Sorry for the length of the following. It was lifted from the Louisiana Sportsman Magazine furum on Hunting Reports. Briefly its from a guy who forgot to bring his rifle to a deer hunt and used his 9mm auto to kill a deer at 130 yards. Its caused quite a stir on the forum.



On Sunday morning, while standing on a logging road on our deer lease in Simmsboro we were anxiously awaiting the dogs (who were in hot pursuit) to bring a deer across the straight-a-way road for Joe or Woody to shoot. They had their rifles on ready, but the dogs made a sudden turn to the opposite direction and they put their guns back into the trucks and commenced to get on the CB to alert the other members as to where the dogs had turned. I was standing along side the truck in the ditch watching and listening to them when a deer stepped out into the road, looked away then looked at us and proceeded to cross the very narrow road. Neither of my buddies had his rifle in shooting position, so I unholstered my 9mm and fired once striking the deer and he stumbled. Before they could get their rifles out to shoot the deer, he stepped over into the woods. I was dumbfounded with joy as my strickly lucky shot had hit the deer and both Joe and Woody were also amazed. We went up to where the deer stumbled to look for blood but found none. No sooner than we got to looking for the blood, one of the other members called and asked if "that crazy coonazz had shot that pistol" at a deer. Joe answered back to come bring a dog to track 'cause Capt. John had hit that deer with that pistol. When that announcement went over the radio, all the rest of the club quickly came over to assist in the search efforts because this would be the first kill with a pistol in the Club's 23 year career and they were all equally happy for me. The beagle found blood where the deer had laid down near a creek but could not track him any farther. At this point, one of the other members brought in his two best Walker hounds to continue the search and immediately got on the track and in minutes they found the deer in a pile of blood near death. It took the good part of an hour to get the deer out of the dense undergrowth but with all the manpower it happened, and history was made at the Simmsboro Buck Club as a 135# spike was hauled into the bed of the Mayor's truck to go to the processing house. We went back to the spot where the deer was shot with Joe Collin's range finder that he uses on his job as estimator for Willhite Electric, and proved the distance was a even 130 yards from my shell casing to the spot the deer was standing. That's the story and I approve of it as I swear to it's authenticity!

Lucky? Oh heck yes! Could I do it again? Probably won't get another chance to as I'll have a rifle next time. Do I think it was unethical to shoot at that deer? Absolutely NOT and you that think that are full of jealously(Whitetrails and Ramboo). I think the most part of what I read of the comments support the fact that some of you don't have a clue as to what hunting is and probably have never been and I hope never do! Mr. LongGun, I do want to thank you for your comments as you do speak with knowledge. On my way into town this early afternoon, I, too, stopped at Clark's Guns and Safes in Bossier on the old Strip and talked with the guys and gals there. They informed me that no one has come forward and bring some money to witness Mrs Clark put all 14 rounds of 9mm bullets in a 14" target plate at 130 yards.

whatta schmuck...

Dog hunters are a different breed...When large tracts of land were around in the South to hunt on, there was a lot to be said for the tradition. Now there are few locations left to hunt where dog hunters don't cause serious hard feelings with other property owners/hunters. The clubs that do control enough land to still hunt well with dogs, are faced with ever higher costs so as a result some let the kind of low class slobs that give hunting a bad name into the clubs...
IMO, if there had not been tracking dogs there to increase the odds of finding that deer.... my vote would be to gut shoot that guy and let him die a slow death in the swamp. With dogs there... well I wouldn't choose to hunt with him again...

Irresponsible Bastard!!

Well I can say is he is a dumb butt and he's pround of it.

Dog hunting is different with different rules. It is probably no more unethical to shoot at that deer with a pistol than it is to shoot at a deer running across a field 200 yards away 5 times with a Remington 742. That is just the way dog hunting is done. There are lots of wounded deer. It just happens.

A lot of people on this board get upset about wounded deer, and I can't say I disagree exactly. But dog hunting is a relic of a time and place where people understood that deer were animals and because of that, they didn't lose much sleep worrying about causing undue suffering or anxiety on the part of the deer. They hunted because it was fun and they wanted the meat. There wasn't any of this citified pseudo intellectual crap that so many use to justify hunting nowadays.

Some of you who look down your noses at dog hunting and consider it a distasteful relic of the past, are undoubtedly foreshadowing your descendants' views about your shameful hunting hobby.

We had a family gathering last night and my 2nd cousin, who is from Simmsboro, was telling me about this incident. Everyone agreed that this guy is an idiot for even trying the shot. Who needs a 9mm handgun when deer hunting with a group, during daylight hours? If I am trailing a deer in a thicket after dark, I often take a handgun in a waist pack and leave my rifle, but that is different.

Well, in his defense at least he didn't use a .223...

<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

How many of us would shoot at anything with a heartbeat at 130yd with anything chambered in 9x19mm?

I wouldn't even take that shot with a scoped 9mm carbine at someone who was trying to kill me: I'd try to get closer.

If someone was trying to kill me at 130 yards and all I had was my 9mm? I'd be taking up a cover position and returning fire.

And after 30 shots if I didn't hit em or scare em I'd be leaving pronto!

Idiots and liars are born daily (just a general statement), some have the proof written right there on their forehead; you just have to look close (then again, sometimes it just sticks out and says I'm a dumba**)...

Regardless of what the end result is, utilizing a totally improper gun, for the task at hand, to take a deer at a very unethical range, for the gun/ammo/etc, is pure SLOP hunting to me and gives way to being very careless towards the game in which we should respect.

freakin coonies...

Sounds like the guy had the old, "Patience hell, I'm gonna shoot something" disease. Regardless, I don't understand it.

m

How much energy does a 9mm round carry out to that range?
I call BS.

Cover's good; I like the cover.

But I figure I'm just about as likely to hit 'em at 130yd with a 9mm by not shooting as I am by shooting. So I'm figuring:

If I return fire, then A) they know where I am; B) they know I have no armament but a piddly-dink little gangsta 9--because if I had more I'd be using it; C) they know I'm high-strung and excitable; and D) I'm 30rd lighter.

If I just hunker in my hidey-hole, then A) whatever surprise I have I keep: maybe they don't know how or if I'm armed or exactly where I am; B) they'll get closer, which means that C) my hit probability will wildly increase, as will D) the amount of damage any successful hits might do, which E) makes those 30rd I saved much, much more effective.

But maybe you're a lot better than I am with a 9mm.

http://www.ipmba.org/newsletter-0010-airman.htm

I remember when this happened. The distance between Brown and the perp was reported at 90 yards if I remember right.


Not that what this deer hunter did was right or ethical or wise.

S*** shot

How many of you guys would stand out at 130 yards and let someone shoot at you with a pistol?

When I was in the Army, we used to put a 55 gal. drum out on the practice range at 100 yards and then proceed to shoot the living hell out of it with plain old gov. issue 45's.

Also, I have done some deer hunting in the South with dogs and all that is really necessary sometimes is to hit the deer and the dogs will usually run it down.

In fact, a lot of the guys I hunted with used buckshot and just aimed for the legs.

Seen them kill a lot of deer that way.

Not really defending the dude, but not ready to hang him yet either, if you get my drift.

JMHO

Are you suggesting it is ethical to shoot at deer 130 yards away with a 9mm pistol?

If it had been a .270, the sucker would still be running....

At 130, with a 9?

Pure, unadulterated, dumbazz luck... by a pure dumbazz...

ain't 9mm a Rebel Sniper cartridge?

sssshhhh.... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

well, all I can say is that my BS meter is about pegged with this one.
I have mentioned before, my disdane of dog hunters. They are without a doubt, the worst sportsmen, and biggest butt heads I have ever encountered.

That, and I'd REALLY like to see this fella put one into a pie plate, offhand, at a measured 130 yards, with a 9mm.

it is no more unrealistic than deer hunting at 1000 yds.

I'm not defending the guy by any means, but I say the shot (pie plate @ 130) is doable. I'd most certainly take that shot at someone bent on doing me harm, but not at an unwounded deer.

Oh really?

I'd wager one helluva lot more that I could dial dope correctly on a HB, properly set-up, prone supported rifle at 1K than I could guess and spray in a couple of hits via a 9 at 130.

BT/DT, and I qual'd expert at 500 meters with an M-16A2 and with the service 9.

Between the two, and the two ranges, there's one HELLUVA lot of difference.

Different strokes I suppose (chasing deer with dogs).....however, not mine by a mile.

Was obvious from the get-go that his use of the 9 was not going to sit well with the majority...me included. The range....added more disgust. But when he said, ".... and you (who) think that are full of jealousy...", that doesn't sit very well with me and tells me alot about this guy.

Jealous of what? Him? His irresponsible decision?

Priorities are all wrong....as was his decision to ever unholster his sidearm.

It is what it is, which is a guy taking a shot at a deer with the weapon he has on hand. That is dog hunting. You or I may not like it, but bottom line, it is a guy shooting at an animal with a legal weapon during a legal season.

Most of the guys on this board would think that a lot of the shots guys take while dog hunting are unethical. I've seen some amazing shots. I've seen running deer killed at 250 to 300 yards with open sighted 30-30s. I've seen running deer killed at over 100 yards with shotguns. It is a different type of hunting with different rules. Heck, we even had a debate on this board awhile back as to whether it was even ethical to shoot at a running deer. Trust me, that is not a concern with dog hunters.

That'd be a fun bet - a pie plate @ 1000 for you with an AR and me at 130 with a pistol, most hits out of 10 wins. I don't have a 9 at the moment, could I use a 4'' M66 shooting .38 Specials? Ballistics are basically same/same.

Joe that does bring to mind an incident from my youth. I was out with some dog hunters, more to actually try the sport than to get in with them.
I took a shot at a running buck, and he was probably 75 yards off, heading lickity split across a clear cut. Must have been a dozen hounds of one type or another on his trail.
My shot with a 7mm Mauser bolt gun took off one of his antlers. Boy was the lead guy pissed. I ruined his best ever deer head. They did not invite me back.

I'm willing to bet that they wound and loose more deer than they drop...


SS

SInce this is way off topic, its much easier to hit a target with a 9mm at 130 than a rifle at 1000. I"ve done both basically. 1000 for sure and have shot pistols a bunch at 100 where hitting a 9 inch type paper plate is actually pretty easy. I can keep most all my shots inside 6 inches one handed free hand at 50 yards so given both hands and a rest, the plate would be much easier than trying to guess range at 1000, especially with an AR, and then try to dope the wind and all its associated shimmers to 1000 and get the hits right. 1000 is really tough.

Now as for the fool that shot a deer with a 9mm at 130. Well thats a [email]d@mn[/email] fool is all.

Jeff

Uhhh....dogs have pretty good noses. Wounded deer aren't that big of a problem. As long as the dogs keep running the deer, somebody will get him eventually. They probably lose fewer deer than those wounded by plain old 'ethical' stand hunters.

Since the dogs do all the "hunting", why don't they call their activity "Deer Roundups" with a deer being killed in the end. Essentially, that's all it is from the descriptions I've heard so far.

There seems to be little, IF ANY, hunting being done at all. Those dogs are burning up the calories I expect many of those "hunters" should be more concerned about.

Don't knock it until you try it. Shooting a running deer that knows it is being hunted as soon as it hears the dog box open up, is a lot more sporting to some people than shooting an unsuspecting cervid placidly munching on a food plot or checking its watch waiting for a feeder to go off.

Michael

The demarcation line is easily drawn on this one I think. You either care for the style of hunting or you don't. A kind of "to each his own sort of thing". As Joe points out,it's a legal hunting option.As others point out, it's a disgusting and, perhaps unethical manner in which to hunt. Where can we go from there?

Ummm . . . .

Guys, lets get back to the orignal post.

Shooting a deer with your 9mm because you forgot your rifle is sloppy at best. This is a guy who just took a wild ass shot out of impatience. Nothing more.

In contrast, Elmer Keith took shots at very long range with a handgun, but: (1) he needed the meat to survive -- these were depression era shots of opportunity; and (2) he had a good 100,000 rounds of practice under his belt.

The 500 yard hit he wrote of was taken AT A WOUNDED DEER (gutshot by a 300 winnie) across open range with a spotter who helped him walk the shots in.

What's my piont?

This (9mm) guy is a slob. That's all.

The range a guy shoots from should be exmined in light of his practice, experience, and ability.

There are practiced marksmen who take unbelievable shots, and prevail regularly.

There are slobs who shoot at close range and wound.

The ethics of the shot are dependent more upon the man and his ability, than any specific range or caliber imposed by a bunch of internet warriors (including us folks at the Campfire).

BMT

Now that's about the smartest thing I've read on this site in a long while......

And I'm a trestand deer hunter!!!!

Ran a pack of beagles (on rabbits) for years, so I can speak with some authority on the subject of hunting with dogs.

And Coss, you are right on the money on this one............

Guess the only issue I have with the fella is the above statements. I have a problem with people throwing "Hail Mary" shots at unwounded animals. If he was that good with his pistol, he would not have made those statements.

Holy chitt, I hope the south texas guys don't get wind of this. If a 270 is marginal where does a 9mm come in at? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Firing squads are somewhat out of fashion now, at least in these parts. Thought to be a bit barbaric by most. But at least the people on the "giving" end had the sense to tie up and immobilize those on the "receiving" end so that they ended their lives somewhat more quickly and humanely.

I have this picture in my mind (movie..actually) of a bunch of "receivers" running around in an enclosed area (lets say..encircled by lots of dogs) while being shot at by the "givers". I would strongly suspect that, given both these scenarios, the running around "receivers" are not dying as quickly as the more "placid ones" that you earlier described.

Isn't the purpose of "hunting" to have as a final result...the taking of an animal cleanly and quickly. Running deer, whether exhausted by dogs harassing them for long periods of time or not, would seem to pose a much harder target than a placid one. I would also suspect that the wounded deer has no alternative but to put up with a pack of dogs tearing and ripping at them until their "giver's" can drag them off to apply the finishing touch to a magnificent "hunt". But that's if the deer hadn't already succumbed to being fatally traumatized by the "givers" pets because the shot placement on that deer while running wasn't all that great. How could that be.......he just wasn't placid enough to deserve to die humanely.

Wouldn't try it personally, would like to hunt hogs with dogs.

Have made some crazy conections with a pistol that I could never reliable make or hope to make.

The deer was recovered and the coonazz was happy, what more could you ask for?

djmbow says;

Now that's about the dumbest [bleep]' statement I've ever seen on this site.

But I wouldn't expect the member of PETA to know any better anyhow-------------

Boy...that's a new one. Try to be a bit more authentic in your responses...anything...but the PETA response.....geeeeez.

How is "hunting" with dogs ANY different than several guys in a bunch of airplanes, talking on radios, flying out over the calm bay and herding up a bunch of ducks and causing them to fly low over their buddies blind in an adjoining stubblefield so he can pass shoot 'em. Oh yeah.... while barking and growling every so often out their plane's window.

Oh yeah... since your response sounds like you need the extra help.........one's a plane and the other's are dogs....that's different too. Oh, and just in case.....one's hunting ducks and the other, "hunting" (loosely defined), deer.

Is one activity less sportsmen like than the other.....if so.......why?

Off the topic, but I wonder how much steak he could have bought with the money used to buy those 100,000 rounds

The shooters response, "Lucky? Oh, heck yes!!".

Pretty clear answer to your statement that, "The ethics of the shot are dependent more upon the man and his ability......".

As with your above statement, I agree with the substance of your entire post.

...130yd shot at deer with a 9mm pistol? PLAIN stupid,even if great good luck and a pack of dogs puts a good end to the story!If such stunt shooting isn't unethical at game animals,what would constitute an unethical shot?..I do agree,food piles,feeders,ect.are questions as well,but such feeding also aids animal survival,whereas pistol stunt shooting deer is only sure to feed more vultures..The guy is a dim wit and should recieve hunter's condemnation, not thier aclaim...

I expect someone has ballistics software for the 9. But Federal posts 100 yard ME figures along with available graphs of data for their various nines...
http://www.federalpremium.com/ballistics/default.aspx

236 ft lbs at 100 for the 115 grain load to 272 ft lbs at 100 for the 147 grain.

Extrapolating from the graphs, that translates to about 200 to 220 ft lbs at 130 yards, roughly equivalent to mild .38 Special loads at the muzzle. With a trajectory drop of around 20 inches at 130.

Sorta related; for a "Quigley Down Under" experience without recourse to 1,000 yards, try mild .38 reloads from a .357 Marlin on soda cans at 100.

Birdwatcher

Handgun brass lasts a long time and I'd venture to guess that most of those bullets were of the cast variety, made by Keith himself. I doubt he would have bought a lot of steak with what he had into it, unless you count his time.

He probably melted down wheel weights...

djmbow says:

Now that's the second dumbest statement Ive seen here----

You know if you don't know what the [bleep] you're talking about, you should keep your stupid mouth shut and pay attention----------you may learn something you ignoramus!

Hunting with hounds is a terrific sport.

The animals are courageous, amazing hunters and will literally run their hearts for their masters.

The game they pursue, be it deer, fox, rabbits, wild boar etc. are also very capable and quite often they are easily able to elude their pursuers.

In many cases the terrain is such that various game animals can ONLY be hunted with dogs (i.e. swamps, thickets, mountains etc.) and because of this the game animal will often have a distinct advantage over his pursuers.

Why don't you go on a dog/deer hunt in a thick snake infested Florida swamp, run your azz off all night following a pack of coon dogs, snowshow into a Maine cedar swamp to hunt white rabbits with pack of beagles or chase after some lion or bear hounds until you can't breathe any more so you know what the hell you are talking about before you open your big mouth?

If you want to criticize hound hunting, please do it at the local Starbucks with your limp-wristed, anti-hunting, associates who also know absolutely nothing about the sport.

Real houndsmen don't really give a [bleep] what you think anyhow because they are too busy training and hunting with some of the finest sporting dogs in the world.

Perfectly placed...that could be effective....grin.

Placed in the hoove, butt, leg, kidney, liver, tail ear, bladder, the many thick and large boned area's or other assorted deer parts.....not likely quick or humane....which still should be the primary intent of any responsible hunter.

That the deer was found at all....only because of the real "hunters", the dogs. How long did the deer suffer before being eventually "put down"....inconsequential? I wouldn't hope so.

Would the shooter have used that same handgun and caliber if he were alone, without the dogs and that deer had shown up? My guess...sure, why not? He's already shown that he was capable of doing that. So there's absolutely no reason to believe that he wouldn't do it again. He obviously thought that his shot would drop the deer where it stood or he wouldn't have taken the shot in the first place. Isn't that what all responsible hunters strive for? But this time there's no dogs to find the wounded deer. Now what? Perhaps he searches for awhile....then on to the next deer because there wasn't enough blood to follow as the 9 can't be expected to do what a responsible deer caliber can do as far as pass throughs or damaging bone enough to incapacitate the animal.

Bottomline....bad choices all around...IMHO.

From his own statements justifying his decisions to shoot this deer in the way that he did....no matter what he says now to appease the masses...he'll no doubt feel justified again when he does the same thing....and he will.

Any supportive comments he hears or reads just justifies his actions. That will encourage him to perhaps get "lucky" next time, as well.

Sorry...missed your answer to my question.

How is the hunting of ducks with airplanes any different and which one is less sporting and why?

Some people avoid questions by continually protesting loudly and emotionally because they just can't answer the question. Seems like a clear enough question. Should have a simple and clear answer.

What's the hold up?

Oh...and by the way....the game animal SHOULD have a distinct advantage over the "hunter's....that's why it's called hunting and not shooting.

One last thing....what's the difference between "real" houndsmen and "fake" houndsmen? Guys with real dogs and guys with stuffed dogs? How do the stuffed dogs stay upright, OR EVEN MOVE when chasing deer?

I won't be long....just got to go get another latte', I just inhaled this one! French vanilla or mandarin orange......too many choices.

Because hunting with hounds is the oldest form of hunting. The care and management of hounds is an art in and of itself. Dog hunting probably has a much lower success rate than hunting from a stand. It is, however, labor intensive and requires lots of land.

I am glad that you are the ultimate arbiter of what is sporting and kosher in the world of hunting. However, you should probably call what you do something else, such as stalking or standing as that "hunting" involves the use of hounds and is properly understood as such in most parts of the world.

Now, STFU about things in which you have absolutely no understanding or knowledge.

What's the ethical difference between hunting deer with dogs and hunting pheasants with dogs?

What does this post have to do with herding ducks?

I wouldn't try to shoot a deer with a 9mm at 130 yards beause I don't think it's ethical to shoot at a game animal unless I'm pretty sure of putting it down with one shot.

To no one in particular, Just my .02 worth and my experience.

I've had the opportunity to hunt behind hounds, both coon and Bear and really enjoyed every minute of it. It's an exciting sport, requires some training, and hauling out after the hounds to the tree is real work. It's interesting how fast you can pick out the individual dog's style and tempo of baying, and which dogs are working it.

But there are differences between hound hunters, just as there are differences between the guy who hikes back a mile with a portable treestand on his back and hangs it overlooking a white-oak ridge, and the guy sitting in the PortaJohn on stilts, with the heater, overlooking the autofeeder, and talking on his cell phone: Same idea, but definitely not the same.

With bear, you go to where it's treed, can make the decision on whether it's a shooter, and generally can place a well placed shot from 25 yards. Quick, humane kill.

On the other hand, I've moved to a state that allows dog hunting for deer and it's like night and day. Deer don't tree, so what you're left with is guys standing on a fire road, with walkie talkes, taking running shots at crossing deer. When taken at 50 -75 yards, by someone who know's what they are doing, this shouldn'tresult in wounded deer. Unfortunately this is not the case in the hunts that I've witnessed. It's not uncommon to hear 30-40 shots, and later find out they put down one, maybe two deer out of the chase. Spray and pray.

On top of that, I can't imagine what those steaks must taste like, after the deer have been run hard, adrenaline pumping through the deer.

This 9mm guy is a jerk, slob, and idiot and shouldn't be defended by any anyone, especially other dog hunters. We have to defend hunting, but we don't have to defend slobs and unethical idiots who have hunting licenses.

To state that hound hunting is less successful than stand hunting is pure conjecture (where's the data)....so STFU about those things of which you haven't a clue. By the way...I've never hunted from an elevated stand or set-up (artificial ground blind)....FWIW. It is just not a method used where I hunt.

"Because hunting with hounds is the oldest form of hunting". So what! People have been involved with the "sport" of dog fighting for many years as well, but that's a bit frowned on these days. EXCEPT by the few that remain embedded in their old ways because it's one of the oldest forms of entertainment, for them anyway. Love their dogs, fight their hearts out for their owners, cared and loved....sound familair. So, saying it's the oldest form of hunting has no bearing whatsoever.

"Hunters" used to hunt with cannons filled with glass, metal, stones and whatever for ducks and geese many years ago. Killed hundreds with one blast. Oldest form of waterfowl hunting by far...but outlawed because it was unethical and wasteful.

By the way and FYI....the very early dog didn't teach the caveman how to hunt, the caveman trained the dog to hunt for and with them. As you would imagine, the dogs were instrumental in their quest for food....out of necessity more than "sport". Those fellas didn't have rifles, binoculars, rangefinders, radios trucks, ATV's and the like. Not many similarities to draw from these days...huh? Subsistence living is where hound hunting derived. There was a reason to bring home the bacon. Life and death stuff. Made a bit more sense to have help. If that's the reason for you hound hunting...great. I've got no problem with that. Use dogs as it ups your chances for scoring and therefore eating....if not the reason.....then it just ups your chance of scoring for scoring purposes. That's not how I view hunting.

Therefore...hound hunting is not the earliest form of hunting....man hunted alone or with other men....so again...STFU about those things which you'd like the rest of us to believe just because you say so and actually know absolutely nothing about.

sorry boys....... 130 yd shot with a 9mm is a bad idea.

Well, actually I do know a thing or two about it. I've hunted with dogs and on stands extensively. If there are adequate numbers of deer, I will say unequivocally, that stand hunting is more productive than hunting with dogs. Where I live, it is not uncommon for someone to see fifteen, twenty, or even more deer a day sitting on a stand. When dogs are involved, one only sees the deer being run by the dogs, IF one happens to be in the right place when the dogs go through. So, unlike you, I actually have experience at the methods of hunting described. You, instead, condemn something with which you have no experience. And by the way, I don't hunt with dogs and haven't since I was a kid. I just find it ridiculous that people who know absolutely nothing about it are so willing to condemn it.

Hunting with dogs is about the dogs and the excitement of the chase. The same desires and thrills that cause men to follow a pack of hounds on a horse motivate dog hunters.

You may not approve. But then again, I suspect that you are a damn stupid Yankee. So, we really don't care what you think about it anyway.

That would be a fun bet... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

However, Hubert's problem wasn't directed toward M16A2s, nor was my 1K hunting response.

Let me pick the 1K hunting rig (hmmmm.... I'm thinking one of 'Sticks, with drop chart and turrets, please), and you can use the .38Special loads.

Pie plate at 1K for me, 130 for you.

Most hits out of ten wins; loser buys the beverages.

Personally, I think it'd be a pretty even match... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" />

Now, put Blaine, or Stick in that 1K shoot, and I have a good idea as to who'd be buying...

Back again....that's a surprise.

"Hunting with dogs is about the dogs and the excitement of the chase". IF that's true, why not just let the dogs chase the deer and you guys share in their excitement? Because....the dogs make it so much easier to actually harvest a deeer...plain and simple.

In your "buddies" previous post, he said they oftentimes just "shoot for their legs" as they're being run around by the dogs. I don't know if that's exactly what most of us other hunter's really like to hear. In fact, I'm sure that offends every hunter...by definition. I'm damn sure that the PETA's WANT to hear that, however. So if your buddy is smug enough to state THAT fact and we shouldn't deny him that chance or opportunity to express his beliefs....it is easy to assume and believe that many other houndsmen also engage in the same unsportsmen like activity. Not that I condone that shot placement whatsoever, but if the legs aren't taken out enough to stop the deer, then we can again easily assume that there was a high percentage of deer that were hit, but not dropped or recovered. Especially with scatterguns. That's nice. One extra, enormously large sandwich order coming up....served on PETA bread, compliments of yours truly....a "real houndman".

I suppose this won't make any sense to you because you try to make all of this into a "damn stupid Yankee" issue for lack of any other way to turn, but hunting responsibly is the intention we should ALL take to the field. Shooting at running deer, especially with less than "adequate" calibers and at extended ranges and/or shooting at the deers legs to immobilize them are just a few of the ugly reminders that hunting ethics, as we all should know them, aren't embraced by all.

Those goals and ethics should have absolutely nothing to do with geographics.....I sure as hell hope not anyway.

Wait...before you respond I'll save you the time and effort and of reviewing the past statements I'm referring to so as not to be thought of as changing the content of djmbow's post.

djmbow said:

1) "In fact, ALOT of the guys I hunted with used buckshot and JUST AIMED FOR THE LEGS".

2) "...all that is really necessary sometimes is TO HIT THE DEER (assuming... ANYWHERE....especially with buckshot) and THE DOGS will USUALLY run it down".

Hope this helps.

We'll have to give it a try sometime just for S&Gs to see what happens. Being that my wife is about to have baby #3, it'll be a while before I get to try it. Maybe this spring sometime.



Hey, if you get to pick an alternate shooter, so do I. Give me Bob Munden. You have seen him break balloons at multiple hundreds of yards, haven't you? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

As I noted in my original post on the subject, rural Southerners understood and to some degree, still understand that an animal is just that, an animal and don't really waste all that much time worrying about its "suffering".

A personal aversion to the suffering of animals is one thing, and is something that I share with you. However, kindly disabuse yourself of any notion that your care for animals will cut you any slack with those who wish to get rid of hunting. A dead deer is still a dead deer and it really make no difference how that animal was killed to those who place a lot of stock in the feelings of those animals.

As to the damn stupid Yankee comment, Yankees are usually the only ones stupid and arrogant enought to presume to pass judgement on a tradition that goes back hundreds of years in the rural South. We really grow tired of hearing that we are ignorant savages from the likes of you.

Without getting into the prior posts, I think the attitude to which Joe refers is typical of rural people everywhere, and those who see real nature up close, rather than some anthropomophized Disney version of life where mountain lions save puppies from drowning and crap like that.

It's not cruelty, or even really indifference, just an unemotional recognition of reality.

Your post is well taken and for the most part, understood.

There is a rather huge assumption on your part, however, that I am "less close" to nature and have less of a feel for the "goings on" in that regard. The time I spend in the wilds is quite substantial and I expect would rival most anyone's outdoor experiences.

We all adjust our eyesight to see what we want when it comes to subjects such as these. In this instance and in reference to your statement, ".....just an emotional recognition of reality", it is not my reality nor many other's I suspect, to feel OK about wounding an animal in hopes of recovering it later. Remember....this was a houndhunters own words and he stated that he has seen plenty of other fellow "hunters" do this as well. More clearly, actually wounding an animal ON PURPOSE in HOPES of recovering said animal. I understand Joe didn't advocate this practice and that it came from another avid houndhunter. So this comment is not on him, but on the other hand, he has not offered that this tactic and/or behavior is in any way unethical nor an improper hunting practice.

If we, as a hunting community, accept that the purposeful wounding of deer, for whatever reason, is just a "reality", then we have sunk to a new low.......IMHO. I can't imagine for one second that you or anyone find that tactic both OK and unoffensive.

If that's a reality we should all just accept....then it is a nightmare come true.

Hey magnumb, you self righteous bastard.

Let's cut to the chase here and find what your real motivation is for coming on to a hunting forum and criticizing an extremely popular aspect of our sport.

Forget about whether you think that guy should have shot at the deer with his pistol or not.

Any further debate over this issue would appear to be foolish, since you've already demonstrated that you have absolutely no knowledge or EXPERIENCE with hunting deer over dogs.

Let's focus instead on your views as they relate to hunting with dogs in general.

Others here who favor the use of hunting dogs have cited their personal experience with them.

Will you please cite the dog hunting experience you have had that qualifies you to be critical of it?

As I tried to point out to you in my earlier posts, there are numerous situations where various game animals can only be pursued effectively with the use of dogs, but apparently you don't agree.

So it seems only fair that you state your reasons why isn't it?

BTW, I wasn't trying to evade your question about the comparison between a plane driving ducks to the gun and running game with dogs, I just thought it was either a rhetorical one, or it was just so [bleep] stupid that it didn't warrant an answer.

Don't know if it's legal to use a plane to drive ducks to hunters, but if it is, I think it would be a great idea.

If it's the driving of the game to the hunter that bothers you, please explain.

As you're well aware, this thread has gone way off course. My fault as much as yours or other's. There isn't going to be anybody changing their mind due to something another has said.

The actual real distaste for your "sport" came about with your post about shootin' at legs and havin' the dogs run 'em down. Take a look back at my very first post and I said "different strokes" and was essentially accepting of your "sport".

Then as you told of how your "sport" was carried out, my attitude changed....alot! You would like to think that my biggest bitch is about your dogs roundin' up the deer and driving into your laps. That's definitely a part of it. It's also true that I find it deplorable that you consider that attempting to wound an animal is OK. Now, you can argue all day that that's not what you meant, but anybody that can read can see exactly what you wrote.

So, as much as you'd like to believe it's just for one reason only that I find your "sport", unsporting, there are several reasons as I've pointed out.

Your attitude won't change, nor will mine. Never expected it to. But to not speak my mind when I read how your hunts were carried out in regards to shots taken at running deer and expecting the dogs to run down the wounded animals....was, honestly, too much to let go.

There have been a million posts on this forum which have spoken about harvesting animals cleanly and humanely. There have been great posts that remind us that we need to care about the animals that we hunt. Hell, there was even a section on varmint shootin' that had people discussing whether to waster another bullet on a varmint if it isn't totally dead....and rightfully so! So how could you or anyone else possibly think that your comments regarding shootin' at legs and having the dog's find 'em if not hit well......would just be accepted!!

This forum and it's members are a small slice of all hunter's everywhere. We impart lots of information to one another and we do battle now and then. But I have never seen a post that so disturbed me as yours. Perhaps I'm the only guy on this forum that feels that way about your methods of hunting, I couldn't tell you. But I can tell you this... if any member of my hunting party ever even suggested that we try to shoot the legs out from under a deer, he'd be gone, no matter a family member or not. That is not acceptable. Being a family member, that probably wouldn't happen because our children learn everything, plus how to hunt from us. We pass on those ethics of hunting in hopes that they pass it on as well.

I can only imagine, given the fact that you so easily and justifiably told of you and many others shooting at their legs, that younger one's have also been schooled as such. Yeah, that's disturbing. It should disturb all of us, not just me.

We're spinning our wheels, but there's no doubt how you, I, Joe and many others feel about this subject. I'm not the first one you've run into that didn't agree with your "hunting" tactics and I won't be the last. Dogs will continue to hunt as they are trained. That's what they do and it's now quite natural to do so. They are trained and will follow your commands, really not having much choice in the matter. They don't have the ability to determine what is and isn't ethical in regards to hunting practices. But we do....and promoting and then attempting to shoot the legs out from under a deer while on the run cannot be thought of as an ethical hunting practice....not by any stretch of the imagination.

I have no more to offer, just plain wore out and dissappointed. Not that I couldn't change your minds because that wasn't the intent. Because you really can't see that those practices go against everything I've ever learned to do. Perhaps that's my issue and mine alone, but that is the reason for my obvious frustration.

No more to say, no more I can say...........

magnumb,

First of all, your explanation of how you only became indignant about dog hunting, AFTER you read my comment about shooting at a running deer legs with buckshot is complete bullsh!t, because if you go back and read the posts you (and everyone else here) will see that you had already begun to criticize the sport with those assinine "givers" and "receivers" statements.

Secondly, I guess we'll just have to assume that by your refusal to answer my question about your prior hound hunting experience that you have NONE!.

Always good to be able to run your mouth off about things you know absolutely nothing about isn't it.

In addition to your distorted views about hunting ethics, do you teach your kids how to do this too?

And finally, we come to the question of shooting at running deer which you have also expressed some distain for.

Now you got to be really "on track" with that opinion, because I'm sure, like you, none of the other hunters on this site have EVER shot at a running animal.

But gee, maybe I misunderstood you again and you really didn't mean it when you said "Shooting at running deer, especially with less than "adequate" calibers and at extended ranges and/or shooting at the deers legs to immobilize them are just a few of the ugly reminders that hunting ethics, as we all should know them, aren't embraced by all."

Is it the "running" thing that bothers you, or do you just feel that a hunter should never shoot at a moving target?

Hmm.........Be careful how you answer that.

Now, about the "unethical practice" of shooting at a deer's legs with buckshot when it is being chased by a pack of dogs.

Here's the scenario:

You know a deer is located in a thick, snake infested swamp and as a hunter, you want to shoot it.

Well, since you can't get to he deer yourself, you send in your dogs to drive him out.

Now you encounter another problem, because the deer is going to present you with a running shot through very thick cover.

You can choose to shoot at the animals body with a rifle (of adequate caliber as you suggest) and "perhaps" be successful in hitting a vital area.

But if you aren't able to hit a deer running through thick cover in the vitals every time, (and how many of us could) then it's most likely the wounded animal will run for miles and even escape all together.

So after after a lot of EXPERINCE you determine that if you can disable the deer somehow by inhibiting its ability to elude your dogs, your success rate is dramatically improved.

And now guess what.........we have an explanation for the use of buckshot to break the deers legs and when used in combination with pack of good hounds it usually produces the desired results.

I don't expect that anything I've said here will alter your warped opinion of hunting with dogs.

But my foregoing remarks are really addressed at the other sportsmen who peruse this site and may possibly be swayed by your irresponsible and completely uninformed views on this matter.

Thas all folks......................

With buckshot why would you want to break legs instead of shoot at vitals? Buckshot animals rarely go far anyway. Not far enough to loose IMHO. OF course if you have collateral leg damage thats fine, but not shooting at vitals seems dumb to me, plus legs are a low percentage shot compared to size of vitals.

May not have read this all(I didn't....) and might have missed the point.

To the fact of dogs running game, its not my cup of tea but its been done for years, and has some unique history behind it. Its really no different than choosing your sport to me. Since I don't care for it I'll just pass. If you want to do it and its legal, have at it.

Much like Lion hunting, I want one really bad, but don't care at all for dogs. So probably will never get one, same with bears, but I'd hunt bears over bait, and lots of hunters hate deer feeders but would hunt bears over bait......

Do we drive chevys or fords....

I have no problem with the distance of the shot.130 yards with a handgun is nothing.I can consistently hit an 8 inch gong all day long with just about any good handgun,even a 22 LR,at 100 yards.

A 9mm though is so anemic,and has such poor ballistics and is usually loaded with such crappy bullets,that I just don't see it doing a good job on deer at any range,let alone 130 yards.

I wouldn't hesitate to shoot at a deer at that range with a 357 Magnum.Not with a 9mm though.

WB.

1st � This was a dumbazz idea. Too many people just don�t get that hunting isn�t just about killing. If the guy couldn�t say 100% for sure the deer was dead before he pulled the trigger, he shouldn�t have shot. The 9mm is borderline at 25 yards and downright irresponsible at over 100 yards.

2nd - I can make that shot. I can do it all day long, but I never will. If someone was shooting at me and all I was armed with was a 9mm handgun at 100 yards, they�d be in grave danger. The 9mm is a great TARGET cartridge at 100 yards. The trajectory is flat enough that you hardly have to hold up any front sight at all. I love target practice with a 9mm at 100-200 yards, but I�d never shoot at an animal at that distance with a 9mm unless my life depended upon it. I wouldn�t even take that shot with a .357 magnum.

It really frosts me that so many hunters are willing to break all the rules (legally, morally, ethically) to kill a deer. Hunting for me is a sacred event. It�s peaceful and my chance to spend some quality time in the woods chasing an animal I hold in the highest regard. I�ve passed up so many shots that others would have taken because I didn�t know for sure. I consider those to be successful hunts because I got to within shooting range (most of the time that means, iron sight range) of a deer.

No matter how you slice it, this guy�s a TOOL.

Rost,

Have to disagree with you on the stopping power of buckshot my friend, but we can "agree to disagree" on that subject all day long, cause that's what I think these kind of forums are all about.

Understand your position on the dog issue too, since there are certain types of hunting that I don't personally care for either.

But I can see that you are a reasonable man and just because you don't "prefer" to do something, you don't come on a Hunting Forum and indict others for doing it.

Especially if you have NEVER done it yourself.

Kevin,

You may be right about the pistol shot at that distance, under "normal" circumstances, but if you are hunting with a pack of good hounds, that changes the equation considerbly.

But I will take exception with your comment about the purpose of hunting though.

YOU may want to hunt simply because you enjoy the peace and tranquilty of the woods and the "challenge" of the chase.

But please don't knock others who don't share your views.

Many people I know (and they are damm fine hunters too), hunt solely for the purpose of getting meat for the table.

They work hard at what they do, put a lot back into it and fully support the organizations that help all sportsmen.

Can't go along with you on this one partner.

Guess I just been around too long and seen too much to be willing to pass judgement on my fellow hunters.

There are certainly plenty of others around these days that are more than willing to do that.

Dan,

Maybe my comments sounded a bit hard line, which wasn�t my intention. What I mean is that there�s never a reason to break legal, moral or ethical rules just to kill a deer. Just because I turn down a shot, doesn�t mean that others would have to. If they are hunting for meat, I have no problem with that until they cross the legal, moral or ethical lines. In the situation in question, it�s obvious this guy wasn�t going to go hungry if he didn�t come back with a kill, since he was on leased property. For what a lease costs, I can feed my family steak 3 nights a week, all winter long.

I really have no problem with those who don�t share my views on hunting and it wasn�t my intention to look down my nose at anyone. I think most meat hunters are very moral, legal and ethical people.

Kevin mentioned legal rules. Makes me wonder if whatever state that was has any requirements for the type of weapons used, especially muzzzle energy.
A 9mm pistol sure wouldn't make it in Colorado
How about the bullet-FMJ???. Doubt it would be legal.

In Louisiana you can't use 22 caliber rimfire. Pretty much any thing else is legal depending on whether its bow, blackpowder or regular firearm (gun) season.

Thanks Kevin,

We are definitely on the same page then!!!

Dan,

I still don't understand your justification for shooting to purposely wound a deer with the hopes of eventually making a kill. Regardless of whether you're using dogs- shooting for the legs on a running deer, or taking an off hand shot with a 9mm is unethical. period.

It also doesn't doesn't make a difference if it's for the meat, for the experience, or for a trophy of a lifetime- Purposely wounding a deer is unethical in any case.

It also doen't make a difference if you hunt swamps, thick cover, or mountain ranges. If you can't make a clean shot, pass and chalk it up. If all you get are low percentage shots, I'd say it's time to change tactics.

As I've posted earlier, I've hunted both bear and coon behind packs of dogs, (and I will again if the opportunity presents itself), and fully support hunting with hounds but I absolutely hate unethical slobs who happen to have a hunting license.
Slobs are going to kill our sport.

I don't expect you to change. However for any other thread viewers who are questioning what are proper ethics I would recommend taking a look at the NRA Hunter Code of Ethics

http://www.nrahq.org/hunting/nraethics.asp

Kevin,

I've been hoping you would pitch on the 'impossibility' of making a 130-yard shot with a 9mm. That's about 30-yards too far for the consistency I require, but lots of folks can make that shot and well beyond.

I also agree with your points on "legally, morally, ethically", so whether a guy can make the shot or not is moot.

Absolutely the perfect suggestion.

Especially, "I WILL", # 4 and #6.

Great post. Wish I'd thought to do so. A valid reminder for each person who hunts.

Thank you.

DJ

Since we are all over the place with the thread, whats your take on buckshot not killing? I've shot a number of pigs with it up to about 225, usually reloaded #1 since i'm a tightwad.

I've shot probably under 10 Wt with plated #4 buck out to no more than 60 yards max and while most of the deer have run, none have made it very far. Certainly blood trail was not great if any. But I usually follow the tracks a bit and they are there dead.

I'm interested in your take on it all seriously.

And the thought on leg shooting I can see how it would help, but I'm seeing that percentage wise the overall target, saying deer is 100%, legs couldn't be 10-20% of the target then, IE much less probable target, why not aim for front shoulder area and let the "bees" swarm on their own.

Very interesting.

I used to want a hound for coons here, never did get one but went on a few hunts. For coons it never bothered me and was fun. For the rest, just no real desire. Oops I'm back on topic, well sorta....

Jeff

Don,

Well I can't make my point any clearer, so I guess we will just have to let the readers here judge whether killing deer under the conditions I have described above is "unethical" or not.

Hunter ethics is very complicated subject and could be the topic for an interesting discussion under a separate thread here on the Campfire.

I have always considered ethical behavior to be of critical importance in EVERY aspect of my life, so this is a very sensitive area for me.

I obey game laws, treat landowners and other hunters with a great deal of respect, so it's difficult for me to see how the method I use to kill a game animal has anything to do with ethics at all.

But like I said that's another subject all together-----------

Both 9 (as in 9mm) and 130 (as in yards) exceeds this idiot's IQ. This reminds me of a friend from Mississippi who told me that Mississippians thanked God for Louisiana so that they would not be last at everything!

Jeff,

Glad to see you have had relatively good luck with buckshot.

Although I have seen some rather remarkable kills on deer made with #00 and #000 Buck, my overall experience with it has been rather dismal.

Have shot a few deer at relatively point blank range (20-30yds) and had them run off seemingly unscathed.

Fortunately many of these buckshot "hits" were made with snow on the ground, so the animal could be eventually tracked down and dispatched.

On the other hand, I know one guy who hunts deer here in New England exclusively with buckshot and he has killed more of them than you and I put together.

He has a gun that shoots buckshot well, only takes head shots and will not shoot beyond 40 yards.

It has also been my experience that buckshot rarely pass through an animal, so blood trails on body hit deer are usually skimpy or non-existent.

I hear what you are saying Jeff about going for the vitals as opposed to the legs and under normal circumstances I would wholeheartedly agree.

But hunting deer in swamps over dogs is a special situation which requires different tactics to be successful.

If a body hit deer runs 200 yards across an oak flat or across some other type of relatively open cover before succumbing from its wounds, that's one thing.

There's a good chance that the animal can be tracked down and recovered.

However if a body hit deer runs that far in a swamp, where the brush is often so thick you can't walk through it and the water is knee deep, there's a high probability that even with good dogs a wounded deer might not be found.

Special situation---------special tactics required.

Thas all..............