to be approved. It is also required that the team of the trackdog and
its owner are no more than 3 hours away from the place you hunt.
In my point of view, this is a law that makes the hunt better, and is
a law that should be passed everywhere. You should fight a bit to have
this legalized. It can spare a lot of deer from a lot of pain. Of
course, this doesn't make it better to wound an animal, something
which should be avoided as far as it's possible. But it's a great
thing to have as a safety when things do go wrong.
Jonis
Visit Jonis Huntingpages
http://home.sn.no/~sbragsta/hunters.htm
Member of the Huntingtrail.
Douglas Heard
On Mon, 16 Jun 1997 15:59:39 CDT, Sstone847 <ssto...@aol.com> wrote:
>In article <01bc7837$879ed8c0$bcadc8d0@greg>, Greg Brown
><gr...@dynasty.net> writes:
>Horse poop! Your pontifiction on what is humane or inhumane is ridiculous
>at best. If YOU are uncomfortable with this shot then DON'T TAKE IT. But
>who the hell are you to decide that many of the men and women who utilize
>this forum aren't marksmen enough to use a perfectly good, perfectly
>humane shot in killing their quarry. Your bs above is nothing more than
>opinion, and in this case, one I disagree with.
>By the way, sir, before you make another ridiculous statement about
>"vital" areas, perhaps you need to review some deer anatomy. And don't
>even bother responding with garbage about "shot off jaws" as there are
>just as many "shot off front legs" by practitioners of heart/lung shots.
I agree with what you say but that doesn't make heart/lung shots bad
either.
>And these variables don't, of course, effect heart/lung shots? In MY
>opinion (certainly as valid as yours) a marksman well versed in his/her
>firearm is ALREADY aware of the limitations of one particular shot over
>another. The marksmen on this forum, (Woody, Elitist, etc.) can probably
>tell you immediately the drop of their favorite cartridge at any range
>from 50 to 350 yards. I can. They can also tell you the drift in their
>favorite cartridge, within an inch, at 250 yards with a 10 mile an hour
>quartering wind. I can. And if YOU can't, perhaps you need to spend more
>time on the range.
>It is becoming very apparent you know little or nothing about deer hunting
>in particular and hunting in general. Each and every time a hunter, using
>whatever weapon in his/her arsenal be it rock or cannon, draws a bead on
>quarry, there is a risk of wounding the animal and losing it. It makes no
>damned difference if the quarry is three inches or three miles away. And
>how long do we wait for that deer that is going AWAY from the shooter?
>If you can only put your rounds in a pie pan sized area at 100 yards, then
>YOU need to wait. But, when others can put THEIR rounds in a quarter
>sized area at 200 yards, then your verbage above is nonsense. And YES,
>neighbor, there are people in this group that can CONSISTENTLY shoot that
>well.
>
I too can shoot well enough to put 5 in a quarter at 200yds and I
still take heart/lung shots. But I don't object to hunters who
prefer head or neck shots.
The best shot is the one that you are sure you can make.
>
>And for those western and southwestern hunters who rarely see those
>wonderful 50 yard deer you are so fond of, what are they to do? Simply
>pack up and head home?
>Taking a "broadside" shot at 250 yards has absolutely nothing to do with
>machismo or how many hairs one has on ones chest. Again, only let me add
>THANK YOU this time as a surrogate for your quarry, if YOU are
>uncomfortable with the shot, DON'T take it. For many of us here, a 250
>yard, broadside shot is a godsend; something not to be wasted because of
>YOUR discomfort with it.
Haveing done considerable hunting in Eastern Washington when I am in
that type of area I consider 250 yds a close shot. If you can sneak
that close to a deer bedded in the middle of a wheat field you have
done some good sneaking. I site all of my rifles to be 5 in. high at
mid range (the reason I prefer heart/lung shots) and let the caliber
determine the max range.
I agree with you that the poster had limited experience and had only
hunted in thick cover (most likely w/ shotgun)(nothing wrong with
shotgun in the right cover)
The best shot is the one you can make.
===========================================================
S. Douglas Heard do...@stone-soup.com
Stone Soup Canine http://www.stone-soup.com
"Liberty is the only thing you cannot have unless you are willing to give it to
others."
William Allen White
====================================
Ronjaxn
This may sound kinda barbaric, but my uncle -- who is a very skilled
hunter and a very, very accomplished shot -- alwys attempts a heart-lung
shot for an additional reason I've not seen mentioned here: he wants as
much blood as possible out of the meat and into the chest cavity. Says it
helps with taste.
Ron & Oro
"He who dies with the most toys -- dies." Mark 8:36
The Elitist
Ronjaxn wrote:
>
> This may sound kinda barbaric, but my uncle -- who is a very skilled
> hunter and a very, very accomplished shot -- alwys attempts a heart-lung
> shot for an additional reason I've not seen mentioned here: he wants as
> much blood as possible out of the meat and into the chest cavity. Says it
> helps with taste.
It does, indeed. A proper neck shot MIGHT do this, but the chest hit almost
guarantees
it. I think it's a valid reason to take the chest shot, especially if the deer
is
standing broadside to you, and if it's in the open. There is a noticeable
difference in
flavor in a deer so killed. BTW, that's exactly how animals are killed in
slaughterhouses: first they're stunned and then bled to death by severing the
carotid
artery and/or jugular vein. In the Middle East they don't stun them first.
The Elitist
Jonis
Not neccecarily a bigger hole with a bigger calibre. That depends on
which load you use. I'm not quite into that, so I'll leave this to
someone else to tell you, but I do know that a friend shot roe deer
with a 6,5x55 (Which is a bit more powerful than the .243), and made a
hole as big as the one as mu dad did with a round nosed .30-06.
However I used a .308 with a fast nostler, and got a clean shot
straight through it that barely was visible both on entry and exit...
Jonis
Fred A. Miller
Ronjaxn <ron...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19970618033...@ladder02.news.aol.com>...
> This may sound kinda barbaric, but my uncle -- who is a very skilled
> hunter and a very, very accomplished shot -- alwys attempts a heart-lung
> shot for an additional reason I've not seen mentioned here: he wants as
> much blood as possible out of the meat and into the chest cavity. Says
it
> helps with taste.
I would agree that this is the best for projectile placement, but not just
so the deer will bleed out quickly. Over the years (and I just turned 50
yesterday), I've taken deer with neck, head, shoulder, and hear/lung shots
with hand-made muzzleloaders. The energy imparted and wound channel with a
patched ball (within the distance limits of a MZ....100 yards or so) is
greater than with most bullets shot out of most rifles. Yet I've had deer
get up and run.....haven't lost one yet. I've seen deer heart shot with a
12ga. at close range, and still get up and run 50 yards or more. I think
the best assumptions we can make about projectile placement, is that some
are better than others, but deer are not as easy to "put down for the
count" as many of us would have them be.
Regards,
Fred
--
George Mason: "To disarm the people, that is the best and
most effectual way to enslave them."
Charles Hart
On Thu, 19 Jun 1997 19:12:37 +0000, Jonis <sbra...@sn.no> wrote:
>Here in Norway, all hunters who hunt roe deer, rein deer, red deer,
>and Elk (Scand. moose) are required to have a deal with a trackdog
>owner. If not, it is not legal to hunt. This law came through in -95.
>It was just after that I got mine.
To me, this is a good idea that turned into a bad law. I can see why
you would like it though, as the last sentence makes me think that you
are on the receiving end of this monopoly.
>In my point of view, this is a law that makes the hunt better,
or at least makes you richer.
> You should fight a bit to have
>this legalized.
I would fight against it and any other law that would put an undue
burden on hunting. Hunting is not for the elite (sorry Elitist ;).
Yes, having the ability to track wounded game with a dog and tracker
would be a nice luxury but that is all it is. A luxury. It akin to
having a law that mandates all hunters have a portable freezer mounted
on a hummer and it is required by law to get the carcass into the
freezer within 20 minutes of shooting. It must be a good law cause
the meat is fresher right? Wrong. All I am trying to say is there
are other ways of dealing with the issue of tracking that are
successful. You however, have a law that suddenly makes these
legitimate method illegal. This is wrong.
>It can spare a lot of deer from a lot of pain.... But it's a great
>thing to have as a safety when things do go wrong.
Forgive me if above you used the word "safety" metaphorically,
otherwise I disagree that sparing a deer some pain as you kill it has
anything to do with safety.
CTH
Charles T. Hart 1ch...@iamerico.net (fake)
Monroe, La.
Because spambots have not been outlawed yet,
Please remove the 1 and spell america correctly. Thanks
Jonis
On Thu, 26 Jun 1997 15:30:19 CDT, Charles Hart <1ch...@iamerico.net>
wrote:
>On Thu, 19 Jun 1997 19:12:37 +0000, Jonis <sbra...@sn.no> wrote:
>
>>Here in Norway, all hunters who hunt roe deer, rein deer, red deer,
>>and Elk (Scand. moose) are required to have a deal with a trackdog
>>owner. If not, it is not legal to hunt. This law came through in -95.
>>It was just after that I got mine.
>To me, this is a good idea that turned into a bad law. I can see why
>you would like it though, as the last sentence makes me think that you
>are on the receiving end of this monopoly.
Untrue. I haven't gained any money on this. This is because I am a
lazy SOB, who after 3 years still haven't had my dog approved. I had
one try, but because of a very strict judge (approved 1 out of 23 dogs
that year) my dog failed. It was possibly also much my own fault, as I
was the worst trained part of the lot - I was 16.
>
>>In my point of view, this is a law that makes the hunt better,
>or at least makes you richer.
As I said, this doesn't make me richer, but neither poorer, I pay an
additional 7$ per license.
>> You should fight a bit to have
>>this legalized.
>I would fight against it and any other law that would put an undue
>burden on hunting. Hunting is not for the elite (sorry Elitist ;).
Why would this make hunting an elite thing ? I haven't said that all
hunters have to OWN their own track dog, but have to have a
"certificate" with a track dog owner. Which costs very little.
>Yes, having the ability to track wounded game with a dog and tracker
>would be a nice luxury but that is all it is. A luxury.
A luxury you say. This post started when a guy wanted tips on how to
make deer drop in their tracks, because he hunted in the swamps, where
it was impossible to locate a deer even if it ran only a few hundrer
yards after being shot. With a track dog this would be done in less
than ten minutes. Call it whatever you want, but to me this is MORE
than luxury.
> It akin to
>having a law that mandates all hunters have a portable freezer mounted
>on a hummer and it is required by law to get the carcass into the
>freezer within 20 minutes of shooting. It must be a good law cause
>the meat is fresher right? Wrong.
I can't see what this has to do with the point. Fresh meat is one
thing, wounded deer is an other.
> All I am trying to say is there
>are other ways of dealing with the issue of tracking that are
>successful. You however, have a law that suddenly makes these
>legitimate method illegal. This is wrong.
Nothing is made illegal with this law. If you want to drag yourself
through swamps and bushes looking for a deer that lies just under your
nose, be my guest. All this law says is that all hunters have to have
a "certificate" with an approved track dog to be allowed to hunt, not
that this dog neccecarily has to be brough in at all times.
>>It can spare a lot of deer from a lot of pain.... But it's a great
>>thing to have as a safety when things do go wrong.
>Forgive me if above you used the word "safety" metaphorically,
>otherwise I disagree that sparing a deer some pain as you kill it has
>anything to do with safety.
Why shouldn't I use the word safety? It IS safety. If you wound a
deer, you have the possibility to locate it quicker. This would mean
that you spare the deer for a lot of pain. Now, I may sound like an AR
guy or something, but if you came over and took a huntingtrip with me,
you'd see that I'm really a nice guy...
Now, I'm not saying that this law is perfect. It probably isn't. But
still, I haven't found one strong arguement against it. The only thing
I've come up with so far is laziness. I think (please take no notice
of my opinions, I won't push my opinions on hunters from other
countries) that a law that would make it possible to use a track dog
in the US - I guess it's legal some places, but not all - would make
the hunt better, and would give the hunters a "buffer" against the
Animal Rights movement. Whenever they say that we wound so an so many
animals, we respond that " but we do find them wuicly, because of our
new track dog law !!!"
Jonis
Visit Jonis' Huntingpages
http://home.sn.no/~sbragsta/hunters.htm
Member of the Huntingtrail
Ken Liljegren
Hi Charles
I agreee its important not to overburden hunters with laws and regulations.
In Denmark it works a little like in Norway, except you don't need a
specific deal with a tracker.
A "net" of voluntary trackers having trained and certified dogs is spread
across the country.
If you need help tracking a deer, as I did the other day, you call the one
nearest and arrange for him to come over.
All you pay is for his transportation, which amounts to about 15 USD.
In Denmark you're obliged by law to call a tracker if you are unable to
locate the deer in 6 hours.
Of course, Danish distances are not like what you have in Alaska for
instance, but I wanted to speak up against your allegation that dog owners
are in it for the money.
I don't have a dog, so I'm unbiased !
Happy hunting !
Charles Hart <1ch...@iamerico.net> skrev i artiklen
<33af345a...@nntp.iamerica.net>...
> On Thu, 19 Jun 1997 19:12:37 +0000, Jonis <sbra...@sn.no> wrote:
>
> >Here in Norway, all hunters who hunt roe deer, rein deer, red deer,
> >and Elk (Scand. moose) are required to have a deal with a trackdog
> >owner. If not, it is not legal to hunt. This law came through in -95.
> >It was just after that I got mine.
> To me, this is a good idea that turned into a bad law. I can see why
> you would like it though, as the last sentence makes me think that you
> are on the receiving end of this monopoly.
>
>
> >In my point of view, this is a law that makes the hunt better,
> or at least makes you richer.
>
> > You should fight a bit to have
> >this legalized.
> I would fight against it and any other law that would put an undue
> burden on hunting. Hunting is not for the elite (sorry Elitist ;).
> Yes, having the ability to track wounded game with a dog and tracker
> would be a nice luxury but that is all it is. A luxury. It akin to
> having a law that mandates all hunters have a portable freezer mounted
> on a hummer and it is required by law to get the carcass into the
> freezer within 20 minutes of shooting. It must be a good law cause
> the meat is fresher right? Wrong. All I am trying to say is there
> are other ways of dealing with the issue of tracking that are
> successful. You however, have a law that suddenly makes these
> legitimate method illegal. This is wrong.
>
> >It can spare a lot of deer from a lot of pain.... But it's a great
> >thing to have as a safety when things do go wrong.
> Forgive me if above you used the word "safety" metaphorically,
> otherwise I disagree that sparing a deer some pain as you kill it has
> anything to do with safety.
>
ELI...@mail.bev.net
Jonis wrote:
> I won't push my opinions on hunters from other
> countries) that a law that would make it possible to use a track dog
> in the US - I guess it's legal some places, but not all - would make
> the hunt better, and would give the hunters a "buffer" against the
> Animal Rights movement. Whenever they say that we wound so an so many
> animals, we respond that " but we do find them wuicly, because of our
> new track dog law !!!"
I'll have to weigh in with Jonis here. I can't see any reason why a
well-trained dog
shouldn't be used to track wounded game. I suppose it's legal in some places in
the USA. In
eastern VA dogs are used to hunt deer, and it certainly wouldn't be illegal over
that way to
use a dog to find one you'd winged. Up here west of the Blue Ridge it would be:
dogs are
prohibited for deer and bear hunting here.
I suppose the problem is distinguishing between "hunting" and "tracking" but
given the
complexity of some other regulations we have to put up with, I'd suspect that
any half-way
decent game agency could come up with a reg that would reliably distinguish
between the two,
if they want to bother.
But Jonis' main points are correct. A dog can easily find an animal that an
unaided human
would never have a chance of recovering, and this would certainly be an argument
that all that
could be done was being done to assure a humane and clean harvest. Now mind
you, it wouldn't
satisfy the AR nuts: they would simply argue that if we hadn't shot that deer
simply to slake
our bloodlust, we wouldn't have to enslave a poor dog and compel him to do our
evil will in
furthering our nefarious schemes for Bambicide. But you can't win 'em all.
Tracking dogs are
a pretty good idea and I'd have no objection to their use.
The Elitist
>
> Jonis
> Visit Jonis' Huntingpages
> http://home.sn.no/~sbragsta/hunters.htm
> Member of the Huntingtrail
Daniel Boutin
I would prefer that every hunter be tested for his shooting ability
before each season rather than have some dogs running around in the
woods scaring the shit out of all the deer while I'm in some deer blind
trying to bag my own deer.
Randy Buker
>
> From: Daniel Boutin <da...@rocketmail.com>
Now, let me get this right. A dog quietly trailing a deer would be
harder on the herd than a couple of guys out there. Deer are more
frightened of dogs than humans??????
Randy
Joseph L Lunenschloss
Daniel Boutin <da...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
>I would prefer that every hunter be tested for his shooting ability
>before each season rather than have some dogs running around in the
>woods scaring the shit out of all the deer while I'm in some deer blind
>trying to bag my own deer.
Oh no!
The " let's legislate shooting certification" thread makes it 1997
appearance. These threads are harder to avoid than a bad habit.
imho
joe
Jonathan M. Spencer
In article <33B9E1...@rocketmail.com>, Daniel Boutin
<da...@rocketmail.com> writes
>I would prefer that every hunter be tested for his shooting ability
>before each season rather than have some dogs running around in the
>woods scaring the shit out of all the deer while I'm in some deer blind
>trying to bag my own deer.
Contrary to the subject line, deer normally don't drop in their tracks,
even if the heart is destroyed. They can run a considerable distance
and then drop. In this respect, it doesn't make any difference whether
one is a practised shot or not: a fatally wounded deer will normally run
off and die out of sight. And therein lies the role of the blood hound.
The role of the blood hound is to track and locate the dead deer. Of
course, the dog can also be used to track _wounded_ deer too. A dog
trained to track a blood spoor doesn't 'run around in the woods scaring
the shit out of all the deer' - certainly no more than having men
shooting at them bothers them.
I'm sorry to read your posting, Daniel, because it shows that you think
you could only ever 'drop a deer in its tracks', and also that you think
_you_ searching for _your_ deer doesn't cause disturbance. But mostly,
it demonstrates that you are a selfish inconsiderate individual.
--Jonathan
============================================================
Jonathan Spencer -- forensic firearms examiner
Mountjoy Research Centre, Durham, England, DH1 3UR
tel: +44 191 386 6107 fax: +44 191 383 0686
============================================================
Jonis
>I would prefer that every hunter be tested for his shooting ability
>before each season rather than have some dogs running around in the
>woods scaring the shit out of all the deer while I'm in some deer blind
>trying to bag my own deer.
1 - All hunters should have their shootingabilities tested - not too
difficult, just difficult enough to take out the worst examples, and
to encorage to more practice.
2 - Trackdogs do not run around in the forests scaring the shit out of
the deer. The point with a track dog is that is is going to track teh
deer - lead the hunter to the deer.
3 - If you were hunting that close to a place where a deer had been
wounded, I
A- think you're an asshole if you didn't offer your help
B- think you're the same if you didn't back off if your help wasn't
needed. Then YOU could be the one scaring the shit out of the wounded
deer.
Jonis - beeing a bit emotional after having MISSED two cats with his
car earlier today.
John Long
Jonis wrote:
---snip snip ---
>
> 1 - All hunters should have their shootingabilities tested - not too
> difficult, just difficult enough to take out the worst examples, and
> to encorage to more practice.
Good point, but that is what the range is for. No more regulations,
Puleez.
> 2 - Trackdogs do not run around in the forests scaring the shit out of
> the deer. The point with a track dog is that is is going to track teh
> deer - lead the hunter to the deer.
That is the only reason to bring a dog out there, and should be kept
under tight control.
> 3 - If you were hunting that close to a place where a deer had been
> wounded, I
> A- think you're an asshole if you didn't offer your help
Good point, with all this searching going on, might as well help get
them out of the way as soon as possible.
B- think you're the same if you didn't back off if your help wasn't
> needed. Then YOU could be the one scaring the shit out of the wounded
or, might be a good time for lunch. remember he said he was in a blind.
> Jonis - beeing a bit emotional after having MISSED two cats with his
> car earlier today.
maybe you could use a little practice, missing TWO in one day. (Tee hee
hee) ;^>
John
Jonis
I posted this last night, but it seems like it didn't come through
On Wed, 2 Jul 1997 19:48:27 +0000, Daniel Boutin
<da...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
>I would prefer that every hunter be tested for his shooting ability
>before each season rather than have some dogs running around in the
>woods scaring the shit out of all the deer while I'm in some deer blind
>trying to bag my own deer.
1 - All hunters should have their shootingabilities tested - not too
difficult, just difficult enough to take out the worst examples, and
to encorage to more practice.
2 - Trackdogs do not run around in the forests scaring the shit out of
the deer. The point with a track dog is that is is going to track the
deer - lead the hunter to the deer.
3 - If you were hunting that close to a place where a deer had been
wounded, I
A- think you're an asshole if you didn't offer your help
B- think you're the same if you didn't back off if your help wasn't
needed. Then YOU could be the one scaring the shit out of the wounded
deer.
rutledge
Daniel Boutin wrote:
>
> I would prefer that every hunter be tested for his shooting ability
> before each season rather than have some dogs running around in the
> woods scaring the shit out of all the deer while I'm in some deer blind
> trying to bag my own deer.
And just *who* do you think is qualified to test us? Maybe HCI will
provide volunteers? Just which side of the gun control issue are you
on? Are you just naive as hell or are you running some sort of sneak
campaign?
Considering the government's involvement in Waco, Ruby Ridge, etc.,
considering Slick Willie Klinton's hand-in-hand with Sarah Brady,
magazine capacity limits, assault rifle scare, anti-handgun campaigns by
federal agencies ... dare you suggest that somehow the *government*
should be in charge of deciding whether *I* can hunt?
Are you *nuts*??? If you're not "one of them" infiltrating *us*, please
*think* before you support such crazyness.
Tom
ventri...@vnet.ibm.com
In <33bad8d8...@news.sn.no>, Jonis <sbra...@sn.no> writes:
| On Wed, 2 Jul 1997 19:48:27 +0000, Daniel Boutin
|
| >I would prefer that every hunter be tested for his shooting ability
| >before each season rather than have some dogs running around in the
| >woods scaring the shit out of all the deer while I'm in some deer blind
| >trying to bag my own deer.
|
| difficult, just difficult enough to take out the worst examples, and
| to encorage to more practice.
Anyone interested in a disenting opinion should use their favorite
web browser to go to http://www.dejanews.com/forms/dnq.html and
search for "rec.hunting & test & ventriloquist" in the "Old" Usenet
archive.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
| Dan Campbell | I'm a ventriloquist - I can speak for anyone! |
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
- Remove the vowels from "ventriloquist" to send e-mail.
TSBench
<<<<>1 - All hunters should have their shootingabilities tested - not too
>| difficult, just difficult enough to take out the worst examples, and
>| to encorage to more practice.>>>>
Just wondering, but how would you go about this? Punching paper? Has about
as much relationship to actual hunting conditions as paddling my canoe on
the lake has to crossing the Atlantic. Running target? Can't think of an
economically feasible or reasonable way to test 17 million folks who
currently have hunting licenses. At what distance. 200 yards? What about
guys like me who use an iron sighted Enfield #5 as a whitetail gun and
never take a shot more than 80 to 100 yards? Outside of requirements that
you be able to identify game animals on sight, and a testable knowledge of
game laws and regulations, I just don't see any reasonable,
one-size-fits-all test of shooting ability that would mean anything once
in the field.
Regards,
TSB
Bill Walker...Producer and Cohost of The Shooting Bench radio program...Curator
of Small Arms, US Naval & Shipbuilding Museum in Quincy, MA....General Manager,
WDIS-Radio, Norfolk, Massachusetts.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Visit the rec.hunting and rec.hunting.dogs FAQ Home Page at:
http://sportsmansweb.com/hunting/
To leave the Hunting listserv list, send a message with SIGNOFF HUNTING
in the *body* to list...@listserv.tamu.edu
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jonis
On Mon, 7 Jul 1997 11:24:54 -0700, rutledge <rutl...@sou.edu> wrote:
>Daniel Boutin wrote:
>>
>> I would prefer that every hunter be tested for his shooting ability
>> before each season rather than have some dogs running around in the
>> woods scaring the shit out of all the deer while I'm in some deer blind
>> trying to bag my own deer.
>
>And just *who* do you think is qualified to test us? Maybe HCI will
>provide volunteers? Just which side of the gun control issue are you
>on? Are you just naive as hell or are you running some sort of sneak
>campaign?
I didn't write this, but I do agree. And if you doubt what "side" I'm
on, check out my homepage, adress below. First, I must admit that the
sentences you reply to are somewhat bad. But still.
Here in Norway, we've had that system for some years now. It's a
simple shooting test, 100 metres, five shots on a reindeer, all shots
inside a circle 30x30 cm, and you shoot whatever suits you. That's not
bad, now is it ?
So you may wonder what the point of this is, when "everybody" passes
this test. Well, some hunters don't even touch their rifle outside of
huntingseasons. They get the chance (or are forces to) to fire a
couple of shots, if not to improve their skills, they at least see how
the gun shoots. Then again, there are some that actually fail this
test. Those are not allowed to hunt, and that's not too bad either, as
the test is as simple as it is. Some may even find out that it's great
fun shooting a few shots at the shootingrange. So they go another
time, and gradually improve their skills.
The point with such a test is NOT to deny anyone to hunt, but to force
every hunter to improve their skills to a certain level. Still, this
is not perfect. Some shoot worse at the range with lots of others
around them shooting. Like me. Shooting skills for hunting are not
just plinking five shots at a range. It's a combination of moral,
skills and experience. Still I can't see that this test should be seen
upon as a problem, more like a way to improve hunting for everyone.
>Considering the government's involvement in Waco, Ruby Ridge, etc.,
>considering Slick Willie Klinton's hand-in-hand with Sarah Brady,
>magazine capacity limits, assault rifle scare, anti-handgun campaigns by
>federal agencies ... dare you suggest that somehow the *government*
>should be in charge of deciding whether *I* can hunt?
Of course, who else ? You're self, perhaps ? It's easy to say
something like that about yourself, but I bet that you've met a few
hunters you feel don't have much to do out hunting. I was at the range
last week, and I was shocked. Some didn't know how to handle a gun at
all, throwing it down like some log. But of course, for experienced
hunters, this is merely something that is a waste of time.
>Are you *nuts*??? If you're not "one of them" infiltrating *us*, please
>*think* before you support such crazyness.
Me ? nuts ? Could be. The people at talk.politics.animals would
probably say so. Maybe YOU should think before you get upset. Not good
for the old bloodpump, you know. But still, I can't say that I don't
understand you - there's more than enough laws and regulations
regulating hunting.
>Tom
Jonis
Visit Jonis Huntingpages
http://home.sn.no/~sbragsta/hunters.htm
Member of the Huntingtrail
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
rutledge
Jonis wrote:
>
> On Mon, 7 Jul 1997 11:24:54 -0700, rutledge <rutl...@sou.edu> wrote:
>
> >Daniel Boutin wrote:
> >>
> >> I would prefer that every hunter be tested for his shooting ability
> >> before each season rather than have some dogs running around in the
> >> woods scaring the shit out of all the deer while I'm in some deer blind
> >> trying to bag my own deer.
> >
> >And just *who* do you think is qualified to test us? Maybe HCI will
> >provide volunteers? Just which side of the gun control issue are you
> >on? Are you just naive as hell or are you running some sort of sneak
> >campaign?
>
> I didn't write this, but I do agree. And if you doubt what "side" I'm
> on, check out my homepage, adress below. First, I must admit that the
> sentences you reply to are somewhat bad. But still.
>
> Here in Norway, we've had that system for some years now. It's a
> simple shooting test, 100 metres, five shots on a reindeer, all shots
> inside a circle 30x30 cm, and you shoot whatever suits you. That's not
> bad, now is it ?
>
That's fine .. maybe it works in Norway, but as applied to the USA, it
won't work.
1) Government doesn't have the authority to require or implement such
tests.
2) Many American hunters have no access to formal shooting ranges.
Particularly in rural areas, most sighting in is done either on private
property ("out the back window") or informally on public land where a
few of the neighbors decide to meet and burn a little powder.
Even if there were no fee for the test, the simple fact that the folks
least able to afford it would be forced to travel long distances back to
town to be tested essentially constitutes a regressive tax which would
be self defeating.
I predict that the actual outcome of any attempt to implement such
nonsense here would be 1) increased poaching and 2) increases risk to
the law enforcement community.
So ... I suppose the *goal* is a worthy one, but the direction you
suggest for reaching that goal is unrealistic given the difference
between your culture and ours.
I notice that everyone who has supported such regulation in this
discussion (so far) has been from another country. I have not seen
*one* American support such a notion. There's a reason for that:
reality. We're dealing with a different situation. Until you deal with
*our reality*, in it's entireity, you can't devise a practical answer
for us.
Tom
Joseph L Lunenschloss
As a further addition to the thread that ought to, but refuses to,
die....and regarding this crazy notion of requiring some sort of
shooting proficiency test...rutledge <rutl...@sou.edu> wrote:
>
>I notice that everyone who has supported such regulation in this
>discussion (so far) has been from another country. I have not seen
>*one* American support such a notion. There's a reason for that:
>reality. We're dealing with a different situation. Until you deal with
>*our reality*, in it's entireity, you can't devise a practical answer
>for us.
>
>Tom
>
I agree with what Tom has said here but I would like to suggest a
little different take on the willingness those in other countries seem
to show for increased regulation. I have also noticed that those in
less "free" countries, (wrt. firearms regulation at least), seem all
too willing to embrace new regulation.
My first question would be: just how *BIG* a problem is this anyway?
In my 35+ years of hunting in the USA, I haven't seen this to be a
problem of any great import. Yet here we have a serious discussion
about increased regulation to alleviate this "problem".
Folks, think about it a little. It is proabbly a fact of life that
countries like Australia and Britain, get sucked into the repressive
laws that have been recently passed there, just because they are
willing to even discuss silly proposals like this in the first place.
It sounds reasonable...so let's argue the pros and cons.
I would suggest that a more sensible approach would be...
"Before we argue the pros and cons of any new regulation, that we
require proof of the *problem* that those regulation seek to address.
That proof needs to be quantifiable, undeniable, and supported by
empirical evidence. Then if it is determined that the problem is
sufficiently serious, we can approach the proposed regulations by
asking just exactly what quantifiable effect will those regulations
have on reducing the problem? Do these proposed regulations pass a
cost/benefit analysis, (no regulation is without cost)? If the
regulations are enacted, and they fail to reduce the problem by the
estimated quantity...then those regulations not be renewed. It goes
without saying that any such proposed regulations would require
renewed votes of confidence or they be 'sunsetted'."
Freedom is a precious thing...that once lost, is very hard to regain.
I am amazed that people would even discuss **any** new regulations to
their lives without imposing very strict terms of performance on those
regulations. I am also amazed that anyone would spend a moment of
their time discussing new regulations when the *problem* to which
those regulations are directed, has not even been proven or
quantified.
If we applied these standards to gun control regulations, or any other
for that matter, I expect the USA would have guns laws much akin to
what we had before 1968, and Australia and Britain, and Canada, etc
would also be very different today.
IMO
joe
JimDodd
On performance testing hunters:
I have a friend who is an outfitter. He has some targets set up outside
his main house at unknown (to the hunter) ranges. He has his clients try
to hit the targets, making their own range estimate. At least he knows
what he is dealing with, and restricts operations accordingly....jim dodd
San Diego
Jonis
>As a further addition to the thread that ought to, but refuses to,
>die....and regarding this crazy notion of requiring some sort of
>shooting proficiency test...rutledge <rutl...@sou.edu> wrote:
>
>
>>I notice that everyone who has supported such regulation in this
>>discussion (so far) has been from another country. I have not seen
>>*one* American support such a notion. There's a reason for that:
>>reality. We're dealing with a different situation. Until you deal with
>>*our reality*, in it's entireity, you can't devise a practical answer
>>for us.
>
One thing though - wouldn't it be a hell of a lot better if, for
example, the NRA and other hunting organizations could take care of
this sort of regulation before anyone in the governtment, that has
litterally no idea on how it works, were to start fondling around with
it ? But I agree, freedom is easier to keep than to regain.
I understand how you americans feel about this, and should probably
try to keep my fingers away from the keyboard before I get VERY
unpopular in here. And I wouldn't want that to happen...
Jonis
Jonis
On Tue, 8 Jul 1997 20:19:03 -0400, TSBench <tsb...@aol.com> wrote:
><<<<>1 - All hunters should have their shootingabilities tested - not too
>>| difficult, just difficult enough to take out the worst examples, and
>>| to encorage to more practice.>>>>
>
>Just wondering, but how would you go about this? Punching paper? Has about
>as much relationship to actual hunting conditions as paddling my canoe on
>the lake has to crossing the Atlantic. Running target? Can't think of an
>economically feasible or reasonable way to test 17 million folks who
>currently have hunting licenses. At what distance. 200 yards? What about
>guys like me who use an iron sighted Enfield #5 as a whitetail gun and
>never take a shot more than 80 to 100 yards? Outside of requirements that
>you be able to identify game animals on sight, and a testable knowledge of
>game laws and regulations, I just don't see any reasonable,
>one-size-fits-all test of shooting ability that would mean anything once
>in the field.
>
>Regards,
>TSB
>
Well, we've got five shots at 100 metres (like 120 yards ?) at a
reindeertarget with a 30 cm circle just behind and above it's foreleg.
It seems to fit well here. but Norwegian hunters are more or less
using the "same" gun; a mauser-like rifle. However, the ones using
combination gus (which are not made to shoot more than one or two
shots, and sling shots all over when the barrel gets warm) don't have
to shoot more than 3 shots.
I understand your concern, Bill. I doubt that there is one answer to
the question. I do agree tho, that the test is not much like hunting.
But it's still important practice, especially when it comes to
learning how to handle a gun. And I must say, watching some of the
people shooting at the range, throwing their gun in the floor like
some kind of a log - you really start to wonder how these people react
at the sight of a large elk or deer.
Jonis
>
>Bill Walker...Producer and Cohost of The Shooting Bench radio program...Curator
> of Small Arms, US Naval & Shipbuilding Museum in Quincy, MA....General
Manager,
> WDIS-Radio, Norfolk, Massachusetts.
>
Jonis
>I notice that everyone who has supported such regulation in this
>discussion (so far) has been from another country. I have not seen
>*one* American support such a notion. There's a reason for that:
>reality. We're dealing with a different situation. Until you deal with
>*our reality*, in it's entireity, you can't devise a practical answer
>for us.
>
>Tom
Hi Tom. I've just been to the range burning a little powder - making
funny little holes in the cardboard... Actually, this was the second
of the two trips all norwegian biggame hunters has to take to the
range - shooting 30 shots before the test. It's required from this
year on.
As you say, I have no idea how things work in the US. It's probably a
bit egoistic of me, sticking my nose up your... well, anyways. In
Norway, we've got this organization which would be about the same as
the NRA. They run ranges all over the country, or perhaps more like -
local branches of our NRA runs these ranges. Hell, we've got ranges in
almost every little place all over the country. Here where I live, I
have less than half an hours drive to at least nine ranges...
This system works extremely well here in Norway, and as far as I know,
in a lot of other European countries. So please don't call this
nonsense. It's not. Not at all. Problems are to be fought. And by the
way - I won't tell Clinton...
You see, most people have very little interest in compromizes. Either
you agree, or you don't. Same with hunting. Either you're pro hunting,
or you're anti hunting. However, there are some - like me - who see
the importance in improving hunting to become more safe and more, call
it "professional". This is maybe something typical for European
hunters ? We do have a 2-3% wounding rate, while the same rate in the
US is 10% (or so I have heard)
it's not my intention to force my sacret beliefs and meanings about
hunting on anyone. However, I do try to make people think a bit about
what they're really doing. I'm not saying that YOU are a bad hunter,
you're probably excellent. However, the problem is that most hunters
think that they are excellent hunters. I bet that you have met a few
hunters that you didn't feel safe around. There are some of those. A
shooting test is not intended to keep these people from hunting, but
to force them to improve their skills enough to pass the test.
But, then again, if passing such a law in the US would be impossible,
it would be darned stupid to do it, wouldn't it...
Jonis
rutledge
Jonis wrote:
> But, then again, if passing such a law in the US would be impossible,
> it would be darned stupid to do it, wouldn't it...
I hope it wouldn't be *too* easy, but I think passing the law wouldn't
be the hard part. Animal rights kooks and tree huggers and their
anti-gun butt buddies could probably band together and ram such nonsense
down our throats. In Klinton's America, anything is possible and the
rediculous is likely.
The hard part would be the details of implementation.
1) To the best of my knowledge, no governmental agency in the US has the
legal authority to administer such a program. Most agencies have a
charter which delineates their areas of responsibility, what they can
and cannot do.
I'd guess that implementation would either mean that the FBI, BATF, US
Fish and Wildlife Service, etc would have to illegally act outside their
charter. That isn't as unusual as it should be. Or else we'd have to
ad a whole new federal agency, at uncountable $$ cost.
2) Enforcement would be self defeating. In many areas, game enforcement
$$ come from tag and license sales. I predict that enough folks would
decide they'd rather poach than put up with governmental interference
that governement would no long have the fund$ to enforce the game laws.
3) As I said before, a very large number of American hunters do not have
range facilities which could be used for testing available to them.
4) As someone so wisely noticed, you have to look at the cost/benefit
analysis ... first you have to determine whether the testing suggested
would have statistically significant impact on wounding ratios. Then,
if that proved to be the case, you'd have to justify the law in $$
terms. "How does this save the taxpayers money?" At the moment,
unfunded mandates are quite unpopular.
Tom
Jim...@aol.com
On Wed, 9 Jul 1997 08:19:16 -0700, rutledge <rutl...@sou.edu> wrote:
>
>I notice that everyone who has supported such regulation in this
>discussion (so far) has been from another country. I have not seen
>*one* American support such a notion. There's a reason for that:
>reality. We're dealing with a different situation. Until you deal with
>*our reality*, in it's entireity, you can't devise a practical answer
>for us
Well Tom, here is one American that would agree to testing. And I am
certainly not going to tell someone in another country that the laws that
they support and fully agree with are all wrong! There is a saying from
Ancient Greece that goes: "When traveling abroad, look not back on your own
borders." I think that it can be applied to traveling in cyber space today.
I do support some sort of testing for hunters. Maybe I have seen far too
much incompetency. Possibly it only takes place in the areas I happen to
hunt (The Western US, Alaska, Africa, mostly). I sort of doubt it though.
The form of testing that I like is the what a few Western states have done,
that is using the carrot approach. The wildlife departments of certain
states have a program that is called something like Advanced Hunter Education
(AHE). In order to pass this program a hunter must not only show shooting
ability, he must also pass a written test that includes basic game
management, ethics, animal identification, etc. There is also a certain
amount of voluntary work that is required. The program is voluntary. What
the graduates gets is the right to enter into special drawings and hunt
seasons and areas reserved for AHE graduates. These seasons and areas
increase in number every year. I have heard a few hunters complain about the
special treatment, to which I reply "Take the course!"
Although the exam is not difficult, a person must read the material and study
to pass it. It really doesn't matter if you have been hunting 3 lifetimes,
some of the material is not the kind of thing a hunter would normally know.
I have a friend that is a game warden and he couldn't pass the thing without
studying. (Although I do believe he did know the politcal structure of the
WDFW!).
Of course passing the exam doesn't mean that a graduate is a great shot (for
instance in the shotgunning part in Washington State a person only has to hit
20 out of 25 targets at either trap or skeet) or that he will be an ethical
hunter. It does mean that he has done more than plop down $18 for a license
though. He at least knows how he is supposed to hunt, and how to sight in a
rifle.
If you have never met hunters that haven't a clue how to sight in their
rifle, then you are very lucky. Around Oct. 1. If you come to our range I
can show you dozens a day. And these are the more serious ones that at least
go to a range instead of sighting in on a paper plate the day before the
season!
In any case I do think that all hunters should have to go through some sort
of course in order to buy a hunting license. Killing an animal is a serious t
hing to me. I don't think it should be taken lightly or attempted by people
that have absolutely no training. Or worse, training by those that have no
real knowledge.
For those hunters to whom this is all not necessary, it is a little trouble
they have to go through in order to insure that some people will get the
training they would never do on their own without having the that carrot
enticing them.
In other words, I do support hunter training in the US. I do like the carrot
approach to this. If you disagree with it, you don't have to take the
course, you just won't be able to hunt as many seasons as those that do.
Possibly I am the only American in the group that does support testing as you
say. So be it. Lots of people don't like a lot of what I believe. But
hell, it's America. We can have minority opinions here.
rutledge
Jim...@aol.com wrote:
>
> On Wed, 9 Jul 1997 08:19:16 -0700, rutledge <rutl...@sou.edu> wrote:
>
> >
> >I notice that everyone who has supported such regulation in this
> >discussion (so far) has been from another country. I have not seen
> >*one* American support such a notion. There's a reason for that:
> >reality. We're dealing with a different situation. Until you deal with
> >*our reality*, in it's entireity, you can't devise a practical answer
> >for us
>
> Well Tom, here is one American that would agree to testing. And I am
> certainly not going to tell someone in another country that the laws that
> they support and fully agree with are all wrong! There is a saying from
> Ancient Greece that goes: "When traveling abroad, look not back on your own
> borders." I think that it can be applied to traveling in cyber space today.
>
There is some truth to what you say ... but I think the discussion *is*
about USA ... the saying I know is "when in Rome, do as the Romans do."
In this discussion, for the most part is foreigners telling Americans
how we should run our railroad, which is in appropriate.
I am *interested* in their experiences, but I don't plan to be told to
emulate them. This is *my* side of the border, that's *theirs*. If I
go there, I expect to operate under their rules, and if I those rules
are unacceptable to me, I'll stay home.
Sharing of information is one thing, but gettin' uppity and telling me
what my standards should be is inappropriate ... they don't live here,
they have no right to comment unless invited to comment.
> I do support some sort of testing for hunters. Maybe I have seen far too
> much incompetency. Possibly it only takes place in the areas I happen to
> hunt (The Western US, Alaska, Africa, mostly). I sort of doubt it though.
>
Ok ... problem. Your selection of "incompetency" as a descriptor reeks
of a judgemental attitude.
I, too, hunt the Western US ... and I believe I've seen the same things
you have and I, too, am disturbed. However ... getting into testing
implies that someone is *qualified* to apply the test ... which is plain
horse puckey. No one, including you, is qualified to decide whether I'm
competent to hunt.
> The form of testing that I like is the what a few Western states have done,
> that is using the carrot approach. The wildlife departments of certain
> states have a program that is called something like Advanced Hunter Education
> (AHE). In order to pass this program a hunter must not only show shooting
> ability, he must also pass a written test that includes basic game
> management, ethics, animal identification, etc. There is also a certain
> amount of voluntary work that is required.
Oregon has a similar program. I think it's an interesting approach. To
apply it to *all* hunting would be counter productive. As I said
before, most Americans wouldn't put up with that crap ... they'd poach
instead.
Ask a game warden some time just how comfortable they are asking for
licenses, etc, even when the folks are legal. When it comes to
capturing poachers ... well, that's about the most dangerous part of a
game warden's job ... and the number of poachers which would be created
by such a testing program would absolutely explode.
IMHO ... of course.
> The program is voluntary. What
> the graduates gets is the right to enter into special drawings and hunt
> seasons and areas reserved for AHE graduates. These seasons and areas
> increase in number every year. I have heard a few hunters complain about the
> special treatment, to which I reply "Take the course!"
>
Correct answer! If'n they don't like it, they can hunt general season,
but they *can hunt* ... which is a critical difference.
> Although the exam is not difficult, a person must read the material and study
> to pass it. It really doesn't matter if you have been hunting 3 lifetimes,
> some of the material is not the kind of thing a hunter would normally know.
> I have a friend that is a game warden and he couldn't pass the thing without
> studying. (Although I do believe he did know the politcal structure of the
> WDFW!).
>
> Of course passing the exam doesn't mean that a graduate is a great shot (for
> instance in the shotgunning part in Washington State a person only has to hit
> 20 out of 25 targets at either trap or skeet) or that he will be an ethical
> hunter. It does mean that he has done more than plop down $18 for a license
> though. He at least knows how he is supposed to hunt, and how to sight in a
> rifle.
>
Again, ego: who the hell has the right to tell me how I should hunt?
That implies that you or someone else is more qualified to choose my
moral values than I am ... and when you do that, you've stepped over the
line.
> If you have never met hunters that haven't a clue how to sight in their
> rifle, then you are very lucky. Around Oct. 1. If you come to our range I
> can show you dozens a day. And these are the more serious ones that at least
> go to a range instead of sighting in on a paper plate the day before the
> season!
Been there, seen that! I used to belong to the Eugene, OR chapter of
IWLA and assist in their "sight in days" where they provided range
facilities and coaching for folks wanting to sight in their hunting
rifles.
It was somewhere between hilarious and scary as hell.
That doesn't mean they don't have every bit as much right to be out in
the woods as you do though.
> In any case I do think that all hunters should have to go through some sort
> of course in order to buy a hunting license. Killing an animal is a serious t
> hing to me. I don't think it should be taken lightly or attempted by people
> that have absolutely no training. Or worse, training by those that have no
> real knowledge.
You're right about hunting/killing being serious, but it is also
recreation. I detect a bit of elitist attitude, sort of a "looking down
your nose", which ruffles my feathers.
I go back to ... neither you nor anyone else is qualified to *JUDGE*
whether I can hunt. Learn it, know it, live it.
> For those hunters to whom this is all not necessary, it is a little trouble
> they have to go through in order to insure that some people will get the
> training they would never do on their own without having the that carrot
> enticing them.
>
> In other words, I do support hunter training in the US. I do like the carrot
> approach to this. If you disagree with it, you don't have to take the
> course, you just won't be able to hunt as many seasons as those that do.
> Possibly I am the only American in the group that does support testing as you
> say. So be it. Lots of people don't like a lot of what I believe. But
> hell, it's America. We can have minority opinions here.
>
That's fer sure. As much as I disagree with you, as much as your
opinion seems like a sell out of the basic moral fiber America was
formed from, you have a right to it and I'll support your right to
express it.
G'day and good shootin'!!
Tom
William Bowser
Jim;
I am sick and tired of being tested for everything from social disease,
to driving and now to shooting. Hunter numbers are down in most Western
States. I have hunted all my life, am a rancher and a great shot..(no I
don't shoot minute of angle, but I sure can hit hair of deer) and I defy
a bench rest man to shoot the same in a "field" situation. If people
would take a middle ground, like your Advanced course item as a strictly
volunteer program that is fine and let them have some "special" hunts.
This whole game managment thing is a guess at best at all the
inaccurately gathered information. ( In Montana I observed DFWP count
the same herd of elk three times)
This has nothing to do with other countries at all this is the United
States, I pay taxes, taxes propogate my game animals, I buy an
additional license to hunt my game, and a I abide by the laws of the
land.
We have been hunting for ages, we have been missing shots for ages, we
have been, at times, ignorant of many things we do. But, it has worked,
just the way it is is just fine with me. and I don't even mind if I
cannot have a semi-automatic military weapon. Just some thoughts from
the "West"
Most Respectfully'
--
<<<W.C.Bowser>>>
**The Media's handling of all matters, domestic
and foreign,is hopelessly inept and always dangerously
misleading...**
Jim...@aol.com
In a message dated 7/10/97 4:32:07 PM rutl...@sou.edu wrote:
Jim Cuda wrote:
>> Well Tom, here is one American that would agree to testing. And I am
>> certainly not going to tell someone in another country that the laws that
>> they support and fully agree with are all wrong! There is a saying from
>> Ancient Greece that goes: "When traveling abroad, look not back on your
own
>> borders." I think that it can be applied to traveling in cyber space
today.
>There is some truth to what you say ... but I think the discussion *is*
about USA ... the saying I know is "when in Rome, do as the Romans do."
>In this discussion, for the most part is foreigners telling Americans
how we should run our railroad, which is in appropriate.
Well I never took it that way. What I read was other hunters from other
countries giving their experiences with how to handle a problem. I have
lived in a few different parts of the world and visited many more. I have
seen at least as many Americans telling other people how to live as
"foreigners" telling Americans how to live. I am an American through and
through. It doesn't mean that I won't listen to what others have to say.
And I certainly am not going to tell them what they agree upon as a group is
wrong.
>Sharing of information is one thing, but gettin' uppity and telling me
what my standards should be is inappropriate ... they don't live here,
>they have no right to comment unless invited to comment.
I could be wrong on this but I thought rec.hunting was for all hunters, no
matter the country. The way I see it is that they have just as much right to
express an opinion on hunting methods or ethics as anyone with a US passport.
Like I said, I never read anything "uppity" in it at all. Maybe I missed a
few posts.
>> I do support some sort of testing for hunters. Maybe I have seen far too
>> much incompetency. Possibly it only takes place in the areas I happen to
> >hunt (The Western US, Alaska, Africa, mostly). I sort of doubt it though.
>Ok ... problem. Your selection of "incompetency" as a descriptor reeks
of a judgemental attitude.
Absolutely right! If a person is incapable of even hitting a 5 foot square
target at a 100 yards I would certainly call them incompetent. Wouldn't you?
If not there has to be some point that even you would call someone an
incompetent shooter. We make judgements on people all the time. I see
nothing so wrong with this. Shooting competency can be easily improved. No
one is being denied anything that a minimum amount of effort wouldn't cure.
>I, too, hunt the Western US ... and I believe I've seen the same things
you have and I, too, am disturbed. However ... getting into testing
>implies that someone is *qualified* to apply the test ... which is plain
horse puckey. No one, including you, is qualified to decide whether I'm
>competent to hunt
Well I have no idea what to say to that. You say you have seen the same
things I have and are disturbed by them. Aren't you making a judgement of
these actions? As to no one being qualified to decide whether you are
competent to hunt, well it is going to happen whether you like it or not.
Many states now have some sort of mandatory testing for first time hunters
born after a certain date. More will do so. Programs like AHE will
eventually put more and more of the better hunting in the realm of those that
pass qualifications -that are set by the wildlife departments. So there are
already people here in the US telling you whether you are competent to hunt
or not. If you don't believe me try hunting in a special AHE season with out
the proper qualifications.
It will be a slow process here in the US, unlike in Europe, but someday
every hunter will have gone through some sort of a qualification in order to
buy a hunting license.
>Oregon has a similar program. I think it's an interesting approach. To
apply it to *all* hunting would be counter productive. As I said
>before, most Americans wouldn't put up with that crap ... they'd poach
instead.
I seriously doubt that most hunters would poach instead of taking a course.
If so they deserve to be arrested.
>Ask a game warden some time just how comfortable they are asking for
licenses, etc, even when the folks are legal. When it comes to
>capturing poachers ... well, that's about the most dangerous part of a
game warden's job ... and the number of poachers which would be created
>by such a testing program would absolutely explode.
Such a program is already in place. Hunters that haven't passed the test
cannot legally hunt in areas or seasons reserved for those that have. I know
a few game wardens and they have no problems with people poaching tin these
reserved areas or seasons. Most simply want to know how they can get the
certification so they to can participate
There is also the requirement that hunters born after a certain date or under
the age of 18 take a course in hunter safety. You may be 35 years of age,
have hunted all your life, but if you haven't taken a hunter safety course
you cannot buy a hunting license in Colorado for instance. The truth is that
there is testing and qualification going on in the US. It just isn't as
formalized or as strict as in Europe yet.
>> The program is voluntary. What
>> the graduates gets is the right to enter into special drawings and hunt
>> seasons and areas reserved for AHE graduates. These seasons and areas
>> increase in number every year. I have heard a few hunters complain about
the
>> special treatment, to which I reply "Take the course!"
>Correct answer! If'n they don't like it, they can hunt general season,
but they *can hunt* ... which is a critical difference.
That depends. They can't hunt at all in Washington State without proof of
having taken a Hunter Safety course if they were born after Jan. 1, 1972.
Eventually this will mean that everyone that hunts in this state will have
to take a course. I haven't heard of any rebellion yet. I believe Colorado
as a 'born after' date of 1949. I don't know if there is such a requirement
in Oregon or not. However if there is not, I bet there will soon be.
>> Of course passing the exam doesn't mean that a graduate is a great shot
(for
>> instance in the shotgunning part in Washington State a person only has to
hit
>> 20 out of 25 targets at either trap or skeet) or that he will be an
ethical
>> hunter. It does mean that he has done more than plop down $18 for a
license
>> though. He at least knows how he is supposed to hunt, and how to sight in
a
>> rifle.
>Again, ego: who the hell has the right to tell me how I should hunt?
That implies that you or someone else is more qualified to choose my
>moral values than I am ... and when you do that, you've stepped over the
line.
Well the Washington Department of Fish And Wildlife has the right to tell you
if you come up here. They will also tell you when you can hunt and what you
can hunt. That is how we as hunters decided a long time ago we could best
protect our wildlife resource. Of course we can go back to the 19th century
when all ethical judgements concerning hunting, including limits, seasons,
and species, were left to the individual, but I for one much prefer this
method.
>Been there, seen that! I used to belong to the Eugene, OR chapter of
IWLA and assist in their "sight in days" where they provided range
>facilities and coaching for folks wanting to sight in their hunting
rifles.
>It was somewhere between hilarious and scary as hell.
That sounds like an egotistical, elitist, judgment call to me! ;-)
>That doesn't mean they don't have every bit as much right to be out in
the woods as you do though.
I completely disagree. If you think that some of these people should be out
hunting when they barely know how to load their rifles, then you and I really
part company. I definitely think they should not be out there. At least not
until they learn the basics. That is what the different programs are
attempting to do.
>> In any case I do think that all hunters should have to go through some
sort
>> of course in order to buy a hunting license. Killing an animal is a seriou
s t
>> hing to me. I don't think it should be taken lightly or attempted by
people
>>that have absolutely no training. Or worse, training by those that have no
>>real knowledge.
>You're right about hunting/killing being serious, but it is also
recreation. I detect a bit of elitist attitude, sort of a "looking down
>your nose", which ruffles my feathers.
Well I am hardly an elitist. My concern is that an animal is given a quick
and humane death. Not gut shot by some guy that has $18 and nothing else to
do that weekend. If by elitist you mean that I think people that go hunting
should be serious about it, you are right. Absolutely. Hunting isn't
recreation like bowling. It is much more serious than that. If you can't
bowl and go anyway, you humiliate yourself. If you can't shoot and go
hunting you wound animals that suffer needlessly and are wasted. Animals
that others appreciate far more than a guy that won't even bother to learn
how to shoot a rifle. If not liking that carefree, careless, lazy attitude
is elitist, well call me an elitist then. (But not The Elitist).
>I go back to ... neither you nor anyone else is qualified to *JUDGE*
whether I can hunt. Learn it, know it, live it
And I go back to telling you that the Department of Wildlife already *JUDGES*
you. At least in this state, and many others.
Good Hunting,
Jim
Joseph L Lunenschloss
First I posted my views about increased regulation, and how it should
be viewed with a jaundiced eye, then Jonis <sbra...@sn.no> wrote:
Me first:
>>Freedom is a precious thing...that once lost, is very hard to regain.
>>I am amazed that people would even discuss **any** new regulations to
>>their lives without imposing very strict terms of performance on those
>>regulations. I am also amazed that anyone would spend a moment of
>>their time discussing new regulations when the *problem* to which
>>those regulations are directed, has not even been proven or
>>quantified.
>>
>>If we applied these standards to gun control regulations, or any other
>>for that matter, I expect the USA would have guns laws much akin to
>>what we had before 1968, and Australia and Britain, and Canada, etc
>>would also be very different today.
>Jonis replies:
>One thing though - wouldn't it be a hell of a lot better if, for
>example, the NRA and other hunting organizations could take care of
>this sort of regulation before anyone in the governtment, that has
>litterally no idea on how it works, were to start fondling around with
>it ?
Me again:
Not only no...but hell no! Until someone proves this is a major
problem no further discussion is warranted. I don't care who
implements the "remedy" to this "problem".
Yes I've seen the posts by those who have noticed many hunters don't
know how to sight in a rifle properly, and I can add my own little
personal experiences as testimony to this, since I sighted in many
hunting rifles for customers when I was in the gun business. Many of
those customers had hunted for years with badly out of kilter
sights/scopes....So what?
Where is the evidence that large numbers of game animals are being
wounded by incompetent hunters? This is another one of these..."Sounds
reasonable, let's pass a law" deals. I do not, will not, or cannot
accept the need just because in the eyes of some, "...it sounds
reasonable..." I need proof. (The animal rights activists have been
looking for proof of this very thing for years....and they have been
unsuccessful...but have at it).
And after that little exercise we need to examine the costs of these
regulations and balance those against the benefits.
>Jonis:
>But I agree, freedom is easier to keep than to regain.
How very true.
>Jonis gain:
>I understand how you americans feel about this, and should probably
>try to keep my fingers away from the keyboard before I get VERY
>unpopular in here. And I wouldn't want that to happen...
>
>Jonis
>
Me again:
I hope we can accept the rights of others to hold differing views on
this list.
I can only add that from my vantage point "across the pond" that we
Americans are not the only ones who should be touchy about this. It
seems like alot of *bad, *bad*, *very bad*, legislation has come about
in the "old world" lately. Is anybody listening?
joe
Tim Mickelson
At 09:34 AM 7/10/97 -0700, you wrote:
>Jim...@aol.com wrote:
>> Possibly I am the only American in the group that does support testing as you
>> say. So be it. Lots of people don't like a lot of what I believe. But
>> hell, it's America. We can have minority opinions here.
>>
No Jim, you aren't the only American who would like to see some sort of
training. I think it would go a long way toward improving our image to the
non-hunting public. It doesn't even need to be a test, just some sort of
informal class would go a long way.
Tim M/OR
tim...@open.org
http://www.open.org/timmick
Don Abernathey
Joseph L Lunenschloss wrote:
>
> As a further addition to the thread that ought to, but refuses to,
> die....and regarding this crazy notion of requiring some sort of
>
> >
> >I notice that everyone who has supported such regulation in this
> >discussion (so far) has been from another country. I have not seen
> >*one* American support such a notion. There's a reason for that:
> >reality. We're dealing with a different situation. Until you deal with
> >*our reality*, in it's entireity, you can't devise a practical answer
> >
> >Tom
> >
>
> I agree with what Tom has said here but I would like to suggest a
> little different take on the willingness those in other countries seem
> to show for increased regulation. I have also noticed that those in
> less "free" countries, (wrt. firearms regulation at least), seem all
> too willing to embrace new regulation.
>
> My first question would be: just how *BIG* a problem is this anyway?
> In my 35+ years of hunting in the USA, I haven't seen this to be a
> problem of any great import. Yet here we have a serious discussion
> about increased regulation to alleviate this "problem".
Hello!
Thank you for an intelligent contribution to this subject!
I grow weary of "solutions" to non-problems.
I groan at the thought of doo-gooders trying to make me "safe".
I grow nauseaus when I hear hunters and fisherman bicker with each other
over what is ethical, sportsmanlike, etc.
I get downright ticked-off everytime some idiot hunting/fishing
organization passes legislation pushing hunting and fishing one step
closer towards elitism.
This is America! A possible definition of freedom (which I read here
somewhere - you know who you are - thanks!) is allowing someone to do
something that you personally may not like.
I'm sick of prima-donna fly-fishing clowns in their $500 outfits with
their $200 of tackle pushing legislation and rules that eliminate the
opportunity of a kid to take his catch home and eat it.
I'm not fond of hunting organizations that support the bear/cougar
hunting with dogs/bait bans because their members felt it is "unethical"
or "unsportsmanlike". See my above description of the once-a-year guided
fly fisherman.
My rant is finished. I'm off my soapbox.
Thank you
Don Abernathey
--
The above comments are my own and not my employer's. Have a great day!
Jonis
I think there's been a lot of good arguements in this thread. I'm no
American, and as many have pointed out, I shouldn't try to tell you
how to handle this. I'm not. I'm merely trying to give you an idea on
how it will become, and I do hope there will be somekind of testing of
hunters sooner or later.
The reasons are not too difficult to understand either. I call myself
a hunter. People see me, and they see a hunter. Then they hear that in
the US or in any other country for that matter, *hunters* wound a lot
of animals. (Not that they do, but for instance). What do they think ?
*Hunters* wound a lot of animals.
I've been discussing the Uk foxhunting in uk.politics.animals. This is
not what I call hunting, but the people who do this call themselves
*hunters*. By doing that they give ME a bad reputation. Don't try to
contadict me on this, I've experienced it.
Being a hunter is not "having a hobby". It's a lifestyle, and a great
responsibility. It could be compared with driving Formula 1 on the
highway during the morning rush. Generally, hunting causes less injury
than most hobbies, but still, a gun is not a toy. And in the urbanized
world we live in, hunters can't isolate from the fact that we are a
minority in the society, and that powerful groupings are watching us.
Just check out talk.politics.animals, or dig up ALF's webpage.
A hunting test doesn't hurt. Nor do a shooting test. Hell, I enjoyed
the huntingtest al Norwegian hunters have to pass, and I think it's
cool making small holes in the cardboard. And as a reward I am allowed
to hunt. With the huntingtest, I can hunt for life, with the shooting
test, for a year. I think that's a carrot big enough.
If a hunter, a responsible hunter, is not capable of, or doesn't have
the responsibility to test his skills every once in a while, there is
no telling what may happen. Would you let a 18 year old person out on
the road without testing him ? Tell me it's not the same thing. It's
not, but it's close enough for me. It's not my intention to force
anyone away from hunting. But I do think that by testing shooting
skills, hunters can become better. And that goes for everyone, no
matter how well they shoot.
And by the way, who would poach when it costs them like 5$ and five
cartidges to do it legally ?
Jonis
Visit Jonis Huntingpages
http://home.sn.no/~sbragsta/hunters.htm
Member of the Huntingtrail
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark A. Yedinak
Jim...@aol.com wrote:
>
> In a message dated 7/10/97 4:32:07 PM rutl...@sou.edu wrote:
>
> Jim Cuda wrote:
>
> >> I do support some sort of testing for hunters. Maybe I have seen far too
> >> much incompetency. Possibly it only takes place in the areas I happen to
> > >hunt (The Western US, Alaska, Africa, mostly). I sort of doubt it though.
>
> >Ok ... problem. Your selection of "incompetency" as a descriptor reeks
> of a judgemental attitude.
>
> Absolutely right! If a person is incapable of even hitting a 5 foot square
> target at a 100 yards I would certainly call them incompetent. Wouldn't you?
> If not there has to be some point that even you would call someone an
> incompetent shooter. We make judgements on people all the time. I see
> nothing so wrong with this. Shooting competency can be easily improved. No
> one is being denied anything that a minimum amount of effort wouldn't cure.
So, what if an individual knows they are a lousy shot at 100 yards and
will never take a shot over 50? Under the above proposal that person
would not be allowed to hunt. As long as an individual knows and hunts
within their abilities there is no problem. However, you have major
problems when you attempt to decide what those abilities for all should
be.
Also, hitting a 5 foot square wouldn't do anything to limit the number
of wounded animals. The kill zone on a deer is much smaller than a 5
foot square. As a matter of fact, the whole deer is smaller than a 5
foot square. So, the above test proves nothing and does nothing to
improve hunting.
[snip]
As far as a hunter's safety class is concerned, they can be useful.
However, if that is the sole judgement, I doubt it will keep many people
out of the field. I just completed the Illinois Hunter's Safety course.
It was interesting. I picked up a few things as well. However, it was a
complete joke if it were to be used to "qualify" who would be in the
field. The test consisted of 30 or 50 questions. I don't recall the
exact number. In order to pass, you needed to correctly answer 60%
correct. The questions were not difficult. As a matter of fact, as I was
speaking to one of the instructors, he indicated the test was written so
that someone with a third grade education to comprehend it ans pass it.
That kind of test would hardly keep poor hunters out of the field.
Leave attendance of the courses voluntary. As others have said, we
already have far too many rules, tests and regulations than we need. We
certainly don't need more.
--
Mark A. Yedinak - Lead Engineer * Don't take life
Tellabs Operations, Inc. * seriously, you will
Phone: 1-630-378-6020 * never make it out
email: myed...@tellabs.com * alive!
ventri...@vnet.ibm.com
In <97071011323...@emout02.mail.aol.com>, Jim...@aol.com writes:
| On Wed, 9 Jul 1997 08:19:16 -0700, rutledge <rutl...@sou.edu> wrote:
|
| >
| >I notice that everyone who has supported such regulation in this
| >discussion (so far) has been from another country. I have not seen
| >*one* American support such a notion. There's a reason for that:
| >reality. We're dealing with a different situation. Until you deal with
| >*our reality*, in it's entireity, you can't devise a practical answer
| >for us
|
|
| certainly not going to tell someone in another country that the laws that
| they support and fully agree with are all wrong! There is a saying from
| Ancient Greece that goes: "When traveling abroad, look not back on your own
| borders." I think that it can be applied to traveling in cyber space today.
|
| much incompetency. Possibly it only takes place in the areas I happen to
| hunt (The Western US, Alaska, Africa, mostly). I sort of doubt it though.
|
| that is using the carrot approach. The wildlife departments of certain
| states have a program that is called something like Advanced Hunter Education
| (AHE). In order to pass this program a hunter must not only show shooting
| ability, he must also pass a written test that includes basic game
| management, ethics, animal identification, etc. There is also a certain
| the graduates gets is the right to enter into special drawings and hunt
| seasons and areas reserved for AHE graduates. These seasons and areas
| increase in number every year. I have heard a few hunters complain about the
| special treatment, to which I reply "Take the course!"
If these special seasons and areas increase in number every year,
eventually that will have to reduce the seasons and areas available
to hunters who need there egos boosted by taking some advanced test
that doesn't prove squat. Everything you mentioned above is covered
by the Colorado Hunter Safety class, which is already required for
a CO hunting license.
I don't see how a marksmanship test would improve anything. If
someone wants to take one to make them feel superior to me, fine.
When folks start talking about making it a requirement, I get
pretty pissed.
How well I shoot at 100 yards is nobody's business. NOBODY'S.
I now my limits and the limits of my rifle and I won't even try
to shoot beyond that in the field. If I shoot deer inside 30
yards, what difference does it make how well I shoot at 100, or
200? None.
Go to DejaNews and search the "Old" database for posts that contain
rec.hunting & test & ventriloquist. I don't want to say everything
I said last winter over and over.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
| Dan Campbell | I'm a ventriloquist - I can speak for anyone! |
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
- Remove the vowels from "ventriloquist" to send e-mail.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim...@aol.com
William,
I think everyone is sick and tired of being tested and filling out forms,
etc. However I doubt that you would want to go back to how it was when
hunting was truly free. Not long ago in this country the animals belonged to
everyone and therefore no one. It took a lot of work to get to where we are
now thanks to the efforts of men like Theodore Roosevelt and Aldo Leopold.
You really wouldn't want those under the age of 18 to be able to buy a
hunting license without taking a hunter safety course would you? I think
asking anyone that starts hunting to take a course is a reasonable request.
Just because some may happen to be 45 years old doesn't mean he knows a
thing about hunting if he has never done it before. In fact odds are he
knows far less than the youngster that grows up in a hunting family. There
are more people than you might think that start hunting at a later age and
never get any sort of formal training. In fact they get no training
whatsoever.
I know for someone like you it is a pain and isn't at all necessary. But for
some people it certainly is. In Washington state in 1994 there was a
wounding mortality study done on three separate elk herds in both eastern and
western Washington. The mortality rate was 7%. Some of our European
participants claim a wounding mortality rate of less than half of that. Some
of this difference can be explained by difference in terrain, population
density, etc. However I truly believe that the schooling that European
hunters get is responsible for most of the difference.
Again I am not saying that all American hunters are poor shots. Far from it.
I have talked to a few PH's in Africa that have told me that Americans can
be absolutely the best shots. But also the worse. A German hunter on the
other hand, may not be the best shot in the world, but if he hunts in Germany
he knows how to at least shoot a rifle. (A PH told me that he had one
American bring a brand new Weatherby rifle to him and ask to be shown how to
load it! Do you think someone liek that is qualified to hutn on their own?)
Of course we could never have as strict a system as Germany has. It is far
too formal and structured for the US. Too Germantic one might say. But a
simple shooting test once in your life doesn't seem all that bad a thing to
me.
As far as your insights on wildlife management goes, I agree that the
wildlife departments are far from perfect and wildlife management sure isn't
a hard science, but what is the alternative? Let everyone decide for
themselves when, where, and how they want to hunt?
I cuss at our department as much as anyone. But I sure wouldn't want them to
go disappear even if it meant no more regulation and I was more "free' to
hunt any way I desired.
As bad as your department in Montana might seem, I am certain ours is worse.
In fact I will say it is without a doubt the worse department of wildlife in
the West. I say this knowing some people in the department will read this
and know who I am! However I am not all that certain that they would
strongly disagree with me! They are moving in a different direction now.
Whether it will actually do any good or not remains to be seen. (In
fairness I will say that our department has a lot of different interests to
contend with. Not least among them is a treaty with the Indians dating back
to the mid 19th century that lawyers are making a career with in the courts.
Plus there are commercial as well as sporting interests, all fighting for
the same resources).
So consider yourself lucky! As much as you might hate the idea of the your
wildlife department controlling your hunting, it could be worse. You could
live in a state like Washington where all wildlife issues are a political hot
potato.
Good Hunting,
Jim
In a message dated 7/11/97 7:13:26 AM, bbo...@america.com wrote:
<<Jim;
I am sick and tired of being tested for everything from social disease,
to driving and now to shooting. Hunter numbers are down in most Western
States. I have hunted all my life, am a rancher and a great shot..(no I
don't shoot minute of angle, but I sure can hit hair of deer) and I defy
a bench rest man to shoot the same in a "field" situation. If people
would take a middle ground, like your Advanced course item as a strictly
volunteer program that is fine and let them have some "special" hunts.
This whole game managment thing is a guess at best at all the
inaccurately gathered information. ( In Montana I observed DFWP count
the same herd of elk three times)
This has nothing to do with other countries at all this is the United
States, I pay taxes, taxes propogate my game animals, I buy an
additional license to hunt my game, and a I abide by the laws of the
land.
We have been hunting for ages, we have been missing shots for ages, we
have been, at times, ignorant of many things we do. But, it has worked,
just the way it is is just fine with me. and I don't even mind if I
cannot have a semi-automatic military weapon. Just some thoughts from
the "We>>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jonis
>If these special seasons and areas increase in number every year,
>eventually that will have to reduce the seasons and areas available
>to hunters who need there egos boosted by taking some advanced test
>that doesn't prove squat. Everything you mentioned above is covered
>by the Colorado Hunter Safety class, which is already required for
>a CO hunting license.
>
>I don't see how a marksmanship test would improve anything. If
>someone wants to take one to make them feel superior to me, fine.
>When folks start talking about making it a requirement, I get
>pretty pissed.
>
>How well I shoot at 100 yards is nobody's business. NOBODY'S.
>I now my limits and the limits of my rifle and I won't even try
>to shoot beyond that in the field. If I shoot deer inside 30
>yards, what difference does it make how well I shoot at 100, or
>200? None.
Great for you. However, a lot of hunters DON'T know their limits. I've
heard of hunters trying shots at 500 metres. And it's not hard to
understand how that ends. The point is that there are a lot of hunters
out there that knows zip about how a bullet moves, how the rifle works
and how difficult it is to hit anything at that distance. A test may
not be the answer.
Whatever you say, won't change the fact that shooting practice, no
matter if there's a test or not, will improve shoting skills, and make
some understand how things work.
>Go to DejaNews and search the "Old" database for posts that contain
>rec.hunting & test & ventriloquist. I don't want to say everything
>I said last winter over and over.
>
>
>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>| Dan Campbell | I'm a ventriloquist - I can speak for anyone! |
>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>- Remove the vowels from "ventriloquist" to send e-mail.
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Visit the rec.hunting and rec.hunting.dogs FAQ Home Page at:
> http://sportsmansweb.com/hunting/
>
>To leave the Hunting listserv list, send a message with SIGNOFF HUNTING
>in the *body* to list...@listserv.tamu.edu
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jonis
Tom and Kelly
Mark A. Yedinak wrote:
> So, what if an individual knows they are a lousy shot at 100 yards and
> will never take a shot over 50? Under the above proposal that person
> would not be allowed to hunt. As long as an individual knows and hunts
> within their abilities there is no problem. However, you have major
> problems when you attempt to decide what those abilities for all should
> be.
Glad you brought this up Mark, I would call this person a good hunter
for knowing his limits.
Tom's hunting page: http://www.pioneernet.net/kellyntom/tom2.htm
Charlie Sorsby
In article <97071014025...@emout01.mail.aol.com>,
<Jim...@aol.com> wrote:
=
= I could be wrong on this but I thought rec.hunting was for all hunters, no
= matter the country. The way I see it is that they have just as much right to
= express an opinion on hunting methods or ethics as anyone with a US passport.
= Like I said, I never read anything "uppity" in it at all. Maybe I missed a
= few posts.
Well, I missed the beginning of this thread so perhaps I shouldn't
comment. I honestly don't know if anyone has been uppity or not.
So I'll just state my opinion and make some comments after
reminding everyone of the old saying: "If the shoe fits, wear it."
Yes, this (and the rest of Usenet) *is* an international forum.
That being true, everyone may express their opinion. I have no
problem with that. Expressed appropriately, I enjoy learning about
other cultures, other places.
But there is a difference between saying "This is the way we do it
here" and "This is the way *you* should do it."
I've been following Usenet for the better part of 20 years--well
before there *was* an Internet, even before I had access to the
ARPANet. I've seen people on *both* sides of the oceans presume
not only to judge others by their own culture but insist that
others live by the culture of the poster. People in the US
implying, if not outright saying, that those in Europe and the UK
must be stupid not to do things our way. And vice versa.
Yes, everyone has a right to an opinion but *NO ONE* has a right to
force their opinion on anyone else.
Years ago there was a flurry of ?ET theories. PET--Parent
Effectiveness Training, something else ET for managers or
supervisors or workers or .... The underlying theme of all of the
?ET stuff was the "I" statement.
Regardless of what country you live in, consider the difference
between "You must do what we do" or even "You should do what we do"
from someone from another country and that same person saying "I
think you would be well served by trying ..." or "I have found that
.... is a good idea." Well, you get the idea. One of the surest
ways to get me to oppose something is for someone to try to shove
it down my throat. I'll bet there are a lot out there who respond
similarly.
= Such a program is already in place. Hunters that haven't passed the test
= cannot legally hunt in areas or seasons reserved for those that have. I know
= a few game wardens and they have no problems with people poaching tin these
= reserved areas or seasons. Most simply want to know how they can get the
= certification so they to can participate
I assume that here you are speaking of *voluntary* testing with, I
assume, a reward if you volunteer. I've no problem with that.
Within reason. I.e. if a person is tested, they get to hunt a
special area or a special season. I *would* have a problem if
"voluntary" were to mean the same thing as it does in many
contexts:
"You are not required to provide the requested information
but if you don't you won't get the job."
"We don't require that you submit to drug testing but if
you don't you won't get the job."
"Hunter competency testing is purely voluntary but if you
don't participate you can't have a license."
Some voluntary, eh? It is stuff like that that many of us are very
concerned about. Can't happen? Bull$#!+
= There is also the requirement that hunters born after a certain date or under
= the age of 18 take a course in hunter safety. You may be 35 years of age,
= have hunted all your life, but if you haven't taken a hunter safety course
= you cannot buy a hunting license in Colorado for instance. The truth is that
= there is testing and qualification going on in the US. It just isn't as
= formalized or as strict as in Europe yet.
^^^\
\____!!!!!!!
= That depends. They can't hunt at all in Washington State without proof of
= having taken a Hunter Safety course if they were born after Jan. 1, 1972.
= Eventually this will mean that everyone that hunts in this state will have
= to take a course. I haven't heard of any rebellion yet. I believe Colorado
= as a 'born after' date of 1949. I don't know if there is such a requirement
= in Oregon or not. However if there is not, I bet there will soon be.
Hunter safety training (which I support) is beginning to sound like
the Saturday Night Special of the hunting community. :{
You know the drill: "Let us ban Saturday Night Specials and we
won't take away all of your guns." "Now let us ban 'assault
rifles' and we won't take away all of your guns." ...
How many people rebelled against banning "Saturday Night Specials"?
Perhaps only those who couldn't afford a decent gun?
= Well the Washington Department of Fish And Wildlife has the right to tell you
= if you come up here. They will also tell you when you can hunt and what you
= can hunt. That is how we as hunters decided a long time ago we could best
= protect our wildlife resource. Of course we can go back to the 19th century
= when all ethical judgements concerning hunting, including limits, seasons,
= and species, were left to the individual, but I for one much prefer this
= method.
Tell you what. Consider the following "what if":
Suppose that hunters agree to "reasonable" competency tests.
Perhaps voluntary for special hunts at first. In a few years, it
is suggested that the world hasn't come to an end for these
volunteers, why should all the rest of you object if it is made a
requirement for the license; after all, only moderate competence
is needed. Almost everyone will pass. [Aside: Just like for a
driving license. And we all know how competent the average driver
is. :} But, there isn't a bunch of noisy groups screaming that
driving is immoral. Yet.]
OK, back to your regularly scheduled "what if." A few more years
go by. Some group who doesn't like hunting decides that the
Wildlife Agency (or whomever is regulating the testing) is too easy
on the hunters. The tests are too easy. A petition is got up for
a referendum to set "minimum standards of competency." Minimum
standards promoted by, say, PETA? Fund for Animals? ... Strident
and emotional commercials sprout from your TV screen as if by
magic. Suffering animals. The weeping widow of one of the rare
hunting fatalities--and they *are* rare. ... Well, you get the
picture. Remember game management by referendum? Hunting bear or
lion with dogs? Bear over bait? Various seasons and special
hunts? The proposed bison hunt at (was it?) Fort Wingate to cull
the herd? Injunctions and referenda.
Can't happen here? Can't happen like that? How many of you
thought ten or twenty years ago that game management could ever be
by referendum and injunction?
Again, I have no problem with a truly voluntary approach. Not even
with a rewards-oriented approach--provided that the rewards are
reasonable. That they don't start out with the reward becoming
ever more of the available hunting time and space and the left
overs for "those other hunters" shrinking and shrinking...
I guess maybe I was born about 200 years too late... Less
government is the best government.
--
Best regards,
Charlie "Older than dirt" Sorsby Los Alamos, NM "I'm the NRA!"
c...@swcp.com www.swcp.com/~crs Life Member since 1965
Charlie Sorsby
In article <33C512...@pyramid.com>, Don Abernathey <d...@pyramid.com> wrote:
[...Quoted text deleted in the interest of bandwidth...]
[......And I'm leaving only enough of this to identify the post...]
= Hello!
=
= Thank you for an intelligent contribution to this subject!
=
= I grow weary of "solutions" to non-problems.
[...]
= This is America! A possible definition of freedom (which I read here
= somewhere - you know who you are - thanks!) is allowing someone to do
= something that you personally may not like.
[...]
= I'm not fond of hunting organizations that support the bear/cougar
= hunting with dogs/bait bans because their members felt it is "unethical"
= or "unsportsmanlike". See my above description of the once-a-year guided
= fly fisherman.
[...]
= Don Abernathey
AMEN!!!!
Check the statistics. Hunting is safer now than it has ever been.
While there are poachers and slob hunters, the folks who hang out
in this news group show that ethics are alive and well.
The government intrudes quite enough into our lives as it is; let's
not invite still more intrusion.
Charlie Sorsby
In article <97071011323...@emout02.mail.aol.com>,
<Jim...@aol.com> wrote:
= On Wed, 9 Jul 1997 08:19:16 -0700, rutledge <rutl...@sou.edu> wrote:
=
= >
= >I notice that everyone who has supported such regulation in this
= >discussion (so far) has been from another country. I have not seen
= >*one* American support such a notion. There's a reason for that:
= >reality. We're dealing with a different situation. Until you deal with
= >*our reality*, in it's entireity, you can't devise a practical answer
= >for us
=
=
= Well Tom, here is one American that would agree to testing. And I am
= certainly not going to tell someone in another country that the laws that
= they support and fully agree with are all wrong! There is a saying from
Why? If someone from another country tells us that we need a law
like theirs, aren't they telling us that *our* laws are all wrong?
There is a difference between telling someone from another country
that their laws are not right for us and telling them that their
laws are "all wrong!" for them. But it works both ways. From here
or from there--where ever "there" happens to be.
It seems to me that that is the point that Tom was making.
And I've seen it done both ways on Usenet over the years--not just
in shooting-oriented news groups but in many diverse news groups.
People from the US being presumptuous enough to tell someone in
another country that their laws are all wet and that they should
have laws just like ours. And people in other countries telling us
that *our* laws are all wet and that we should have laws just like
theirs. I guess that there's no shortage of presumptuousness one
either side of the Atlantic or the Pacific.
But I would be the last to tell them that their laws are all
wrong--for them. Just because their laws may not be all wrong
*for* *them* doesn't mean that they are not all wrong for us.
= Ancient Greece that goes: "When traveling abroad, look not back on your own
= borders." I think that it can be applied to traveling in cyber space today.
Of course it can. But that, too, works both ways. We have no
business criticizing another country's laws--for *them*. But, by
the same token, folks from other countries have no business
criticizing *our* laws--for *us*.
= I do support some sort of testing for hunters. Maybe I have seen far too
= much incompetency. Possibly it only takes place in the areas I happen to
= hunt (The Western US, Alaska, Africa, mostly). I sort of doubt it though.
Drivers are routinely tested for the "privilege" of driving. I
don't know about you but I've seen on scarcity of incompetent and
stupid and thoughtless drivers. Speed and you're dead meat but it
seems to be perfectly OK to drive up the road at anywhere from
residential street speeds to open-highway speeds while reading a
book or a magazine or a news paper. Or to decide that you need to
attach a towel or such to a back window as a shade while passing a
truck at some 70 mph. Drivers' testing have not removed idiots
like that. What makes you think that hunters testing will remove
the sorts of hunters who, without coercion would never think of
becoming "competent" whatever that may mean to you. In my opinion,
if they are too lazy or too ignorant or too stupid to learn how to
use a weapon before they go out in the field with it, no amount of
testing is going to change that--any more than it has prevented
drivers from doing the things I just described. And I've seen
everything that I described on the roads at points scattered across
the country and through time.
I, too, hunt the western US. And, while I've seen the occasional
twit, I've seen nothing that would warrant yet another intrusion by
a government that is growing like a cancer without our help.
= The form of testing that I like is the what a few Western states have done,
= that is using the carrot approach. The wildlife departments of certain
I've already commented upon the "carrot approach" in another post
and won't belabor the point here.
= Although the exam is not difficult, a person must read the material and study
= to pass it. It really doesn't matter if you have been hunting 3 lifetimes,
So how does this differ from *existing* hunter safety classes?
= some of the material is not the kind of thing a hunter would normally know.
= I have a friend that is a game warden and he couldn't pass the thing without
= studying. (Although I do believe he did know the politcal structure of the
= WDFW!).
Are you saying that knowledge of the political structure of the
WDFW (whatever-the-hell that is) is a valid criterion of competence
for a hunter? Maybe the reason that a person who's been "hunting 3
lifetimes" wouldn't know some of that stuff is that it isn't
relevant to honest-to-god hunting. *THAT* is the very thing that
is wrong with competency testing. What is "competency"? That, and
the fact that all definitions of competence are, of necessity,
arbitrary.
Who is the more competent hunter? One who can't hit an arbitrary
target at 50 yards and *religiously* doesn't take a shot that is
beyond 60 yards? Or one who can hit that same target at 300 yards
but routinely tries to hit game at 600 yards (either intentionally
or because he doesn't know the difference between 300 yards and 600
yards)?
If the ethics part of existing hunter safety classes doesn't
convince a person to work within his own limits and those of his
equipment, yet another test sure won't.
at 100 yards but who can
= Of course passing the exam doesn't mean that a graduate is a great shot (for
= instance in the shotgunning part in Washington State a person only has to hit
= 20 out of 25 targets at either trap or skeet) or that he will be an ethical
20 out of 25 isn't to be sneezed at if you do it low-gun the way it
is done in the field and isn't relevant if you do it with a
pre-mounted gun as it is commonly done on a skeet or trap field.
They're two different sports.
= hunter. It does mean that he has done more than plop down $18 for a license
= though. He at least knows how he is supposed to hunt, and how to sight in a
= rifle.
Your last comment first: I don't know what the hunter safety
classes are like in your neck of the woods but I should think that
the general principles of sighting in are present in many such
*existing* classes.
As to doing more than "plop[ping] down $18 for a license" those who
give a damn will do that on their own; those who don't may know in
their head about things after being forced to take a class but will
no more give a damn about it after the class than before.
I apply the same criteria to these tests as I do to yet another gun
law: What good will it do? I am not convinced that it will to
much, that the results will be "statistically significant."
= If you have never met hunters that haven't a clue how to sight in their
= rifle, then you are very lucky. Around Oct. 1. If you come to our range I
= can show you dozens a day. And these are the more serious ones that at least
= go to a range instead of sighting in on a paper plate the day before the
= season!
So what's wrong with sighting in on a paper plate? And, for that
matter, what's wrong with sighting in the day before the season?
Oh, I realize that you are implying that they have done nothing all
the rest of the year. But you didn't *say* that. You said
sighting in on a paper plate the day before the season. I'll wager
that I can sight in my rifle just as well (and, more importantly,
just as safely) with a paper plate as on a range. And doing it the
day before the season gives less time for it to get out of whack! :)
Sorry--I couldn't resist that last sentence.
= In any case I do think that all hunters should have to go through some sort
= of course in order to buy a hunting license. Killing an animal is a serious t
= hing to me. I don't think it should be taken lightly or attempted by people
Of course it is. I would be very surprised if anyone here disputes
that--including those of us who believe that the gov't is big
enough and intrusive enough.
= that have absolutely no training. Or worse, training by those that have no
= real knowledge.
=
= For those hunters to whom this is all not necessary, it is a little trouble
= they have to go through in order to insure that some people will get the
= training they would never do on their own without having the that carrot
= enticing them.
Frankly, I think that you miss the point. Those others who
disagree with testing can correct me if I'm wrong about their
views. I don't think that any of use dispute the importance of
competence. We consider competence to be very important--but we
consider Freedom to be just as important. I, for one, don't
believe that the business of testing will do any significant thing
to improve the situation; it will only result in one more intrusion
of the government into our lives. Just as criminals don't obey gun
laws, those who don't give a damn won't start because they have to
pass some arbitrary test. The nations drivers are witness to that.
Well, my supper is done and getting cold. I apologize for any
incoherence herein--I've been alternating between writing this and
preparing supper.
Jim...@aol.com
ventri...@vnet.ibm.com wrote:
>If these special seasons and areas increase in number every year,
eventually that will have to reduce the seasons and areas available
>to hunters who need there egos boosted by taking some advanced test
that doesn't prove squat. Everything you mentioned above is covered
>by the Colorado Hunter Safety class, which is already required for
a CO hunting license.
That is right! They will increase. If you think that people take the course
to "get their egos boosted" you are mistaken. At least all the people that I
know certainly didn't take it for any such reason. Some take it because they
are interested in anything to do with hunting. Some take it in the hope of
learning something. Many, if not most, take it to take advantage of the
extra seasons and areas. I think it is a bit judgmental of you to assume
that people take the course for their ego's sake. After all it isn't that
difficult to pass. Just a little work is all.
> Everything you mentioned above is covered
>by the Colorado Hunter Safety class, which is already required for
a CO hunting license.
Well good then! I guess you are ahead of the nation in Colorado. Are you
for scrapping this requirement in CO then? Or maybe we shouldn't have the
same requirements in other states that you have in CO? CO WAS ahead of the
crowd in requiring anyone born after 1949 to take a Hunter Safety course.
This isn't the case in all states. I know for a fact that there is a basic
shooting requirement in the Colorado test since I took it a long time ago.
It isn't much, but it is something. Much better than having a salesman show
the prospective hunter how to load and fire the rifle.
>I don't see how a marksmanship test would improve anything. If
someone wants to take one to make them feel superior to me, fine.
>When folks start talking about making it a requirement, I get
pretty pissed.
The marksmanship test for the Washington state AHE is something that anyone
can pass. Anyone that wants to anyway. You can choose whichever weapon you
like. Bow, rifle, muzzle loader, pistol, shotgun. You have to shoot 80% in
only one of them. Liek shooting 20 out of 25 at trap or skeet. It can be
American trap or bunker or whatever. So long as it is at a formal range.
You can try as many times as you like within a certain period of time.
(Months). The shooting can be done at any range and the score is signed by
the range master. This isn't a tough test. What does it prove? That you
practiced enough to get 80%. In order to get that score once, you were
either very lucky or you learned something. The funny thing is that more
people practice, the luckier they generally get. Again I don't think anyone
takes this part of the test so they can "feel superior" to you or anyone
else. They want to get the certification is all.
>How well I shoot at 100 yards is nobody's business. NOBODY'S.
I now my limits and the limits of my rifle and I won't even try
>to shoot beyond that in the field. If I shoot deer inside 30
yards, what difference does it make how well I shoot at 100, or
200? None.
Well that would be great if it were the case with everyone. However I have
never met a hunter that would limit himself to 30 yard shots or less. The
rifle test is NOT difficult. I would guess that you or anyone else reading
this could pass it by just taking their rifle out of the safe, going to the
range, and firing the required shots. You wouldn't have to fine tune your
rifle, make up special handloads, or anything like that. So what's the
purpose of the test then if it is so easy? Well there are other people, that
aren't interested in hunting enough to read things like rec.hunting or
anything else. Hunting to them is something they think about a couple of
weeks before deer or elk season. The test was designed not so much for the
real serious, good hunters like yourself, but rather to entice the not so
serious hunters with the promise of extra hunting. The hope is that they
will learn something and become better hunters. You, and probably most, of
the reader of rec.hunting wouldn't learn much about hunting from an AHE
course. (Although you would probably learn more about the inner workings of
the wildlife department than you want to know! Someone there thought it was
important for us to know how the Dept. works). However you would be
surprised at how little some guy you see in the woods may know about hunting
and guns - and he is hunting right next to you.
You in Colorado have addressed this much problem years ago by requiring the
hunter safety course for anyone born after 1949. I would guess that
majority, or close to it, of the hunters in Colorado now have taken some sort
of course. That is not the case here. So the Department is addressing the
issue with the carrot method. Our own "born after" date, being 1972, doesn't
really address the majority of hunters - yet.
What is so bloody diabolical, or elitist about that?! The way I see it is
just catching up with Colorado. We can't turn back the clock, and it would
be impractical to suddenly say that everyone born after 1949 or any other
date, must have a Hunter Safety course. You have an education requirement
for hunters under the age of 46. They MUST take a course. Then you imply,
or rather state outright, that people that take a voluntary course are
egotists! Are you for getting rid of the requirement in CO? Do you think a
45 year old that flies in from NYC and has never handled a gun before has the
right to hunt elk in your state by simply buying a license and a tag? Do you
really think that is a good idea?
You may. I don't. I like CO's requirement. I wish we did it here a long
time ago.
Oh and for those from other countries, you can see that there ARE some
requirements to get a hunting license in the USA, at least in those less free
states, like Colorado. ;-)
Jim
rutledge
Charlie Sorsby wrote:
>
> Why? If someone from another country tells us that we need a law
> like theirs, aren't they telling us that *our* laws are all wrong?
> There is a difference between telling someone from another country
> that their laws are not right for us and telling them that their
> laws are "all wrong!" for them. But it works both ways. From here
> or from there--where ever "there" happens to be.
>
> It seems to me that that is the point that Tom was making.
Yeah, but you said it a lot more eloquently than I did.
> And I've seen it done both ways on Usenet over the years--not just
> in shooting-oriented news groups but in many diverse news groups.
> People from the US being presumptuous enough to tell someone in
> another country that their laws are all wet and that they should
> have laws just like ours. And people in other countries telling us
> that *our* laws are all wet and that we should have laws just like
> theirs. I guess that there's no shortage of presumptuousness one
> either side of the Atlantic or the Pacific.
>
> But I would be the last to tell them that their laws are all
> wrong--for them. Just because their laws may not be all wrong
> *for* *them* doesn't mean that they are not all wrong for us.
Yeah. Pretty danged true.
I do want to add that, given the laws in effect, I'm very glad I live
here and not "there" (Norway or Canada, as discussed) ... but the way
things appear to be headed, I wish there was a yet better choice.
Tom
Jim...@aol.com
>We do NOT have a Hunter Safety REQUIREMENT
here for anyone born after 1972.
Yikes! That is supposed to read born BEFORE 1972! I am sure I will be eaten
alive for this horrible mistake! This is worse than not explaining WDFW!
TSBench
In article <5q6am1$1...@quail.swcp.com>, Charlie Sorsby
<c...@quail.swcp.com> writes:
>Why? If someone from another country tells us that we need a law
>like theirs, aren't they telling us that *our* laws are all wrong?
No. If they are saying that they find their laws more efficacious, then
they are telling us that they think their laws are better, not that ours
are wrong, which is open to discussion by reasonable people. Better is
the opposite of "worse", not "wrong."
Regards,
TSBench.
Bill Walker...Producer and Cohost of The Shooting Bench radio program...Curator
of Small Arms, US Naval & Shipbuilding Museum in Quincy, MA....General Manager,
WDIS-Radio, Norfolk, Massachusetts.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim...@aol.com
Charlie Sorsby <c...@quail.swcp.com> wrote:
>Why? If someone from another country tells us that we need a law
like theirs, aren't they telling us that *our* laws are all wrong?
>There is a difference between telling someone from another country
that their laws are not right for us and telling them that their
>laws are "all wrong!" for them. But it works both ways. From here
or from there--where ever "there" happens to be.
Charlie,
I agree completely. If you were to go back on some of the posts regarding
both gun control and hunter testing you will read over and over how much
worse off Europeans (and Canadians) are compared to Americans because they
just don't stand up to their governments like we do. My point is that if
they WANT those laws, I mean if the hunters themselves want them ot the
politicians, what business is it of ours to tell them they are wrong? I have
met hunters in other countries that even want some gun control laws that we
would call restrictive. That may be surprising to you, and maybe to me. But
it isn't my country. There are reasons they want these laws that I may not
be able to completely understand by living in the country for 6 months or by
hearing of their situation through CNN. The same with testing laws.
I have met hunters that would never want anyone to be able to walk into a
hardware store in their country and walk out a 20 minutes later with a rifle.
You and I may think that is fine - for here. It doesn't mean it is right
for them. Yes I know you don't say anything about it, but there are many
people that do.
>But I would be the last to tell them that their laws are all
wrong--for them. Just because their laws may not be all wrong
>*for* *them* doesn't mean that they are not all wrong for us.
And I agree with you! But look back on some postings. You will see all
kinds of other people telling them how bad off they are and how much better
off we are here. This may actually be the case is some situations. The
hunters from other countries may envy our position here. However, like I
said, I have met hunters in some countries that would never want our gun laws
or game laws.
>= Ancient Greece that goes: "When traveling abroad, look not back on your
own
>= borders." I think that it can be applied to traveling in cyber space
today.
>Of course it can. But that, too, works both ways. We have no
business criticizing another country's laws--for *them*. But, by
>the same token, folks from other countries have no business
criticizing *our* laws--for *us*.
And I agree. All I ever saw was a description of how it is done in Norway
and how well it worked there. It was a suggestion is all. I thought it was
an interesting proposal. But how hard the guy was attacked for posting it, I
doubt that we will hear to many other suggestions that could be vaguely
thought of as being critical of the American way of life. I for one like to
hear about other ways of doing things. Every now and then someone asks that
people from Africa, Europe, and other parts of the world post about hunting
there. Well I guess they had better be certain not to imply that anything is
at all better in their respective countries than it is in the USA.
>Drivers are routinely tested for the "privilege" of driving. I
don't know about you but I've seen on scarcity of incompetent and
>stupid and thoughtless drivers.
Absolutely right! But at least they do know how to drive before they get a
license. Are you for doing away with driver's tests too?
>I, too, hunt the western US. And, while I've seen the occasional
twit, I've seen nothing that would warrant yet another intrusion by
>a government that is growing like a cancer without our help.
The government is already there. You can't go out and shoot a deer any time
you feel it is right.
>= Although the exam is not difficult, a person must read the material and
study
>= to pass it. It really doesn't matter if you have been hunting 3
lifetimes,
>So how does this differ from *existing* hunter safety classes?
It doesn't differ all that much! That is one of the points. To get people
that are not required by law to take a Hunter Safety test to take this. The
AHE is a bit more entailed though.
>= some of the material is not the kind of thing a hunter would normally
know.
= I have a friend that is a game warden and he couldn't pass the thing
without
>= studying. (Although I do believe he did know the political structure of
the
= WDFW!).
>Are you saying that knowledge of the political structure of the
WDFW (whatever-the-hell that is) is a valid criterion of competence
>for a hunter?
WDFW is Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. And no I don't think
that it is important to know. That is why I mentioned it in the manner I
did! They have a reason for learning it though. So that hunters, instead of
just complaining about seasons and such, will understand how seasons are made
and why. And who to complain to when they have a problem with them.
>Who is the more competent hunter? One who can't hit an arbitrary
target at 50 yards and *religiously* doesn't take a shot that is
>beyond 60 yards? Or one who can hit that same target at 300 yards
but routinely tries to hit game at 600 yards (either intentionally
>or because he doesn't know the difference between 300 yards and 600
yards)?
How about the guy that comes to camp and doesn't know how to load his rifle?
Never heard of that? I have.
>If the ethics part of existing hunter safety classes doesn't
convince a person to work within his own limits and those of his
>equipment, yet another test sure won't.
You seem to be missing something. We do NOT have a Hunter Safety REQUIREMENT
here for anyone born after 1972. Do you think that hunting and shooting
skills are innate in those people born after Jan 1, 1972? A person that has
taken a Hunter Safety course DOES have the basic knowledge to hunt. Someone
that is 30 years old and has never shot a gun does not. One way the 30 year
old can become proficient is to go out and make a few mistakes, hopefully not
shoot himself or someone else in the process, or take a course.
>20 out of 25 isn't to be sneezed at if you do it low-gun the way it
is done in the field and isn't relevant if you do it with a
>pre-mounted gun as it is commonly done on a skeet or trap field.
They're two different sports.
As I have already explained (at least two times) you can shoot as many times
as you want to get that 20 out of 25. The hope is that in getting that score
you are already a decent shot or you have learned something. And no it isn't
as a good a test as low gun International Skeet or 5 stand, etc. It is for
basic shooting skills, not for proving that you are a top notch field shot.
>= hunter. It does mean that he has done more than plop down $18 for a
license
= though. He at least knows how he is supposed to hunt, and how to sight in
a
>= rifle.
>Your last comment first: I don't know what the hunter safety
classes are like in your neck of the woods but I should think that
>the general principles of sighting in are present in many such
*existing* classes.
OK. I will say it again so everyone gets it! Hunter Safety classes are not
required for anyone born after Jan 1, 1972 in Washington State. So there
ISN'T a Hunter Safety class requirement for the vast majority of the
hunters. If we had that requirement, it would be sufficient. So you have
it? Are you against having the Hunter Safety requirement?
>As to doing more than "plop[ping] down $18 for a license" those who
give a damn will do that on their own; those who don't may know in
>their head about things after being forced to take a class but will
no more give a damn about it after the class than before.
OK then I take it you are for getting rid of the Hunter Safety test
requirement then since it does not good in your opinion. Or does it only do
good for kids?
>I apply the same criteria to these tests as I do to yet another gun
law: What good will it do? I am not convinced that it will to
>much, that the results will be "statistically significant."
I would say cutting wounding mortality by half to a third is "statistically
significant." Will it do that? Well our contributor in Norway says they
have a wounding mortality rate of 2 to 3%.. Here we have a 7% rate on elk.
Something is different. Maybe Norwegians are just better hunters than
Americans since testing can't be the reason. There have been numerous
studies done that show those that take a Hunter Safety class are more likely
to be a safe hunter than those that don't. And no I don't have any stats at
my finger tips. I am sure you can dig them up with call to your local
wildlife department. After all I looked up the above mentioned 1994 elk
wounding mortality study!
>= If you have never met hunters that haven't a clue how to sight in their
= rifle, then you are very lucky. Around Oct. 1. If you come to our range I
>= can show you dozens a day. And these are the more serious ones that at
least
= go to a range instead of sighting in on a paper plate the day before the
= season!
>So what's wrong with sighting in on a paper plate? And, for that
matter, what's wrong with sighting in the day before the season?
>Oh, I realize that you are implying that they have done nothing all
the rest of the year. But you didn't *say* that.
OK! I will say it now. I guess I have to be VERY careful and spelling
things out! :-)
>= For those hunters to whom this is all not necessary, it is a little
trouble
= they have to go through in order to insure that some people will get the
>= training they would never do on their own without having the that carrot
= enticing them.
>Frankly, I think that you miss the point. Those others who
disagree with testing can correct me if I'm wrong about their
>views. I don't think that any of use dispute the importance of
competence. We consider competence to be very important--but we
>consider Freedom to be just as important. I, for one, don't
believe that the business of testing will do any significant thing
>to improve the situation; it will only result in one more intrusion
of the government into our lives. Just as criminals don't obey gun
>laws, those who don't give a damn won't start because they have to
pass some arbitrary test. The nations drivers are witness to that.
Well someone is missing the point! To make myself clear, I think that
hunters should have to pass a basic test, no matter what age they happen to
be. I also think drivers should have to take a test too. I am just that
radical!
And I don't think that the AHE was designed for snobs or as another method
that for the government to control our lives. It had input from regular
hunters that saw a problem and wanted to do something about it.
Jim
Charlie Sorsby
In article <33C4F1...@sou.edu>, rutledge <rutl...@sou.edu> wrote:
= Jonis wrote:
= > But, then again, if passing such a law in the US would be impossible,
= > it would be darned stupid to do it, wouldn't it...
=
= I hope it wouldn't be *too* easy, but I think passing the law wouldn't
= be the hard part. Animal rights kooks and tree huggers and their
= anti-gun butt buddies could probably band together and ram such nonsense
= down our throats. In Klinton's America, anything is possible and the
= rediculous is likely.
[...]
Anyone coming into this thread late will have no idea what law you
are talking about. For that matter, the thread has enough twists
and turns that even someone who has followed it from the beginning
may be hard put to figure out specifically what is under discussion
here.
While it is important to edit included text to minimize the
consumption of band width, it is also important for readers to know
what is being discussed. Sometimes it is impossible to leave
enough included text to show that without leaving too much included
text.
In cases like that, please, put a one or two line summary of what
is under discussion to give a clue. I believe it is customary to
include such a comment in square brackets much as many of us do
with the ellipsis that designates deleted text. That way we'll all
know that it is s comment from the current poster.
Thanks for your attention. I now return you to your regularly
scheduled debate....
--
Best regards,
Charlie "Older than dirt" Sorsby Los Alamos, NM "I'm the NRA!"
c...@swcp.com www.swcp.com/~crs Life Member since 1965
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim...@aol.com
Charlie Sorsby <c...@quail.swcp.com> wrote:
>I assume that here you are speaking of *voluntary* testing with, I
assume, a reward if you volunteer. I've no problem with that.
>Hunter safety training (which I support) is beginning to sound like
the Saturday Night Special of the hunting community. :{
>You know the drill: "Let us ban Saturday Night Specials and we
won't take away all of your guns." "Now let us ban 'assault
>rifles' and we won't take away all of your guns." ...
>How many people rebelled against banning "Saturday Night Specials"?
Perhaps only those who couldn't afford a decent gun?
Charlie,
I cut your post to keep things a little brief. However the above I believe
means that you do support Hunter Safety and volunteer programs for those not
required to take Hunter Safety classes. I guess the only thing we differ on
is that I believe that EVERYONE that hunts should HAVE TO take a Hunter
Safety class, or a class like the AHE.
You don't believe they should have to?
>Tell you what. Consider the following "what if": <snip>
As far as the wildlife department being infiltrated by AR's that would make
the requirements tougher to stop hunting altogether, well that is a
possibility. But really if they are going to infiltrate the wildlife
departments all they would have to do is close the seasons for every animal.
A Hunter Safety requirement wouldn't make a bit of difference.
Tell me do you have a hunter Safety requirement in your state? Not to be to
big a smart ass ;-), but how about all the talk of "to everyone should not
push their laws down other's throats"? Does that apply to states too, or is
it just countries in your opinion?
The reason I ask is that we have put this program t shoved down our throats
by "Big Brother" or any such thing. The fact is the department asks hunters
what they want to see in it and how to make it better. When some complained
that it was too difficult to make it to the classes, they switched to a total
home study program for the written part of the test. Many, many hunters
here see a problem. They want some sort of testing. If it takes the carrot
approach to get get more of those not required to take a course to take one,
well it is a good thing. Eventually the course will be required by all that
hunt. But that is going to be a long time off.
Maybe you don't need such a thing in your state. Maybe like Colorado you
have had the requirement for years so most if not all , hunters have taken
some sort of a course. Well we don't yet. The "born after" provision hasn't
been in effect long enough to cover most of the hunting population. Add to
this a growing urbanization of the population, people that are not familiar
with guns and hunting, and you have a lot of people taking up hunting for the
first time in their 30's or 40's who have never shot a gun before.
Sure they can be taught by friends. But I think, and maybe this is where we
differ, that a mandatory class is required.
I COULD say things like this is MY state not yours. You don't understand the
problems we have here. These are our laws not yours. But I am NOT saying
that because I think it really isn't all that different where you are.
I am sure that you have as many crazy things happen as we do. For instance a
guy that shot a deer, put an elk tag on it loaded it in his truck. When he
drove by the game warden he didn't even attempt to hide it. He thought it
was a small elk!
Maybe a course wouldn't help someone like that. But they do have an animal
identification section that teaches you to ID the three different deer here,
and of course an elk from a deer.
Do I think that a course requirement is going to prevent all such things from
happening? Absolutely not! Just like you say about driving and license
requirements. There are still loads of bad drivers out there. Still I think
everyone should take a driver's test before getting a license. Don't you?
I do believe that stats that say that hunters that have take a Hunter Safety
course are less likely to be involved in accidents and such. Of course this
just could all be propaganda by the powers that be to get us all tested and
licensed!
Jim
Don Abernathey
Hello!
Raise the requirements and fewer will participate.
Fewer participants will result in less dollars for wildlife and habitat
management.
Government (Fed & State) will step in with funding, but not with hunters
best interests in mind.
Hunting will become "the sport of kings".
I said the above in bullet-form to emphasize the events that have been
taking place for the last 25 years in United States.
Hunters Safety courses were mandated in response to an upswing in
accidental shootings. The education effort paid off - accidents (of all
kinds - don't have separate numbers for nationwide) have been hovering
around 1500/year for a decade.
However fewer young people are getting involved in the sport of hunting.
Unless a parent or close friend encourages them, few teenagers will
bother with taking a hunters safety course. Most taught with a
shoestring budget, and pretty drool sometimes. It is easier for a kid to
get his/her drivers license, and driving is clearly the deadliest
activity we voluntarily participate in.
There is a tendancy for folks to strive for zero accidents/incidents.
This is incredibly unrealistic which is why I groan when doo-gooders try
to make me safe. I hope you can see that when you regulate the sport to
the point where zero accidents/incidents is possible, you will have
created a very elitist activity.
The speed limit signs on Montana's interstates read "safe and prudent".
I like that instead of stating 65MPH on a road that safely supports
80MPH. Safe and prudent allows a wide range of speeds - pretty much up
to the individual - within reason. Ah the sweet smell of freedom!
Please resist the urge to further regulate the sport of hunting. Instead
see if you can come up with ways to encourage more people to
participate. Yes, you will have to put up with the occasional bozo, but
in the long run I believe the sport will be better off if less
regulated.
Thank you
Don Abernathey
--
The above comments are my own and not my employer's. Have a great day!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------