Slow Day... The Best Big Buck State

[bueller]

Scenario #1- Weekend warrior shoots three bucks with his inadequate slug gun during the season. First two are wounded and not recovered, one later dies. Third one is recovered and tag is punched. End result is 2 dead bucks and 1 wounded buck.

Scenario #2- Same weekend warrior shoots one buck with his new "cheap" yet accurate rifle. He recovers buck and tag is punched. End result is 1 dead buck.

I'd take scenario #2 all day. Allowing rifles is humane and will not have a negative effect, quite possibly it will have a positive effect of fewer wounded and fewer killed but never recovered deer.

 

[roymunson]

So if i'm reading this correctly, spud goes out of his way to not register deer, show anyone trail camera pics or kill pics, so as to not invite shiners, hillbillies, and poachers, then proceeds to have it out on an internet forum, with people he doesn't know, declaring the virtues of the state he hunts, the very state he's trying to keep low key and keep all sorts of whackos from coming to and stomping all over him and his hunting lands.

Copy that.

 

[roymunson]

all that being said, you're going to have a heard time pulling me out of Ohio during the meat of hunting season, best area or not, it's home to me and it's exactlywhere I want to be when the hunting gets hot. I may be able to kill a bigger buck elsewhere, but nothing will ever feel like it does in my home terrain.

 

[roymunson]

Scenario #1- Weekend warrior shoots three bucks with his inadequate slug gun during the season. First two are wounded and not recovered, one later dies. Third one is recovered and tag is punched. End result is 2 dead bucks and 1 wounded buck.

Scenario #2- Same weekend warrior shoots one buck with his new "cheap" yet accurate rifle. He recovers buck and tag is punched. End result is 1 dead buck.

I'd take scenario #2 all day. Allowing rifles is humane and will not have a negative effect, quite possibly it will have a positive effect of fewer wounded and fewer killed but never recovered deer.

I'm just biter that this hack had a shot at 3 bucks... I'd give my left testicular for that chance

 

[Chainsaw]

A friends wife shot a large buck and I asked the friend what it scored. He told me it weighed 192. I told him that was great and repeated to him what did it score. His reply was he didn’t know anything about scoring a deer, and that I was the only person that ever would even wonder what a deer scores and he really didn’t care how or what scoring a deer meant. It was a large buck and that is all that mattered. With that seemingly unrelated tale I’m stating parts of New York State has some of the largest bucks in the nation. Two hundred pounds dressed really happens.

 

[bwoods11]

Scenario #1- Weekend warrior shoots three bucks with his inadequate slug gun during the season. First two are wounded and not recovered, one later dies. Third one is recovered and tag is punched. End result is 2 dead bucks and 1 wounded buck.

Scenario #2- Same weekend warrior shoots one buck with his new "cheap" yet accurate rifle. He recovers buck and tag is punched. End result is 1 dead buck.

I'd take scenario #2 all day. Allowing rifles is humane and will not have a negative effect, quite possibly it will have a positive effect of fewer wounded and fewer killed but never recovered deer.

That is not the scenario you’d see in MN. Much of Minnesota is rifle already. This adds rifles to farm country and SE MN. It’s a push to kill more deer, MN DNR even admitted that.

Some of these areas are wide open, you could shoot 400 Yds with ease. Some guys will. It will increase the harvest of young bucks (vulnerable during rut). MN has poor yearling buck survival already, just adds to it.

 

[Peplin Creek]

Scenario #1- Weekend warrior shoots three bucks with his inadequate slug gun during the season. First two are wounded and not recovered, one later dies. Third one is recovered and tag is punched. End result is 2 dead bucks and 1 wounded buck.

Scenario #2- Same weekend warrior shoots one buck with his new "cheap" yet accurate rifle. He recovers buck and tag is punched. End result is 1 dead buck.

I'd take scenario #2 all day. Allowing rifles is humane and will not have a negative effect, quite possibly it will have a positive effect of fewer wounded and fewer killed but never recovered deer.

What if said shotgun hunter waits for an ethical kill and kills the first buck and said rifle hunter takes 3 shots at 3 bucks he shouldn’t and only gets one and wounds the other two?

 

[Mortenson]

I just think the weekend warrior who thinks he's a Delta Force shooter will expand his 100 yard range to 600 yards. Same net result on injured/wounded deer. Higher case of buildings, cars, and kids walking clifford getting shot. That goes for farm country anyway, where most guys are hunting a field edge or within 50 yards of it.

 

[H20fwler]

I thought the original reasoning for the “no rifles” was because most agricultural areas are flatter and it was/is a safety thing?

Ohio went to the straight walled rifles around five or six years ago and so far that has not been a negative that I have seen.

 

[bueller]

What if said shotgun hunter waits for an ethical kill and kills the first buck and said rifle hunter takes 3 shots at 3 bucks he shouldn’t and only gets one and wounds the other two?

I just think the weekend warrior who thinks he's a Delta Force shooter will expand his 100 yard range to 600 yards. Same net result on injured/wounded deer. Higher case of buildings, cars, and kids walking clifford getting shot. That goes for farm country anyway, where most guys are hunting a field edge or within 50 yards of it.

The vast majority of deer hunters have never harvested a deer over 150 yards and never will regardless of weapon choice. Rifles have been proven to be safer than shotguns. This whole panic mode over rifles is over hyped. Those of us on forums like this are NOT the average deer hunter. We are the ones hunting with quality weapons that we zero in and maintain. The average hunter uses a cheap weapon that they haven't dialed in. For shotguns that often means a smooth barrel with cheap slugs, bad combination for a humane kill. A rifle in the same price range ~$350 is a much better deer gun. I'd rather have my neighbors using a $350 rifle vs a shotgun. A clean kill is better than wounded deer year after year. I wish IL would go to rifle. LOTS of wounded deer running around and probably later dying on the public ground I hunt.

 

[Peplin Creek]

I’d much rather be hunting around people with shotguns than rifles. Purely from the safety stand point. Know your guns limitations and put some effort into getting close enough for an ethical kill.

 

[Bill]

Bueller I’m glad you weren’t in the box with me this year when I shot my deer.
complete amateur hour. (few seconds really, but still)

I’ll take a rifle over shotgun any day though. And I’ve got a rifled choke tube slug gun that will touch bullet holes at 100 yards.

 

[bueller]

Bueller I’m glad you weren’t in the box with me this year when I shot my deer.
complete amateur hour. (few seconds really, but still)

Whether we admit it or not, we've all been there. You know the saying, sh** happens.

 

[bueller]

I’d much rather be hunting around people with shotguns than rifles. Purely from the safety stand point. Know your guns limitations and put some effort into getting close enough for an ethical kill.

Studies have shown rifles to be safer than shotguns. Respecting the game is very important to me and forcing hunters to use less efficient weapons shows a lack of respect for the game IMO. It's not like rifles are nuclear weapons and all the deer are going to die now.

 

[bwoods11]

I don’t find many dead deer on MN when I shed hunt/ walk ground after the slug season. We have maybe found (3)in last 5 years that were gun hits, and we cover a

I thought the original reasoning for the “no rifles” was because most agricultural areas are flatter and it was/is a safety thing?

Ohio went to the straight walled rifles around five or six years ago and so far that has not been a negative that I have seen.

I think straight wall cartridges would be a good compromise for MN. 450 Bushmaster for example. Good accurate gun, but does not have the 500 yard range.

 

[Tree Spud]

The vast majority of deer hunters have never harvested a deer over 150 yards and never will regardless of weapon choice. Rifles have been proven to be safer than shotguns. This whole panic mode over rifles is over hyped. Those of us on forums like this are NOT the average deer hunter. We are the ones hunting with quality weapons that we zero in and maintain. The average hunter uses a cheap weapon that they haven't dialed in. For shotguns that often means a smooth barrel with cheap slugs, bad combination for a humane kill. A rifle in the same price range ~$350 is a much better deer gun. I'd rather have my neighbors using a $350 rifle vs a shotgun. A clean kill is better than wounded deer year after year. I wish IL would go to rifle. LOTS of wounded deer running around and probably later dying on the public ground I hunt.

I am not sure how having weapons that shoot farther will lead to fewer wounded deer? We have been rifle in Wisconsin for as long as I can remember. I consistently hear around me multiple shots 3-5 in a row. Even hear 7-8 shots in a row from guys with extended clip AR's. Then there are the 3-4 shots, then a minute so later another 3-4 shots and so forth from the next farm on the same running deer. A gut shot deer doesn't die any faster with a rifle than with a shotgun.

At least with shotguns you are distance limited. I had a bullet fly by me once so close I could hear it whistling through the air and then it slammed into a tree about 50 yards from me. I could see 200-250 yards in the direction the shot came from and could not see any orange.

The choice of weapon is not the problem, it is the hunter who fails to learn to shoot and take an ethical shot.

 

[Peplin Creek]

Studies have shown rifles to be safer than shotguns. Respecting the game is very important to me and forcing hunters to use less efficient weapons shows a lack of respect for the game IMO. It's not like rifles are nuclear weapons and all the deer are going to die now.

There is zero chance that have a woods full of rifle hunters are safer than a woods full of shotgun hunters. I’ve had rifle bullets whistle by me from 100 acres away. Probably wouldn’t happen with a shotgun.

 

[homerj]

https://www.americanhunter.org/articles/2012/8/23/are-shotguns-safer-than-rifles/
https://www.mcall.com/news/mc-xpm-2007-03-29-3709028-story.html

 

[jsasker007]

Hunters should be supporting each other no matter what the weapon.

 

[bueller]

The truth is those afraid of rifles are not afraid of being shot by a rifle, they are afraid of "their" bucks being shot by someone else's rifle. Pretty selfish if you ask me.