Jump to content

Deer hunting vs. deer shooting


Recommended Posts

Re: "..still hunting deer means you are risking your life by walking around with unknown numbers of booger eating morons out there carrying rifles,.."

For the 2 years I was a hunting safety instructor in CA I saw the statistics for hunters injured & killed, including by gun fired. Not one was shot by a stranger.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 51
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Brad Eden

    7

  • MAArcher

    7

  • garyRI

    5

  • Pinecobleguy

    4

I read a horrifying summary of hunting accidents.  It seems the typical shooter is a novice or unsuccesful hunter that suffers ridicule at the hands of his hunting buddies, and he gets so worked up about killing something to get the monkey off his back, that he ends up shooting at a flash of brown or a movement in the trees and he kills one of his hunting partners.  

They're out there. Lots of'em.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I've seen as much if not more unsafe gun handling around dogs and humans as I have with deer/big game hunters.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I've seen as much if not more unsafe gun handling around dogs and humans as I have with deer/big game hunters.

Same here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: I've seen as much if not more unsafe gun handling around dogs and humans as I have with deer/big game hunters.

Most of the CA accidents were small game. No doubt swinging on an animal into a friend.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

You could never stalk around here, all the land is private and you are lucky to find a 100 acre field or better yet a 20 acre patch of woods to hunt.  Sitting still is the only way because deer move across dozens of landowners property every day.  The only other alternative here is driving deer towards shooters, and I don't consider that ethical hunting.  Personally I would never shoot at a running deer.  For every deer dragged out, I bet several wounded ones die later.  Not to mention hunters die every year driving deer.

Sitting in a stand on a calm evening with my young son and his crossbow, that's deer hunting.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
northern_hunting_mom
The guy you described isn't the guy I described.  As for the $10,000 quail hunt, not a lot of respect there either but there is a distinction: those quail are planted (or "liberated") not wild, like deer are.

It's called hunting, not killing.  If it's not about the hunt then people should stay home.

You labeled a man by his hunting method.  The man I described is exactly as you described.  Putting out bait as the quickest means to the end with little regard for in between parts that you cherish.  My point being that hunting with sustenance as the focus is as basic and clean as it gets and you calling it slob hunting is wrong.

There are no wild quail in the world?  Why begrudge a man who kills them with gun that's more expensive than yours?  Have you seen one of those guns, they are beautiful and I'd own one if I could.  

By definition killing is part of hunting and the defining factor of success or failure.  That's not on opinion, just proper English.  

I understand that you can find the hunt itself, even an unsuccessful one, more rewarding than a full freezer, but that doesn't make your rewarding experience communing with nature, by itself, a hunt.  

If your hunting is not about filling your belly as nature intended, you should think about what your doing and maybe stay home because without that part of the equation, your just murdering animals for the joy of it; like a fat house cat that has no need to kill, but still does just because of those primal needs.  How can you find civility, morality and superiority in that?  

And I'm just arguing to make a point.  I'm pretty confident that we are on the same page.  We have disdain for those that only want that one part of the hunt.  The kill.  And they have no appreciation of the what becomes before or after.  What I'm hoping is that you can understand that the after part is the single most important part, otherwise you are just sight seeing and or murdering.

Yeah, were definitely not on the same page.  I doubt anyone here just hunts to fill the freezer.  I enjoy what I am lucky enough to kill but I enjoy the hunt more than anything else, and I am not the least bit interested in the "quickest means to the end."

Your example of a subsistence hunter is not going to be sitting out in a $300 blind.  He may hunt over a bucket of bait but regardless, that's not the guy I was describing.  The guy I was describing does not hunt for food, he hunts to kill and he measures is success by the size of his deer or the weight of his game bag.

As for "begrudging the man who kills them with a gun that more beautiful than yours", I can assure you, that's not the case.  (You'll just have to trust me on that one)  Lastly, "killing is part of hunting and the defining factor of success of failure, that's not "proper English, that's a subjective opinion, one that I definitely do not share.

I've spent 40+ years hunting deer with bows, slug guns, muzzleloaders and rifles, most often out of a tree stand some of which were fashioned out of 2x4's, or a pile of brush and I've spent more years than that chasing pointers for quail (real, wild quail) and setters for grouse.  Slobs are slobs, regardless of what they hunt.  There are no shortcuts, it's not supposed to always be easy.  Grown-up make their own decisions about how they pursue their sport, but keep in mind the ethics we learned hunting are ethics we apply to every day life.  There are things for which there should be no shortcuts.

I can say that I would not hunt without a reasonable expectation of killing something. It doesn't have to happen every trip. I enjoy any time outdoors holding a gun but I am disappointed if the freezer has not gained weight.

At its most basic point, I would not hunt if it doesn't fill my freezer. Take away the double negatives; I only hunt to fill the freezer. $300 for each person to wear camo, both summer and winter sets. Two rifles with $200-400 scopes, spent $80 on a pop-up blind but it sucked. The assumption is that all the hunting costs are meant to be applied to the first deer shot, thus making that deer cost $1000/lb just doesn't make sense. I re-use that gun, the camo etc. The cost of our big game hunting gear and rifles, even buying for 4 people and buying both fall and winter clothing, has paid for itself per lb of meat. Our big game hunting expenditures don't have to be justified anymore.

I greatly enjoy the hunt before and during the shot. After the shot can suck, its hard work to haul out and butcher big game. There is still a sense of accomplishment, pride and humility for a successful hunt. I am being honest, it takes a reasonable expectation of killing to get me out there.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...