Past and Future Season Discussions-Ideas and Dislikes

[Goose]

ORIGINAL: bullwinkle


9. More rifles and less shotgun areas. Studies have proven shotguns are not safer

 
Alot of deer survive because of shotguns. I wouldn't mind if they went shotgun state-wide.

[jsjandro]

have hunted in shotgun only areas - dont mind but ill say this....

rifles generally produce much more ke and hydrokinetic shock which will enable a clean kill on an animal that is margainally hit. 12 ga slugs to the guts tend to waste alot of deer - ive helped search for these animals. my .270 will drop a deer instantly if i hit it in the gut or in the boiler room - that has to be respected.

i always want the cleanest death for my quarry, and even though ive dropped deer with a 12 ga in their tracks, some simply take off with no lungs left. thats never happened to a single deer that ive put a rifle round into - ever. and thats alot of deer!

as for tagging a nubber on a buck tag kudos to that! doeyed and addict are like me - if you dont have time to positively id your target then stand down.

pheasant hunters and duck hunters have to, why should deer huntetrs be allowed to be such sloppy judges? and if ya think about it, 50 years ago you had to know if it was a buck or a doe before you shot and dead does were still found laying round for the crows.

poaching is already illegal, so i say we take away their equipment when we catch these turds so they have to either have more at home that they'll gamble to use and mabee lose or buy new. face it, telling them they cannot buy licenses dont stop em, just like driving after revocation dont stop smucks from driving cars without a license. take away what they must use to hunt, trap, or fish with and they're stopped the best way they can be. the number on e thing that'd hurt people is losing their ride. and with our winters, and people plowing with their trucks, i wouldnt wanna lose my snow remover in november!!!!!

most people dont let rules dictate whether or not they buy tags, they are just less likely to follow ALL the rules while with a tag, which creates income then with my system for our dnr (specifically our understaffed wardens).

think of it. all those vehicles and guns and bows and traps could be sold at auctions or raffles to law abiding smoes like me and the proceed go to the dnr and the economy heightened by the turds which allocates wi more pittman and robinson dollars since they're buying sporting goods - all directly makes good use of economy!!!!

and lastly, having to id what you shoot at doesnt kill off drives. it simply makes them more effective at pop management. you can still shoot at a deer, just dont shoot at the ones you cannot id.

its called hunting for a reason - sometimes your method sucks and the game gets away.

this isnt the arcade game deer drive where you put in quarters and shoot deer that jump out from behind every tree. oh wait, even then you need to know what you're shooting at because only the antlered game get you points huh!!!

hah!!!

[Osty]

Not a fan of using the buck tag for a button buck. Say you have two deer come in and you shoot. Both are button bucks. Now what? A few factors like light, clear view of the head, brush, distance, hunter excitement all come into play.

Shotguns would probably limit the range of the weapon as compared to rifles. I think that would increase deer herds in a few counties.

Poachers - Take their guns and vehicles. That is a step in the right direction.

[umpiremark]

I have lived/hunted in shotgun only areas my entire life. For the past 15 years, I hunt in a rifle area, but still use my shotgun. 1) I don't have the money for "another" gun I use for 9 days; 2) I don't want another gun.

I have shot my share of deer with my shotgun slugs and never had to go more than 100 yards to find them. I can recall 4 off the top of my head that died either on the shot or within eye sight.

For the most part, it's not the bullet or the gun or the speed that wounds deer. It's the shooter. I take only shots where I know I can hit and break that front leg, slamming into the boiler room. I take only shots where I know I can not only hit the deer, but kill it. I have passed up shots that were to risky and ended up eating my tag that year.

I shoot my gun and sight in my scope. I know where that slug is gonna hit.

If aimed properly, sighted in properly and a quality shot is taken, most guns will kill a deer. I like the way my shotgun slugs hit a deer, tear up a deer and knock them down. I won't change. That's just me though ... ...

[wurzgj01]

N/A

[Osty]

I would like to see the new antlerless tags go from $2 to $5 or $10 without any more price hikes in the future. $2 for a doe tag? I like that but that kind of makes it "cheap" to shoot a doe. For $20 you can shoot 10 deer? What a bargain. I say raise the price a little bit since that is relatively cheap.

[Bigfoot]

for every dollar those tags would get raised means less tags would be bought,thus less deer killed in those units, which kinda defeats the purpose of a "herd reduction zone"

[Osty]

Bigfoot: Is a raise of $2 to $5 too much? I would like to see an increase in the fee, just a little bit, but that would stay constant for awhile. That extra money can be used to generate revenue. I'm sure you may have less tags bought but if you buy 10 tags for $20, are you going to fill all of them? Do you have enough room in your freezer for that many? I could handle 4 to 5 deer with my family to sustain us for a year. Sure I pay $8-10 total, I'm still doing the DNR's work if I get the deer at a cheap price. If I spend $5 per tag, that's still $20-25 but that extra money can be used to help the DNR financial woes.

Like I say, a little extra now without an increase in prices for awhile.