America's Most Ineffective Deer Management Program

[phade]

3 minutes ago, Belo said:

Ok so a couple points here.

The VAST majority of pittman robertson comes from sport shooters, not hunters. Yes many shooters are also hunters, but there is heaps of data out there on this because it's a cause of frustration for sport shooters that their taxes aren't being used to fund things like public gun ranges, just like hunters get upset when those funds are used to build a city basketball court.

Lets talk about what he does

grown hunter numbers

brought in a newer generation interested in sustainable farm to table

brought attention to organizations like BHA, TRCP, WTF, NWTF etc etc

bought, managed and raffled off boats and land 

bought and saved land from becoming private and opened it to the public

Partnered with an ammo company

https://www.federalpremium.com/meateater.html

Partnered with a gun company

https://weatherby.com/store/meateaterrifle/

I just don't understand this "sell out" comment. I understand that it upsets you that his primary backer is a democrat and outspoken against some parts of the 2A, but I can't find anywhere where this owener leads an anti-gun group.

You sound like a teenage boy that's upset his favorite band signed a record deal after getting popular to help further their reach and brand.

Finally, Steve's statement is a very quick google. And what I learned listening to this around the 2min mark is that this guy Cherin has stake in fox news for f*cks sakes. I've said my peace, you guys are all big boys and you can spend your dollars however you want, but to paint Steve as a bad guy in a world where hunters and fisherman are constantly under attack is dangerous as we don't have many "safe" guys like steve out there advocating for us and risk guys like Nugent become the face of our sport.

https://www.themeateater.com/conservation/general/steven-rinella-addresses-questions-about-meateater-inc

 

stay safe, happy friday

Chernin has a stake in Fox news because he obtained stock options as an executive....he was given it due to his employment. So, let's be real here, it appears to be an MO for him.

BHA? Have you ever looked into that group? Sketchy. Real Sketchy.

Rinella is dangerous, you're right. He makes money for anti-2A. That's why I can't support him despite the wool you try justify he pulls over people's eyes.

 

 

[Steuben Jerry]

1 minute ago, Belo said:

where? I've asked this 3 times now and nobody has given me an answer and you didn't give any explanation other than slipper slope. 

Yotes? Foxes? Hogs? 

And why not deer? I know second shots are seldom if ever taken, But I was thinking of an AR-10 platform for a deer gun. Just because.

[phade]

9 minutes ago, Steuben Jerry said:

Yotes? Foxes? Hogs? 

And why not deer? I know second shots are seldom if ever taken, But I was thinking of an AR-10 platform for a deer gun. Just because.

Entertaining a semi ban's impact on hunting is a great leftist tactic. Trying to align gun rights to hunting? You don't need 10 rounds to hunt....

Yeah, OK. GFY. (saying in general)

Edited May 14, 2021 by phade

[Five Seasons]

4 hours ago, Steuben Jerry said:

Yotes? Foxes? Hogs? 

And why not deer? I know second shots are seldom if ever taken, But I was thinking of an AR-10 platform for a deer gun. Just because.

yeah i get it. i hunted yotes with my AR this year... and maybe the argument is best for hogs... otherwise a good bolt action will get the job done for 99% of situations, just like it does for deer. Counter point though, trapping hogs is far more productive than hunting. And for the record, my slug gun is a semi and my rifle is a bolt action. I prefer the rifle, but I'd be lying if I said I never used that semi-auto feature on a deer haha.

Point is, I don't think in the "us vs them" argument you will get any points from the anti or even the middle that you need that AR for coyotes. We should stop trying to sell that and call it what it is. It's our right to own that kind of gun and for whatever reason I choose to own it is my damn business and nobody elses. However, the attacks are growing stronger and stronger and as mass shootings increase we do need to win public opinion and that's why I asked the question that I did.

Did you know that 70%+ of americans support the right to hunt when you ask the question like that? But when you ask if we should be able to hunt X creature the numbers drop. And the more specific, like should you be able to hunt x using dogs or bait it continues to drop in support.

Our right to hunt hinges greatly on the middle ground non-hunters opinions. Not on the anti's and I feel the same applies with respect to gun ownership. When the vast majority of americans believe you and I don't deserve the right to own an AR we are in trouble. We need to fight that fight with facts and reason, not with "because I said so".

 

[suburbanfarmer]

7 hours ago, Belo said:

yeah i get it. i hunted yotes with my AR this year... and maybe the argument is best for hogs... otherwise a good bolt action will get the job done for 99% of situations, just like it does for deer. Counter point though, trapping hogs is far more productive than hunting. And for the record, my slug gun is a semi and my rifle is a bolt action. I prefer the rifle, but I'd be lying if I said I never used that semi-auto feature on a deer haha.

Point is, I don't think in the "us vs them" argument you will get any points from the anti or even the middle that you need that AR for coyotes. We should stop trying to sell that and call it what it is. It's our right to own that kind of gun and for whatever reason I choose to own it is my damn business and nobody elses. However, the attacks are growing stronger and stronger and as mass shootings increase we do need to win public opinion and that's why I asked the question that I did.

Did you know that 70%+ of americans support the right to hunt when you ask the question like that? But when you ask if we should be able to hunt X creature the numbers drop. And the more specific, like should you be able to hunt x using dogs or bait it continues to drop in support.

Our right to hunt hinges greatly on the middle ground non-hunters opinions. Not on the anti's and I feel the same applies with respect to gun ownership. When the vast majority of americans believe you and I don't deserve the right to own an AR we are in trouble. We need to fight that fight with facts and reason, not with "because I said so".

 

Hunting is a privilege just like driving. Owning any firearm of my choice is the right for now..although in NY that has eroded.

[WNYBuckHunter]

On 5/14/2021 at 11:11 AM, Belo said:

where? I've asked this 3 times now and nobody has given me an answer and you didn't give any explanation other than slipper slope. 

Where what?

[Five Seasons]

On 5/14/2021 at 11:38 PM, suburbanfarmer said:

Hunting is a privilege just like driving. Owning any firearm of my choice is the right for now..although in NY that has eroded.

spot on

11 minutes ago, WNYBuckHunter said:

Where what?

where is a semi-auto rifle needed in the hunting realm? You said you answered that and I didn't see it.

[Grouse]

Some states have taken the position no rifles are needed and restrict people to shotguns. 

Curiously, semi-auto shotguns are NEEDED for deer hunting, since one shot kills are not the rule.

 

[Five Seasons]

3 hours ago, Grouse said:

semi-auto shotguns are NEEDED for deer hunting, since one shot kills are not the rule.

 

ummm what?

Man how do people ever kill deer with a stick and string... 

[Steuben Jerry]

1 hour ago, Belo said:

Man how do people ever kill deer with a stick and string... 

Horizontally, with a crossbow, lol. Sorry - couldn't resist.

[Grouse]

13 hours ago, Belo said:

ummm what?

Man how do people ever kill deer with a stick and string... 

At close range when the deer is calm.  Try 50 yards at running deer during shotgun season in shotgun only areas.

[Grouse]

"Need" is not relevant to Rights"

by WENDY LAFEVER

 

1. “Do you really need this?” he asked, glaring at me over the checkout counter. “This has 150 grams of sugar in it. Not in the whole package, per serving. There are a full 13 servings in this box. That’s too much for you,” he concluded, yanking my doughnuts off the conveyor belt.

“Obesity is a killer, and unless you have a doctor’s note certified by our local sheriff and the head of the FDA, you don’t need these doughnuts, and you can’t buy them.”

2. “You cannot possibly expect me to believe that you really need this,” she spat, looking at my cart full of fire extinguishers. “What on Earth are you planning to do with all these fire extinguishers? The only reason anyone needs more than one fire extinguisher is if they’re pyromaniacs or arsonists.” She reached for the phone. “I don’t care which one you are, but I’m sure the police will.”

3. “Do you really need this?” he demanded, pointing an angry finger at the muscle car I was trying to finance. “That car has a V-8 engine that generates 370 horsepower and 395 lb-ft of torque. That’s law-enforcement power, and the only reason you’d need a car that fast is to outrun the police.

Unless you have a note from your local law enforcement as well as the head of your state’s Department of Transportation proving that you have a consistent need to get from 0 to 60 in 5.2 seconds, you need to leave.”

4. “You don’t need this,” said the banker, shaking his head. “The house you’re trying to buy is four times larger than a single person needs to survive. Why do you want 1,600 square feet when you really only need 400? What are you planning to do with the other 1,200 square feet?” He gasped, “Are you one of those crazy square-footage stockpilers?”

I watched as he pulled out his stamp and marked “DENIED” on my loan application.

5. “Do you really need this?” he said, looking at me over his mask with a drill in one hand and a work order in the other. “This paper says you’re authorized to have 9 megabytes per second of internet speed. And here you are with 12. Why do you need 12 megabytes per second to post pictures of your dinner to social media? You don’t,” he concluded smugly. “Not unless you’re trying to use your Internet to send large files, and nobody needs to do that except the government. We’re cranking you back down to dial-up.”

Of course, I didn’t write this article on parchment using a quill pen. Of course, nobody tried to tell me I couldn’t buy all the doughnuts I want. Nobody denied me financing for a muscle car (mainly because I can’t afford it anyway and haven’t tried). Everybody knows that it’s wrong to deny financing to someone for a large home just because they could probably survive in a smaller one. None of those things happened, and if they had, it would have been an outrage.

So why are we gun owners routinely asked these same questions, with the threat of having our rights and property taken away from us if The Powers That Be don’t like our answers? Let’s roll back to #1. Let’s substitute “doughnuts” with “a matched pair of classic revolvers.” If I live in Virginia (and don’t have a concealed-carry permit), then I cannot buy both of those revolvers at once thanks to Virginia’s new “One Gun a Month” law.

Let’s go back to #3, and replace the muscle car with a suppressor. I’ll quote Jeff Johnston’s “How to Buy a Suppressor” article here: “Silencers for firearms were made in 1902 by Hiram Percy Maxim in lock-step with another one of his inventions, the car muffler. This makes sense because both products utilized nearly identical technology. Today car mufflers are mandated by the government, while firearm suppressors are highly regulated by it. That doesn't make any sense at all.”

No, no it doesn’t. The reason why it doesn’t make any sense is because, if we’re discussing need, we are having the wrong discussion … and that is not an accident. Anti-gunners know that if they can force us to justify our rights while only using the language of necessity, they can tie up the argument on this detail or that technicality forever.

The truth of the matter is that of course, neither you nor I need six fire extinguishers all rated for different kinds of fires right this moment. However, if we do come to need them, we will need them very badly and 10 minutes ago; not having them could prove fatal for us. It is the same for guns, but with a twist: The Bill of Rights doesn’t have a special amendment for fire extinguishers. Guns do. And that’s why the next time someone asks you if you really need an AR-15 when a bolt-action would do the job, or if you really need 10 cases of ammo, just say, “Yes, and you really need to read the Constitution.”

[Five Seasons]

5 hours ago, Grouse said:

At close range when the deer is calm.  Try 50 yards at running deer during shotgun season in shotgun only areas.

shooting a running deer at any range, let alone 50+ yards is why we all stumble across wounded and non-recovered dead deer. While the shot can be lethal and above average shooters can make it, it's not a high probability shot and borderline unethical. To say you want a semi-auto shotgun (remember we're talking ARs here) so you can blast away at running deer is one of the worst things you've ever said on this site and that's saying something.

You cannot change my mind on this.

[Grouse]

Shots are running deer have been done since deer hunting began and calling them unethical is judgemental and your personal opinion.

Running shot proficiency is a skill set many hunters have mastered and is not illegal.  A hunter must know his limitations.  If they are confident they can make the shot, just like those who are confident they can make a 500 yard shot, there is nothing unethical about it.  If it is "above average", the skill level of today's hunters has really dropped over the years.  Plus it is the hunter's responsibility to track any deer they hit until they find it.

Nobody expects to change your mind, because it's apparently closed.

[Five Seasons]

I said borderline unethical. And the fact that you've doubled down that it's a skillset that is lost just adds to your derangement. 

[Grouse]

Once again, that's your opinion, and it's not shared by many hunters who can swear to many successful running shots.

[phade]

Shooting running deer is a skillset. No different than long-range shooting as noted IMO, or even shooting at high angle, close shots with a bow.

Tell me you haven't shot at rolling tires down a hill without telling me you haven't shot at rolling tires down a hill.

It doesn't mean you shoot at all running deer - decision making still applies, but if you won't shoot at a running deer in the self-assessed right/safe circumstances, I don't know what to say there. That mindset and skill-aspiration was instilled in me from day 1 of deer hunting.

That is a mighty high horse to look down on to say shooting at all running deer is unethical.

 

[Grouse]

Some might want to read "Shots at Whitetails" written by Lawrence Koller about 75 or so years ago.

He hunted in the Sullivan County area around the Neversink River and the hills around it and describes deer hunting at that time.  Many running shots were taken and people then were good at it. 

Not to want to take a running shot is not an issue, but trying to claim moral superiority with it is.

[suburbanfarmer]

Running shots are still the way to hunt in Europe when they do the drives be it for hog or stag.

[Grouse]

Same as when we do drives in this country for whitetail.  And in many shotgun only areas, that is the preferred method for deer hunting.  I guess that's been unethical for 100 or so years, but who knew?

[WNYBuckHunter]

On 5/17/2021 at 9:15 AM, Belo said:

where is a semi-auto rifle needed in the hunting realm? You said you answered that and I didn't see it.

Semi autos are used in many types of hunting. Almost all of them actually. Waterfowl, deer, Turkey, predator, small game, etc etc. I never said they were needed, I said That hunters would be affected by a semi auto ban. 
 

I’m not going to continue down this path of thinking with you though. Hunting has nothing to do with the second amendment. 

[Culvercreek hunt club]

On 5/18/2021 at 8:59 AM, phade said:

Shooting running deer is a skillset. No different than long-range shooting as noted IMO, or even shooting at high angle, close shots with a bow.

Tell me you haven't shot at rolling tires down a hill without telling me you haven't shot at rolling tires down a hill.

It doesn't mean you shoot at all running deer - decision making still applies, but if you won't shoot at a running deer in the self-assessed right/safe circumstances, I don't know what to say there. That mindset and skill-aspiration was instilled in me from day 1 of deer hunting.

That is a mighty high horse to look down on to say shooting at all running deer is unethical.

 

He's a stand and maybe a still hunter. Never took part in group deer drives.  To say shots at running deer are "borderline unethical" shows his limited experience. Should a new hunter take that shot, I wouldn't recommend it but you have to take the "first shot" at some point. Some of my best memories are doing deer drives and they are a very productive method of deer hunting. The sport has really turned into an individual endeavor. 

[Five Seasons]

37 minutes ago, WNYBuckHunter said:

Semi autos are used in many types of hunting. Almost all of them actually. Waterfowl, deer, Turkey, predator, small game, etc etc. I never said they were needed, I said That hunters would be affected by a semi auto ban. 
 

I’m not going to continue down this path of thinking with you though. Hunting has nothing to do with the second amendment. 

The topic came up because Steve is not a brand for guns and ammo, he's a brand for hunting. My point is that that a call on semi-auto rifles doesn't affect hunters. I never said it doesn't affect the 2nd amendment.

You're now the second guy here in addition to phade who is hunting waterfowl with rifle and also promoting shooting running deer.

This place is funny. No wonder why the numbers keep dropping and dropping.

[Five Seasons]

15 minutes ago, Culvercreek hunt club said:

He's a stand and maybe a still hunter. Never took part in group deer drives.  To say shots at running deer are "borderline unethical" shows his limited experience. Should a new hunter take that shot, I wouldn't recommend it but you have to take the "first shot" at some point. Some of my best memories are doing deer drives and they are a very productive method of deer hunting. The sport has really turned into an individual endeavor. 

my first several deer were taken on deer drives. You can bump deer and still get shots on non-running deer. I've shot and killed running deer. I've shot and wounded running deer. I am at a place now where I won't do that anymore, or would I advise any of my 3 boys to do so.

The point is that I will never advocate for semi-auto rifles so that hunters can shoot running deer. The whole concept implies you're going to bang away. I can't imagine in a million years you practice or encourage this in your mentoring program. If you do, i'll back down.

 

Edited May 20, 2021 by Belo

[Five Seasons]

I'll double down on this too, because why not. Do you think the fact that big deer drives and banging away at running deer being less common today and less hunters being shot and killed have anything in common? 

Know your target. Know what's beyond your target right?