who here doesn't hunt?

[Mach II Sailor]

Derius_T,
after two knee operations and cervical surgery of the C-2 thru C-6 spinal area with an 8 inch strip of Titanium in my neck that looks like railroad tracks, my hunting days are over for certain, i just kill paper now, and doing real well at it, i now have time to fine tune my loads.

...head shots are not advisable or accepted as normally taught kill zones on deer

I can understand not hunting anymore, but if you enjoyed it, educate yourself and try again.

prior to this incident, my head shots were either an instant kill or a total miss.

due to the above surgerys and 70 y.o. my hunting is limited to my back yard, shooting at Squirrels, Chipmunks, Cow Birds, Grackles etc. with my M4 Tokyo Marui airsoft, it does not kill, just sting their little butts IF i even hit them, which is a rare occasion

 

[44 AMP]

Sadly, not for some time, and likely not again, but...

As a youth I hunted varmints, deer, bear, birds, and a few other things as well. Age and injury have severely limited my off road capability, so I no longer hunt. However, I do still enjoy shooting and collecting hunting guns.

I am kind of like the former race car driver who no longer races, but enjoys his work in the garage, tuning the cars, with test runs on the track once in a while.

I think people should hunt, as long as they enjoy it and are physically capable. Sport hunting is a lot more difficult than it was when I was a lad, less land open to hunt on, and many more regulations and restrictions. But if you can, you should, if for no other reason than to support game management. Many states have it set up so that license fees go directly to the game departments, and provide the money for many important programs.

If you can't hunt, or don't care to, at least go buy a license. It doesn't cost all that much (even today), and most of the money goes for a good cause.

 

[Buzzcook]

I can't remember the exact stats, but hunters are less than 20% of gun owners.

Somewhere around 12 million people hunt. That's down pretty far as percentage and I think in real numbers as well.

I put other because I only hunt once a year now. Even my busiest year I only hunted five time; deer, elk, duck, geese, and pheasant.

Maybe when I retire in a few years I'll go out as much as the law allows.

 

[natjohnb]

Do we have that few midwesterners poking around in this thread?

Dead deer on the roads, highways and interstates in Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky and Pennsylvania is, IMO, nearing an epidemic. A week ago, I traveled 215 miles south from Michigan to Central Ohio and counted 25 dead deer on the shoulder of the expressway, and that's simply on the southbound side. No idea how many on the other side, and away from the expressway.

Is it not that bad elsewhere? It's horrific here. Rotting, hit deer carcasses strewn up and down the highway.

Hunting is the answer. Either that or banish half the population and make it unlawful to develop any more land in this part of the country.

+1!

I have killed more deer with my cars than I have with my guns

I don't know if that makes me a bad hunter or a bad driver!

Granted, I have been driving many more years than I've been hunting...

 

[obxned]

There have been times the only meat we had was game I shot, and times when getting anything was just a bonus to a great day spent outdoors.

 

[LanceOregon]

when it come to big game i always went for head shots

Thank goodness you gave up hunting. The vast majority of hunters would consider doing that to be highly unethical on any type of big game such as deer.

.

 

[LanceOregon]

Quote:
The instincts are still there, though. I see a deer or antelope, I think, "Supper!"


That was funny!

Actually, I think that is most valid and serious point.

For hundreds of thousands of years we lived as hunter/gatherers. The human females mainly gathered, and the males hunted. Hunting was a key part of the human male's evolution.

In comparison, how long has man been civilized? Maybe 4,000 years at the very most? Many would probably argue much less. Heck, even 200 years ago there were large areas of the earth with people still living as hunter gatherers.

Man came to rule the earth because he became the most successful predator. Other animals were bigger, stronger, and deadlier. But man had a huge edge in intelligence, could hunt effectively in groups, and could use his intelligence to make weapons.

I think that a lot of primal instincts still lie within man. Sure, we can control them, but true evolution takes time. And I don't think that we are really as far removed from the hunter gatherers as we would all like to think.

.

 

[tvrobert]

I don't hunt, but I have absolutely nothing against it. I just have no interest.

We have 10 acres of which ~7 is wooded/ravine. We let friends come and hunt for whatever may be in season. I'll shoot varmints without hesitation. All opossums have to die because they can carry diseases that can kill donkeys. We have three.

Also, barn pigeons gotta die. Barn swallows can live. They don't crap all over the hay.

 

[LanceOregon]

when I'm not shooting or occupied otherwise you'll find me out hooking large mouth bass and releasing them.

That is something that I could never, ever do: to deliberately torture and abuse an animal for absolutely no reason at all except for one's own personal enjoyment. That fish is not a harmful species, adversely affecting other wildlife. And it is not any sort of nuisance varmint type animal. And you are clearly not harvesting it for food either.

Catch and release is a very cruel and senseless sport in my opinion. And I think that despite what a lot of fishermen think, a great many of those fish are seriously injured, and some even die.

Heck, we have some big public fishing ponds at the park near where I live, and I remember watching people fishing the stocked fish there a couple of years ago. Now it was not catch and release, but a number of people were releasing the smaller fish they were catching, and putting them all back in the water, so they could catch bigger fish instead.

The problem was, though, on my walk back through the park, I noticed that there were now quite a few dead fish all floating around in the pond. They were obviously some of these fish that had been hooked, and then released. I stopped and watched for awhile, and sure enough, I witnessed fish being put back into the water, only to come up lifeless to the surface moments later.

Anyway, that is why I personally would never engage in that sort of sport fishing. But I have no problem with other people doing it, if that is what they enjoy. For it is certainly perfectly legal, and 100% within the law. It just is something that I could never bring myself to do to an animal.

When I kill while hunting, I do everything humanly possible to make sure that the animal dies an extremely quick death, and has as minimal suffering as possible. This often involves getting within close range, and taking easier shots. And passing up on shots that are problematic to make.

To me, that is a key part of being an ethical hunter: To insure that the death you inflict is as quick as possible.

That is also why I could never, ever bring myself to bow hunt either. But I'm not against others bow hunting, or in favor of bow hunting being banned either. Again, it is a generally accepted sport, and 100% legal to engage in. Humans have been bow hunting for over 40,000 years, according to some historians.

.

 

[dutchy]

I've hunted and killed thousands of clay pigeons.
Beautiful beasts, never complain, never go far after being only slightly injured, and don't squeel.

 

[jrfoxx]

Now it was not catch and release, but a number of people were releasing the smaller fish they were catching, and putting them all back in the water, so they could catch bigger fish instead.

dont forget, there are legal limits on how big a fish must be to keep it also, so some of those who released smaller ones may have had no choice, unless they enjoy HUGE fines, and possibly loss of fishing license for life, as well as thier fishing gear, and possibly boat. Some states DO NOT mess around when it comes to size and quantity limits.

That however doesnt invalidate what you saw, or your opinion of it. just wanted to say that not all were likely catching then releasing instead of eating, by choice.

 

[Mach II Sailor]

L.O.,
thank you for the personal insult !

Thank goodness you gave up hunting. The vast majority of hunters would consider doing that to be highly unethical on any type of big game such as deer.

the vast majority of hunters do not have the skill to make a clean head shot, that is why they go for the center of mass, which usually ends up in a "gut shot" and most likely the loss of the animal because they can travel for miles and most "hunters" today will maybe track the animal a few hundred yds.., if that far, the animal usually dies and becomes food for scavengers.

 

[LanceOregon]

L.O.,
thank you for the personal insult !

Actually, it is probably whoever taught you to hunt that was to blame.

My Granduncle on my mother's side was an expert deer hunter, and always went for neck shots. When I was young I actually went out hunting with him one time, and witnessed him take a deer with his .270 using a neck shot. The animal literally dropped where he stood, like a sack of potatoes.

However, my Granduncle never took long shots, and always got into a solid shooting position before he fired. And he was quite a good shot too. He knew his limitations very well.

Despite his example, I never felt comfortable to take a neck shot myself while hunting. For I knew that the odds of just the slightest error in bullet placement blowing the shot were high.

I defy you to cite any publication about hunting, whether book or magazine article, that either recommends taking head shots on deer, or condones it.

.

 

[Sidetracked]

when it come to big game i always went for head shots

Thank goodness you gave up hunting. The vast majority of hunters would consider doing that to be highly unethical on any type of big game such as deer.

I have never talked to another hunter that considers it 'unethical' to take head shots. At best, most would say it's not a good idea, due to the smaller target. The only time it becomes unethical is when the shooter lacks the skill to even hit the target. (buck fever, borrowed rifle, first hunt, lack of experience, unknown distance to target...)

Head shots are one of the quickest, most painless ways to drop an animal, as far as I am concerned.

I defy you to cite any publication about hunting, whether book or magazine article, that either recommends taking head shots on deer, or condones it.

Just because a certain type of shot is not the most popular choice doesn't make it unethical. You choose not to take the more risky shots. That is fine, and I respect it. In many situations, I would take a good body shot as well. But there are situations when a good (not even perfect) head or neck shot is a fine choice; as long as the hunter has the skill for the shot.