Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 47

Thread: Different culture, different ethics

  1. #1
    Member .338-06's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    1,045

    Default Different culture, different ethics

    I've thought long and hard over the whole using .223 for big game hunting and have come up with some ideas I'd like to share.

    Mainstream American hunting has long had "One shot, One kill" as it's basic ethic and there's an onus on having to shoot more to put game down. It shows you're a poor marksman, you didn't shoot the animal in the right spot. Or you're a poor woodsman, you didn't get close enough.

    A long time ago, I read an article in Alaska magazine about a Barrow girl who took her first polar bear. 7 rounds from her Mini-14. First I thought, "Wow! a .223? I'd never be brave enough to use a caliber that small." Then I thought, "Well, a young girl can't handle a BIG caliber."

    Over the years I heard and read, even on this forum, how people in the Bush commonly use .223 to hunt big game, most often using Mini-14s. I started to ask myself why were their hunting ethics so different? Added to this I read any number of articles about hunting in Africa where the Professional Hunters(Guides) complain that Americans use "too much gun" and are never ready for follow up shots.

    Well, American hunters want one shot, one kill of course. Why, did the African PHs expect something else? Seems they did. They want hunters to shoot until the animal falls down and doesn't get back up. This is ethical to them. Using a gun that a hunter can do this with is ethical to them. Yes, I know there are caliber minimums.

    American hunting began as subsitance hunting with black powder, single shot weapons. Eating pretty much meant you better get a kill with one shot and if you were poor you couldn't afford to miss. Fast forward to to today, to subsistance hunting. You need hunt and you're money poor, so you need to do it cheaply. Cheapest big hunting in Alaska today is killing caribou with a .22lr from a boat on the Yukon. Second cheapest is using a .223. It is also light kicking so shooting 3-7 rounds are sure to hit the animal before it gets away.

    It is the shooting of the animal multiple times that goes against mainstream American hunting ethics. Do you think an animal suffers more being hit 5-6 times quickly by a FMJ .223 or once by a Barnes TSX .338?

    Shooting a caribou or moose once with a .223 and expecting it to die is asking for a slowly dying animal. Expecting to shoot an animal several times with a .223 and doing it correctly is quickly killing an animal.

    With respect, I don't think hunting a big game animal with a .223 is wrong. Or rather, hunting a big game animal with a .223 expecting a one shot kill is wrong.

    I listened to the Alaska News report on the radio about banning .223s for hunting big game. The guy who is pushing it said he became disgusted when it took 3 rounds from his .223 to put down a deer. He was disgusted because he expected one shot one kill. He shouldn't have.

    What are your thoughts?

  2. #2
    Mark
    Guest

    Default

    Ethics:

    1. (used with a singular or plural verb) a system of moral principles: the ethics of a culture.
    2. the rules of conduct recognized in respect to a particular class of human actions or a particular group, culture, etc.: medical ethics; Christian ethics.
    3. moral principles, as of an individual: His ethics forbade betrayal of a confidence.
    4. (usually used with a singular verb) that branch of philosophy dealing with values relating to human conduct, with respect to the rightness and wrongness of certain actions and to the goodness and badness of the motives and ends of such actions.
    1) I think American men have had access to too many hunting/shooting magazines and the hype that they sell, and the result is "bigger/newer is better", and "if you don't keep up, you're going to lose"

    2) I think the increasingly larger percentage of the population who don't shoot/hunt are gaining an increasing amount of power over the ethics of the hunters/shooters

    3) An increasing percentage of that larger percentage of the population who don't shoot/hunt are being consumed into the environmental movement/religion which considers hunting in and of itself as poor ethics

    4) I think the above factors are going to continue and even accelerate

  3. #3
    Member hodgeman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Delta Junction AK
    Posts
    4,055

    Default

    A few years ago I was in Nuiqsuit for a few days and was fascinated to learn the almost everyone had Mini-14s and .223 was seen as the most common (ie. about only) hunting round there. The AC store had mini-14s and .223 ammo and if you wanted anything else you were pretty much SOL. The town's "Big Gun" was owned by the maintenance guy and was an ancient Husky .270 and he had to have buddies fly that ammo in.. I was amazed.

    Among Canadian Inuit hunters the .222 was once extremely popular, albeit for mostly logistical reasons I believe. Lots of ammo in small spaces, light and easy to shoot accurately. Plenty of power for seals and maybe enough for the rare something bigger. I've also heard the 7mm Mag has largely supplanted it over the last few years.

    I think a lot of common hunting ethics stem from East Coast woods hunting. One shot is likely all you're going to get in the thick forest and no matter what you're packing and it better be a pretty good one. A lot of hunters read reports of Jack O'Connor cutting down mule deer with 5 or 7 or 8 shots and just shook their heads.. They simply couldn't conceive of getting that much lead on a deer.

  4. #4

    Default Excuses

    American hunting began as subsitance hunting with black powder, single shot weapons. Eating pretty much meant you better get a kill with one shot and if you were poor you couldn't afford to miss. Fast forward to to today, to subsistance hunting. You need hunt and you're money poor, so you need to do it cheaply. Cheapest big hunting in Alaska today is killing caribou with a .22lr from a boat on the Yukon. Second cheapest is using a .223. It is also light kicking so shooting 3-7 rounds are sure to hit the animal before it gets away.

    It is the shooting of the animal multiple times that goes against mainstream American hunting ethics. Do you think an animal suffers more being hit 5-6 times quickly by a FMJ .223 or once by a Barnes TSX .338?

    Shooting a caribou or moose once with a .223 and expecting it to die is asking for a slowly dying animal. Expecting to shoot an animal several times with a .223 and doing it correctly is quickly killing an animal.

    With respect, I don't think hunting a big game animal with a .223 is wrong. Or rather, hunting a big game animal with a .223 expecting a one shot kill is wrong.

    I listened to the Alaska News report on the radio about banning .223s for hunting big game. The guy who is pushing it said he became disgusted when it took 3 rounds from his .223 to put down a deer. He was disgusted because he expected one shot one kill. He shouldn't have.

    What are your thoughts?[/quote]


    It all sounds like the EXCUSES are interwoven with some peoples lack of respect for the animals they hunt.

    I'm sure it has nothing to do with culture as the Mini-14 didn't exist befor e 1973, ths AR-15 didn't come into widespread civilian use until about the same time. So this type of hunting has ONLY reared it's ugly head in the past 30 or so years. It has nothing to do with culture or the tribe has been doing for that way for centuries; NOT SO. And semi-autos certainly aren't cheaper than bolt guns, so that's not an excuse either.
    You say you are willing to shoot a caribou 6-7 times before it gets away. What happens if you only shoot it twice, now a wounded animal gets to feed the wolves when it lies down and dies; cause it most certainly won't leave a good blood trail using a 223 with FMJ bullets. Today 6 or 7 223 rounds will certainly cost a much as 2 or 3 rounds of 30-06.

    I think a responseable hunter with a 223 using the proper bullets and marksmanship could kill a Black Tail with one shot. I've killed mule deer with a 223 while hunting Javelina in west Texas, BUT not using FMJ ammo.

    SO, I believe it's just an EXCUSE used by slovenly killers, who had rather shoot an animal to pieces than hunt an animal .
    " Americans will never need the 2nd Amendment, until the government tries to take it away."

    On the road of life..... Pot holes keep things interesting !

  5. #5
    Mark
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by brav01 View Post
    .....SO, I believe it's just an EXCUSE used by slovenly killers, who had rather shoot an animal to pieces than hunt an animal.
    There are lots of people who think that killing animals in any manner and for any reason is unethical.

    So do you think you should have to bend to their ethics like you're demanding others do to yours?

    Or is it just all about your ethics, and the ethics of others (don't kill animals and/or kill them with .223's) just doesn't matter?

  6. #6
    Member martentrapper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Fairbanks, Ak.
    Posts
    4,190

    Default

    Each time a hunter enters the field, he has made compromises to get there. Each time he takes a shot, he has made compromises to get to that point, and compromises in his weapon of choice. Life, including hunting, is full of compromises.
    I am satisfied to let folks in Barrow choose what compromisers they may make. Folks in Fbks, or Anch, or even in Teaxs can also make their own choices and compromises without my help.
    In return, I hope that others will allow me to choose what compromises I may make, within the law of course.
    I can't help being a lazy, dumb, weekend warrior.......I have a JOB!
    I have less friends now!!

  7. #7
    Member Vince's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Fairbanks most the time, Ancorage some of the time,& on the road Kicking Anti's all the time
    Posts
    8,989

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by martentrapper View Post
    Each time a hunter enters the field, he has made compromises to get there. Each time he takes a shot, he has made compromises to get to that point, and compromises in his weapon of choice. Life, including hunting, is full of compromises.
    I am satisfied to let folks in Barrow choose what compromisers they may make. Folks in Fbks, or Anch, or even in Teaxs can also make their own choices and compromises without my help.
    In return, I hope that others will allow me to choose what compromises I may make, within the law of course.

    +1 MT... use what you want and do the job...
    "If you are on a continuous search to be offended, you will always find what you are looking for; even when it isn't there."

    meet on face book here

  8. #8
    Member akjeff's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Palmer
    Posts
    788

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by .338-06 View Post
    I've thought long and hard over the whole using .223 for big game hunting and have come up with some ideas I'd like to share.

    Mainstream American hunting has long had "One shot, One kill" as it's basic ethic and there's an onus on having to shoot more to put game down. It shows you're a poor marksman, you didn't shoot the animal in the right spot. Or you're a poor woodsman, you didn't get close enough.

    A long time ago, I read an article in Alaska magazine about a Barrow girl who took her first polar bear. 7 rounds from her Mini-14. First I thought, "Wow! a .223? I'd never be brave enough to use a caliber that small." Then I thought, "Well, a young girl can't handle a BIG caliber."

    Over the years I heard and read, even on this forum, how people in the Bush commonly use .223 to hunt big game, most often using Mini-14s. I started to ask myself why were their hunting ethics so different? Added to this I read any number of articles about hunting in Africa where the Professional Hunters(Guides) complain that Americans use "too much gun" and are never ready for follow up shots.

    Well, American hunters want one shot, one kill of course. Why, did the African PHs expect something else? Seems they did. They want hunters to shoot until the animal falls down and doesn't get back up. This is ethical to them. Using a gun that a hunter can do this with is ethical to them. Yes, I know there are caliber minimums.

    American hunting began as subsitance hunting with black powder, single shot weapons. Eating pretty much meant you better get a kill with one shot and if you were poor you couldn't afford to miss. Fast forward to to today, to subsistance hunting. You need hunt and you're money poor, so you need to do it cheaply. Cheapest big hunting in Alaska today is killing caribou with a .22lr from a boat on the Yukon. Second cheapest is using a .223. It is also light kicking so shooting 3-7 rounds are sure to hit the animal before it gets away.

    It is the shooting of the animal multiple times that goes against mainstream American hunting ethics. Do you think an animal suffers more being hit 5-6 times quickly by a FMJ .223 or once by a Barnes TSX .338?

    Shooting a caribou or moose once with a .223 and expecting it to die is asking for a slowly dying animal. Expecting to shoot an animal several times with a .223 and doing it correctly is quickly killing an animal.

    With respect, I don't think hunting a big game animal with a .223 is wrong. Or rather, hunting a big game animal with a .223 expecting a one shot kill is wrong.

    I listened to the Alaska News report on the radio about banning .223s for hunting big game. The guy who is pushing it said he became disgusted when it took 3 rounds from his .223 to put down a deer. He was disgusted because he expected one shot one kill. He shouldn't have.

    What are your thoughts?
    Agree 100% with you, my friend. Ethics are a mere extension of our morals. To paraphrase Mark, some people's ethics (or morals) dictate that no animal should be killed, period. Caution is needed when we talk about changing the methods used to harvest game.

    Again, with all due respect to all concerned

    akjeff
    rep points added

  9. #9
    Member MARV1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Kotlik
    Posts
    640

    Default

    All it takes is a well placed shot where you were taught to shoot an animal to take it down instantly, and it doesn't always have to be a .375 or larger rifle. I've taken my moose with a .223, .243, .22-250, .30/06, and .300wm and always happy with the results when I hit them where I shoot them. Choose your own caliber of choice, I'll choose mine. Same with just about anything else.
    The emphasis is on accuracy, not power!

  10. #10
    Member akshrop's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    North Pole, AK
    Posts
    448

    Default

    I will get flamed about this post I am sure, but I have a couple of thoughts anyway. First I think some of us are mixing apples with oranges when comparing “hunting” with “harvesting.” I will get hammered about that, but I think they are very different. One is for the enjoyment and one is to live. They do mix a little, I am sure, but why limit how an animal is killed strictly for food? I got the possible lack of blood trail, they could get away, a wolf might be the one eating it, ect… Did we lose sight of what is going on? We are killing an animal. It is for food that it originated. I doubt someone how is hungry will let many animals get away. I have no idea how many animals are lost by “harvesters,” but I doubt it is many if it is truly for food. Now “hunters” have been limiting themselves for years, black powder, only the newest magnum, bows, spears, handguns, ect… I don’t agree with wasting an animal by using a method that does not allow for the recovery of the animal, but I don’t care how they are taken as long as they end-up being eaten. How many here have lost an animal for what ever reason? I bet most of us. Now before you say that you have never lost an animal, consider the birds you have shot, rabbits (hares), BB gun used, ect… I will be very surprised if anyone here can honestly say they have never lost an animal. I have lost more fowl than I can remember in any accurate way. Even using dogs I have lost birds. I even had Eagles taking ducks away from me in Washington. Am I an unethical? I don’t think so. I will not knowingly take a shot that is not in my comfort zone, but things go wrong. I have seen my dad take 90% of all his game (mostly non-birds) with head shots and I have even seen him kill turkeys and cranes with 243s to the head as well. He uses whatever he has at hand. In the end the animal is eaten, who cares how it was taken. Now for those of us who preach fast humane kills, I say it is not human, so how can it be humane? Dead is dead. No I don’t think we should torture our food, but we start down a hard road when we give animal human rights and feelings. I am the first to admit I will quickly put an animal down with a finishing shot even when the animal is anchored, but I don’t see it as evil for someone who will not “waste” another round on an anchored animal and uses a knife instead. By design, shot guns use multiple rounds to kill, what is the difference when someone using 3-6 223 versus shot shells? Time of impact? I can put 3-6 rounds from an M-16 into the kill zone in 2-4 seconds whether the animal is running or not as long as the shot is not obstructed, I bet anyone who has practiced much can as well. I can’t say that with a bolt action super magnum. Can you?

  11. #11
    Supporting Member Amigo Will's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Wrangell
    Posts
    7,599

    Default

    I would think 6 223 throught the heart/lung area is equal to an 30/06 in the same spot.I also believe 6 rounds of 223 spray and pray from the lungs through the guts to the hind quaters waste meat.The purpose of the 223 was to wound 120 lb. men. In Viet Nam I much prefered to make a one shot stop with the M-14 than to keep shooting with the AR-16 hopeing to stop the man before he returned fire with his 7.63x39 of choice.Folks talk of compromise with-in the law and the law is now changeing as it feel the 223 compromise is to far.On one hand we use a small gill net to catch food to be put up for winter and for sport we use a rod&reel with a Pixie.The 223 deal is about Ball FMJ ammo not hunting Bou with a 223 and say balistic tips.The Ball FMJ is designed to pass through what it hits. If shooting a Bou in a herd six time with this round how many of the rounds pass through and wound other Bou not taken as part of the bag.Its all a sticky wicket at best.

  12. #12
    Member akshrop's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    North Pole, AK
    Posts
    448

    Default

    Amigo, I am not trying to be argument, but the effects of a pass through have nothing to do with banning a specific bullet type. It has everything to do with the SA of the shooter. I don't shot stacked animals. My round of choice will pass through a bou. Not only that, but do only FMJ pass over animals? This thread is about banning a means to harvest, a tool if you will. We are making about ethics, good hunters, bad shots, ect... I am stealing someone’s line here, but “do you blame the pen for misspelled words?” Bottom line for me is that the tool should not be banned for its possible misuse in someone’s hands. Prosecute after the crime, not before.

  13. #13

    Default 223

    This thread started of about culture and ethics.This thread really isn't as much about using the 223 to hunt caribou as it is using "it's our culture" so it must be ethical.
    The problem is; THIS culture of using semi-auto 223's to hunt didn't exist before 1973. 35 years isn't a culture;it's the starting of a bad habit. My dad smoked 32 years and quite the habit.That's not culture, IT'S an EXCUSE. Justify it if you wish to yourself, I ain't buying any !!
    I don't belive in this killing method; however IF it's your choice at least don't slaughter and waste the resources that could be used by someone else !

    FINAL ANSWER
    " Americans will never need the 2nd Amendment, until the government tries to take it away."

    On the road of life..... Pot holes keep things interesting !

  14. #14
    Member akshrop's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    North Pole, AK
    Posts
    448

    Default

    How does using a 223 relate to "slaughter and waste the resources that could be used by someone else?"

    338-06 would have to answer what he started the thread about, but I read it as the cultural ethics of "one shot one kill." I didn't read that he said certain people have a cultural need to use 223.

    I believe the cultural difference is between “harvester” versus “hunter,” not tied to a specific ethnic group. Maybe my use of “harvester” and “hunter” is not clear either. I simply mean it as the difference between survival and enjoyment.

    PETA can condemn all those who kill animals with the same arguments I have seen in this thread. In the end we are killing, to justify the method by bullet size as “ethical” or not is ridiculous in my opinion. I have no need to justify the taking of an animal’s life because I use the “right” bullet. If we need to convince ourselves that our hunting is ethical because we kill so “cleanly,” we need to spend some time in reality. Killing is killing, the animal dies. I don’t believe in leaving an animal to suffer more than necessary, but come-on, we are killing it.

    Now to argue that a certain bullet or caliber is the more efficient one is another matter entirely, but then “efficient” must be defined first.

  15. #15

    Default Really

    Really what I read is that because it's a different CULTURE it's ethically ok to go out and hose down a group of animals with a small sub-caliber semi-auto rifle. This sounds much like the method used in the now over disscussed "caribou massacre". The 223 just happens to be the tool of choice, I have nothing against the 223. It's just a tool; a fine tool at that.
    My point is IT AIN'T CULTURE ! ETHICS, you can put lipstick on a pig it's still a pig.
    " Americans will never need the 2nd Amendment, until the government tries to take it away."

    On the road of life..... Pot holes keep things interesting !

  16. #16
    Member Vince's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Fairbanks most the time, Ancorage some of the time,& on the road Kicking Anti's all the time
    Posts
    8,989

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by .338-06 View Post
    I've thought long and hard over the whole using .223 for big game hunting and have come up with some ideas I'd like to share. sound like an idea NOT an excuse

    Mainstream American hunting has long had "One shot, One kill" as it's basic ethic and there's an onus on having to shoot more to put game down. It shows you're a poor marksman, you didn't shoot the animal in the right spot. Or you're a poor woodsman, you didn't get close enough.
    There is a lot of emphasis put on exactly that in our hunting culture.. prove your worth by sneaking up on it..
    A long time ago, I read an article in Alaska magazine about a Barrow girl who took her first polar bear. 7 rounds from her Mini-14. First I thought, "Wow! a .223? I'd never be brave enough to use a caliber that small." Then I thought, "Well, a young girl can't handle a BIG caliber." MY 11 year old still shoots her 223 well. she is 4'2" and weighs 65 lbs..

    Over the years I heard and read, even on this forum, how people in the Bush commonly use .223 to hunt big game, What i keep hearing is that you must use the biggest gun you can get! take a look at the threads on what to hunt with. serious TOOL ENVY out there let me tell ya! caliber is not a replacement for skill. in any form, then again neither is rate of FIRE...most often using Mini-14s. I started to ask myself why were their hunting ethics so different? Added to this I read any number of articles about hunting in Africa where the Professional Hunters(Guides) complain that Americans use "too much gun" and are never ready for follow up shots.

    Well, American hunters want one shot, one kill of course. Why, did the African PHs expect something else? Seems they did. They want hunters to shoot until the animal falls down and doesn't get back up. This is ethical to them. Using a gun that a hunter can do this with is ethical to them. Yes, I know there are caliber minimums.

    American hunting began as subsitance hunting with black powder, single shot weapons. Eating pretty much meant you better get a kill with one shot and if you were poor you couldn't afford to miss. Fast forward to to today, to subsistance hunting. You need hunt and you're money poor, so you need to do it cheaply. Cheapest big hunting in Alaska today is killing caribou with a .22lr from a boat on the Yukon. Second cheapest is using a .223. It is also light kicking so shooting 3-7 rounds are sure to hit the animal before it gets away.

    It is the shooting of the animal multiple times that goes against mainstream American hunting ethics. Do you think an animal suffers more being hit 5-6 times quickly by a FMJ .223 or once by a Barnes TSX .338?

    Shooting a caribou or moose once with a .223 and expecting it to die is asking for a slowly dying animal. have shot 7 moose with .223 fmj. dropped in their tracks, love it for bou. Expecting to shoot an animal several times with a .223 and doing it correctly is quickly killing an animal.

    With respect, I don't think hunting a big game animal with a .223 is wrong. Or rather, hunting a big game animal with a .223 expecting a one shot kill is wrong. this is the video game era showing up also... you get more points when it is drooped with one shot.. and more points for finding the blood trails... unfortunate there is NO reset button when you screw up .

    I listened to the Alaska News report on the radio about banning .223s for hunting big game. The guy who is pushing it said he became disgusted when it took 3 rounds from his .223 to put down a deer. He was disgusted because he expected one shot one kill. He shouldn't have.



    What are your thoughts?
    I think every one missed the fact that the guy starting the trouble is the one who should be reading these threads. he can't shoot.. heck i have seen moose take 7- rounds out of a 458 win mag. not that each one didn't kill it. he just had the heart to stay up ...some do...
    "If you are on a continuous search to be offended, you will always find what you are looking for; even when it isn't there."

    meet on face book here

  17. #17
    New member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    171

    Default

    [quote=brav01;387549]
    The problem is; THIS culture of using semi-auto 223's to hunt didn't exist before 1973. 35 years isn't a culture;it's the starting of a bad habit.

    Interesting . plus 1

  18. #18
    New member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    171

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vince View Post
    I think every one missed the fact that the guy starting the trouble is the one who should be reading these threads. he can't shoot.. heck
    There's a ton of people out there who aren't familiar with weapons but own them .
    You could place them inside a barn and they still couldn't hit the side of a barn .

  19. #19
    Member bushrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Now residing in Fairbanks from the bush
    Posts
    4,363

    Default Not to beat a dead horse...

    ...but I think everyone should be informed on exactly what is going on with this whole .223 thing.

    The proposal before the Board of Game sought to ban .223 full metal jacket (fmj) bullets for hunting big game in Units 1-4 in SE Alaska. The Board deferred the proposal to the meeting this spring with an amendment to apply it statewide to ALL calibers.

    Now I'm just the messenger here, telling ya'll what the Board did. We will all have an opportunity to comment on this proposal before the meeting in Anchorage in late February. I'm going to paste in the original proposal below that gives the reasoning behind it.
    Best to all, Mark

    PROPOSAL 48 – 5 AAC 92.085. Unlawful methods of taking big game; exceptions. Modify
    the methods for taking big game Units 1, 2, 3 and 4 as follows:
    Big game in Units 1, 2, 3 and 4 may not be taken with the use of 223 caliber full metal jacket
    bullets.
    ISSUE: Full metal jacket bullets are designed for maiming people in time of war. Soft tipped or
    solid bullets are designed to kill. 223 full metal jacketed should be a prohibited bullet type for the
    harvest of big game in Southeast Alaska (primarily for deer).
    WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Continued loss of big game due to the
    wounding, maiming or crippling due to the use of an inappropriate type of bullet for hunting.
    Bullet wounds do not bleed openly as an indication of being hit during tracking. The silver of
    stainless steel zips through the animal and bullet impact may not be apparent if a body shot
    occurs while the animal is moving.
    WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED
    BE IMPROVED? The proposal will reduce the loss of big game and improve the quality of the
    resource population by minimizing or reducing waste.
    WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? All big game hunters who desire a healthy game population
    and strive to achieve clean kill shots.
    WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? All big game boat hunters interested in harvesting deer on the
    beaches that desire shooting deer from 223 caliber semi-autos loaded up with non-hunting
    bullets.
    OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Most bullets available to the public as full metal
    jacket are in the 223 caliber so prohibiting use of all caliber of full metal jacket appears to
    overstep the primary problem. Hunters have access to 223 caliber hunting bullets and
    ammunition at very reasonable costs.

  20. #20
    Mark
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by akshrop View Post
    I will get flamed about this post I am sure........


    (*Kidding*)

    .....I think some of us are mixing apples with oranges when comparing “hunting” with “harvesting.”....
    And, like with everything else, that confusion is reflected in our laws/regs (which is also mixed between hunting and harvesting).

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •