Shooting Ruffies and Geese/Ducks...

[*BigSexyHunter*]

Ok so I have seen far to many posts about shooting birds with different guns as being "unsporting"

Tell me this, is shooting a ruffie with a .22 any better than shooting it with a 12 gauge?? And how? I have seen far to many beaks get shot off from a grouse with a .22, and have them scurry away only to be never found again and die of starvation.(believe my, I pursue them) With a 12 gauge I never shoot them in the air personally, it wastes too much meat for my liking. (But don't have any less respect for people that do) I am a meat hunter. So my preferred method is to shoot them with a full choke, and depending on the range shoot above, or at the top of their head. Very seldom do I waste any meat (and people! The wings and legs are the best part!! IMO there should be a fine for wasting the wing and leg meat... That's another discussion on its own) and some times take off their whole head! Point being I either kill it or not. No shooting it and having it take off, with no pecker!

So how is that "unsporting"?

And with ducks and geese... This is an argument that has very good points on both sides, and i'm not saying any point is unsporting or wrong. With that being said, I do and will continue to shoot geese and ducks while they are sitting with my 12 gauge. As stated above, I am primarily a meat hunter. When sitting in a blind I wont let them land, simply because I don't want to ruin my decoys. But when sneaking up on them, I will take them while they are swimming/standing/sitting, as I can make a better placed shot at the head with a cleaner, more humane, shot with little no no meat wasted. (Again, the thighs are the best part! IMO there should also be a fine for not taking these, if you kill it, use it. This is like only taking the backstraps off a deer, but you wouldn't do that!)

So does my opinions and methods of hunting make me "un ethical" or "un sporting" Maybe to you it does. Just wanted some other opinions... Not intended to start an angry feud or anything. Just need to understand why people think its such a bad thing...

I'm done ranting for the day, I promise! Guy at work just told me to calm down or else I was going to break the keyboard! Us Power Engineers have a lot of free time... to rant!!

[catnthehat]

I don't use a .22 for ruffed grouse as a hunter, but when I was trapping on a fly in line I did.
To me it doesn't matter as long as it is legal, it is how one uses the gun, not what they are using.

Cat

[Foxton Gundogs]

This is my opinion it is a strong one. I shoot grouse and rabbits for camp meat with a 22, IMO it is meat hunting plain and simple. If I am hunting upland birds its wing shooting over my dogs with a 12, 20 or 28ga, no exceptions. For waterfowl IMO ground/water sluicing is not waterfowl hunting it's simply trying to kill birds. There are lots of times we will bring birds into the deeks let them land that's part of the challenge BUT we shoot them on the 'jump' IMO its not Kosher and hard on deeks to do otherwise. The only acceptable time to water sluice a bird is on big water with an escaping cripple, if it may put your dog in danger or risk loosing the bird then swat it. If I was to ever start swatting sitting birds with a shotgun I'm sure my Gramps would reach out from his duck blind beyond and swat me in the ear. All that being said if it's legal it isn't wrong just not what I ever want to do nor would I share a blind with someone who does..

[rugatika]

As long as it's legal I have no problems with however anyone wants to put meat on their table, and I don't think too highly of anyone that thinks they're superior to someone else for how they hunt. (legally of course)

[catnthehat]

Originally Posted by rugatika

As long as it's legal I have no problems with however anyone wants to put meat on their table, and I don't think too highly of anyone that thinks they're superior to someone else for how they hunt. (legally of course)

Exactly, I don't have to hunt for meat anymore that am not trapping, but enjoy hunting over a dog with vintage guns, sub gauge guns, and muzzle loaders.
Doesn't bother me if someone I am with is using a semi until they tell me I SHOULD be using one too because they are better!!

Over the years I have been told by people that every danged shotgun own is no good, depending on what those people were shooting or how they thought others should shoot and what they should use!!
Cat

[Groundhogger]

The only birds I hunt ARE grouse, so I'll comment on that.

Sounds like the question is more of one about approach~not ethics. Both are legal, both work, but you have your approach..someone else has theirs. Here in Ontario, I've heard numerous guys belittle hunters who (like me) shoot grouse on the spot~whether they're sitting on a tree branch, pecking at gravel on the edge of a quarry, or on the wing if I've spooked them. I've heard terms like "ground swatting" to describe shooting a bird on the ground, so I sometimes imagine these guys pursue the sport in a tweed jacket, pipe in mouth, toting an English-made double, over a highly-trained pure-bred pointer! THAT approach doesn't bother me one bit but somehow, THEIR version of how I hunt bothers them. Strange.

As for what I find effective~I think it's a function of how many birds I encounter, and how choosy I feel I can be. I can quite honestly walk for 6 hours and see 1 bird, no bird, 5 birds~never the same one hunt to the next. To add to that, I have to drive at least 2 hours to be in an area where I'll even find them. They're few and far between, and VERY skittish. In the last 2 years, I've been hunting with a 22", cylinder-bore 20ga. 870 pump, #7-1/2 shot. I've found it to be the most effective for where I'm likely to find them, and at the distances I encounter them. It's a bad barrel for wing shots (if my last 2 misses are any indication ) but for sitting birds, I haven't found more than 3 pellets in the breast meat. If I saw 10-12 sitting birds a day, and they were as dumb as the ones I've seen on YouTube videos standing there while an archer sets-up 15' from them~I might be inclined to try a .22 or my .17M2, but since that ain't the case where I hunt, shotgun it is!

Since all that made me hungry, I'll show you a photo of that gun, and the last bird I got with it;

[Pikebreath]

I have no problem with the original poster's comments on hunting grouse with 22s or "head shots" on sitting ducks,,, but,,,

I do have some problems with "if it's legal, it's fine" attitude though... It is legal to have consensual sex with a 16 year old baby sitter,, but that may not go over well with the mother of your child,,,, or the babysitter's mother for that matter!!!

Extreme example perhaps, but fence lining someone's decoy spread from the roadside ditch is also legal, and I do think most hunters would agree it's not particularly ethical.

To me, it's a "no harm, no foul" as well as "within the law" issue.

[drake]

So much hypocracy in the OPs post....not worth a reply. I'm glad the OPs "ethics" work for him.

[*BigSexyHunter*]

Originally Posted by Groundhogger

The only birds I hunt ARE grouse, so I'll comment on that.

Sounds like the question is more of one about approach~not ethics. Both are legal, both work, but you have your approach..someone else has theirs. Here in Ontario, I've heard numerous guys belittle hunters who (like me) shoot grouse on the spot~whether they're sitting on a tree branch, pecking at gravel on the edge of a quarry, or on the wing if I've spooked them. I've heard terms like "ground swatting" to describe shooting a bird on the ground, so I sometimes imagine these guys pursue the sport in a tweed jacket, pipe in mouth, toting an English-made double, over a highly-trained pure-bred pointer! THAT approach doesn't bother me one bit but somehow, THEIR version of how I hunt bothers them. Strange.

As for what I find effective~I think it's a function of how many birds I encounter, and how choosy I feel I can be. I can quite honestly walk for 6 hours and see 1 bird, no bird, 5 birds~never the same one hunt to the next. To add to that, I have to drive at least 2 hours to be in an area where I'll even find them. They're few and far between, and VERY skittish. In the last 2 years, I've been hunting with a 22", cylinder-bore 20ga. 870 pump, #7-1/2 shot. I've found it to be the most effective for where I'm likely to find them, and at the distances I encounter them. It's a bad barrel for wing shots (if my last 2 misses are any indication ) but for sitting birds, I haven't found more than 3 pellets in the breast meat. If I saw 10-12 sitting birds a day, and they were as dumb as the ones I've seen on YouTube videos standing there while an archer sets-up 15' from them~I might be inclined to try a .22 or my .17M2, but since that ain't the case where I hunt, shotgun it is!

Since all that made me hungry, I'll show you a photo of that gun, and the last bird I got with it;

^^This is exactly what i was looking for, somebody to prove me wrong, and give me other reasons to think otherwise, you kind sir have done that, and I thank you^^

And maybe its because I grew up on a farm, in the country where they live in my yard, and I only have to walk 300yds to prime ruffie country. I guess my view would change if is was an all day event, and had to spend all that time and money.

Its just I have shot lots of ducks, geese on the fly, and a couple ruffies, and some are so shou-up that you cant clean them due to them looking like they went through a tree mulcher...

This is exactly what i was looking for, somebody to prove me wrong, and give me other reasons to think otherwise, you kind sir have done that, and I thank you

[*BigSexyHunter*]

Originally Posted by Pikebreath

I have no problem with the original poster's comments on hunting grouse with 22s or "head shots" on sitting ducks,,, but,,,

I do have some problems with "if it's legal, it's fine" attitude though... It is legal to have consensual sex with a 16 year old baby sitter,, but that may not go over well with the mother of your child,,,, or the babysitter's mother for that matter!!!

Extreme example perhaps, but fence lining someone's decoy spread from the roadside ditch is also legal, and I do think most hunters would agree it's not particularly ethical.

To me, it's a "no harm, no foul" as well as "within the law" issue.

Agreed.

[*BigSexyHunter*]

Originally Posted by drake

So much hypocracy in the OPs post....not worth a reply. I'm glad the OPs "ethics" work for him.

Not trying to be an *****, simply trying to start a conversation, but please elaborate on your statement

[wwbirds]

Last I checked ground swatting ruffed grouse or shooting sitting ducks on water was legal. Not something I would do but if you are meat hunting and don't care for the challenge of wing shooting go for it.

As far as shooting the beaks off with a 22 I feel you have a higher chance of wounding a sitting or standing bird unless you hit the head cleanly with a few pellets. the wings are folded over the body and thus protect the vitals. Shotguns are for wing shooting and they penetrate the centre of mass to the vitals if the bird is lead correctly. Doesn't mean that is the only way to use them but it is how many of us view shotgunning.

[Hair trigger]

I don't judge or care quite frankly. But if your hunting Waterfowl with our tight group it would not be supported at all. Just the way our Dads taught us and the way we are teaching our kids.

All the best

HT

[Lefty-Canuck]

I "ground swatted" these....but I used a two fletched arrow so it was ethically done





LC

[*BigSexyHunter*]

Originally Posted by wwbirds

Last I checked ground swatting ruffed grouse or shooting sitting ducks on water was legal. Not something I would do but if you are meat hunting and don't care for the challenge of wing shooting go for it.

I do like the challenge of wingshooting, as I do when in a blind for geese and ducks. But don't see wasting the meat for ruffies... This is just my opinion, not trying to change anybody else...

[*BigSexyHunter*]

Originally Posted by Hair trigger

I don't judge or care quite frankly. But if your hunting Waterfowl with our tight group it would not be supported at all. Just the way our Dads taught us and the way we are teaching our kids.

All the best

HT

And see I was taught the opposite, not trying to change anybody else, just looking for other opinions. And with that being said, maybe its time I change my view/opinion on waterfowl hunting.

[catnthehat]

Originally Posted by Pikebreath

I have no problem with the original poster's comments on hunting grouse with 22s or "head shots" on sitting ducks,,, but,,,

I do have some problems with "if it's legal, it's fine" attitude though... It is legal to have consensual sex with a 16 year old baby sitter,, but that may not go over well with the mother of your child,,,, or the babysitter's mother for that matter!!!

Extreme example perhaps, but fence lining someone's decoy spread from the roadside ditch is also legal, and I do think most hunters would agree it's not particularly ethical.

To me, it's a "no harm, no foul" as well as "within the law" issue.

Legallities and ethics are two differen things, and even though something is legal does not mean tha think it s right or that I even use that method if i do think it's "okay", for instance, would never fenceline another spread, heck wpuld never even set up aywhere near another spread even if were legal.
We also stay well clear of another group of hunters when going after upland birds, and although there is nothing illegal it, would NEVER shoot over another hunter's dog unless I asked first, and even then I would offer the bird to the dog's owner.
Cat

[Foxton Gundogs]

Originally Posted by catnthehat

Legallities and ethics are two differen things, and even though something is legal does not mean tha think it s right or that I even use that method if i do think it's "okay", for instance, would never fenceline another spread, heck wpuld never even set up aywhere near another spread even if were legal.
We also stay well clear of another group of hunters when going after upland birds, and although there is nothing illegal it, would NEVER shoot over another hunter's dog unless I asked first, and even then I would offer the bird to the dog's owner.
Cat

Well said

[expmler]

I think the difference is between the meat hunter and the sport hunter. The meat hunters primary purpose in hunting is to fill the freezer with quality meat.
He will use the best legal method to get his meat and have it in the best condition and the least amount of waste.

The sport hunter enjoys the challenge and the meat is a welcomed bonus. So as gathering meat is not his primary purpose he is willing to give game what he thinks is a sporting chance.

For most sport hunters there is much more to hunting than filling the freezer and that's fine, but I don't see any reason for sport hunters to disparage the meat hunters methods or vice versa.

[Groundhogger]

Originally Posted by expmler

I think the difference is between the meat hunter and the sport hunter. The meat hunters primary purpose in hunting is to fill the freezer with quality meat.
He will use the best legal method to get his meat and have it in the best condition and the least amount of waste.

The sport hunter enjoys the challenge and the meat is a welcomed bonus. So as gathering meat is not his primary purpose he is willing to give game what he thinks is a sporting chance.

For most sport hunters there is much more to hunting than filling the freezer and that's fine, but I don't see any reason for sport hunters to disparage the meat hunters methods or vice versa.

^I think this is a very well-balanced, reasonable post. If I were to maybe just "split hairs" for one moment, it would be the text I've highlighted. I would like to suggest that if one invests hundreds (if not, thousands) of dollars in hunting equipment, sets aside a day, drives to a location, puts miles on the boots...and then suggests that the meat isn't the primary purpose...? I'd probably say "then it wouldn't matter if you left the gun at home and brought a camera...?" I'm not trying to be a smart ***, I guess I just wish people weren't looking to put labels on the way people hunt. "Meat"/"Sport", that sort of thing. A grouse (here) IN it's natural setting is usually walking around on the ground. If I purposely scare into the air to "inject" some kind of sporting element that doesn't need to be there, I'm only doing that for my amusement. Not judging, just suggesting that I truly believe there is room for every approach, and I honestly don't feel one is less "sporting" than another. There could be an argument made for wing shots being more "challenging", but let's not let the "sporting" term sway how we view the way others hunt. Just my 2 cents.

[Lefty-Canuck]

^^^^^^^

So how about pheasant hunting and finding a bird that is "holed up" beneath your feet....you are out hunting with a shotgun, so do you flush it and shoot giving it a chance or do you step on it and harvest it without firing a shot?

LC

[catnthehat]

I don't differentiate bewteen sport hunters and meat hunters as far as hunting goes, but I also have no rspect for some0ne that fencelines someone else's spread " because they can" and then say they are meat huntign not sport hunting, same thing as shooting pheasants on the ground right out of the release truck.
Many of these same people call themselves hunters, they may be some sort of hunter but they are not my idea of a sportsmanlike hunter.

There was also a reference in this thread insinuatig that birds shot out of the air are more shot up than if they are shot on the ground, which is not always the case.
if it's a lousy shot it doesn't matter where the bird is.
Very few of my son's and my birds are shot up in the breast and legs.

Cat

[redbike]

Personally, I like the challenge of shooting on the wing, but it is the way I was raised. Hunting ruffies with a .22 for meat doesn't offend me at all, I just prefer it the other way. I will never forget the pair I took on the wing hunting north of la Biche one time years ago. Only time I've been able to do it, and popping those 2 in the 'pre-flight' position just wouldn't have been as memorable.

[drake]

Originally Posted by catnthehat

I don't differentiate bewteen sport hunters and meat hunters as far as hunting goes, but I also have no rspect for some0ne that fencelines someone else's spread " because they can" and then say they are meat huntign not sport hunting, same thing as shooting pheasants on the ground right out of the release truck.
Many of these same people call themselves hunters, they may be some sort of hunter but they are not my idea of a sportsmanlike hunter.

There was also a reference in this thread insinuatig that birds shot out of the air are more shot up than if they are shot on the ground, which is not always the case.
if it's a lousy shot it doesn't matter where the bird is.
Very few of my son's and my birds are shot up in the breast and legs.

Cat

yep!

[Groundhogger]

Originally Posted by Lefty-Canuck

^^^^^^^

So how about pheasant hunting and finding a bird that is "holed up" beneath your feet....you are out hunting with a shotgun, so do you flush it and shoot giving it a chance or do you step on it and harvest it without firing a shot?

LC

^as stated in my first post, the only birds I hunt ARE ruffed grouse, so I can't (and shouldn't) comment on any other type of bird hunting since I don't have first-hand experience with it. Grouse, in my experience, won't usually let you get that close, but do seem to try walking out of view before resorting to flying. Whatever the case, I'm not suggesting anyone do, or do not hunt a certain way...just avoid the temptation to say one way is superior just because you prefer it.

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by Lefty-Canuck

^^^^^^^

So how about pheasant hunting and finding a bird that is "holed up" beneath your feet....you are out hunting with a shotgun, so do you flush it and shoot giving it a chance or do you step on it and harvest it without firing a shot?

LC

If the ABA and F&W have their way, harvesting it without firing a shot will be illegal by next year. Seriously.

And so will using a pellet gun, slingshot, stick or rock for those camp chickens.

[Lefty-Canuck]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

If the ABA and F&W have their way, harvesting it without firing a shot will be illegal by next year. Seriously.

And so will using a pellet gun, slingshot, stick or rock for those camp chickens.

I certainly don't agree with the changes to what is proposed. The wording of the regs as they stand now have worked well for how long? Sometimes a knife is needed to do what a bullet or arrow failed to accomplish.....

I certainly hope the wording isn't changed to take this as far as that!

LC

[nekred]

How about you do what you want I do what i want within confines of law and at the end of the day we shake hands have a beer and enjoy our supper and not discuss our personal ethics....

[nekred]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

If the ABA and F&W have their way, harvesting it without firing a shot will be illegal by next year. Seriously.

And so will using a pellet gun, slingshot, stick or rock for those camp chickens.

point number 1... since when did grouse become big game.....

point number 2 how is a proposal to define legal hunting equipment for big game have any relevence to this post?

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by Lefty-Canuck

I certainly don't agree with the changes to what is proposed. The wording of the regs as they stand now have worked well for how long? Sometimes a knife is needed to do what a bullet or arrow failed to accomplish.....

LC

It's a big can of worms, or are those snakes....

Thanks for the reminder, under the proposed new legal weapons definition being pushed by the ABA and F&W, using a knife to finish off game will be illegal too.