Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters What is the future?

Could we make replica heads kind of like the fake fish mounts? I want a drop tine added.

You can get that on your mounts now!

What a coincidence, me either.




Never said they wouldn't but I think you missed my point. The point being, if making a mistake takes a buck out of the gene pool, then only wiley bucks will live to be old. If you have "catch and release" and making mistakes doesn't take them out of the gene pool, then dumb ones would grow big too. If I am fortunate enough to kill a big buck, I want to know that he's one of the former, not the latter. If he's one of the latter, that would cheapen the whole deal.

Then they come to and are a little out of it and soon walk into the next "hunter". At which time they are shot again and the flowing dose has been increased. Then they are additionally compromised and become even more easy game, and the wheels goes round.

How many mg/kg is enough? How much is too much for an old one and it kills him anyway?

Foolish talk.

It will be an elite pastime for those who own the land.

Who owns Wyoming? Who owns Alaska? Who owns huge amounts of Pa?

In 50 years, my pre 64's will still be here and still work like new. I, on the other hand, probably not... . Any more questions???

If you are, you probably will wish you were not.

Not really.

Foolish talk is not considering options that would help the non-hunting population to view hunting in a positive light. For instance, catch & release fishing is a much more acceptable pastime to non-outdoor folks.

It would take some major changes, no doubt. Especially when many hunters can't seem to understand why a person would shoot something and not eat it. Maybe these are the same types who take home every fish they catch; still stuck in a 19th century conservation mindset?

This wouldn't work on just any game. Obviously.

But in limited draw areas, where a lot of money was spent to produce huntable game, say isolated planted populations of bighorn sheep, I could see this working. Of course in large portions of private it's certainly an option as well. Places where game is managed well.

Probably not an option for head to toe orange, sit in a treestand with a pump rifle land. The concept wasn't envisioned as such.

I think those days are already drying up like rain drops on the desert floor. More and more land owners are taking "lease money" rather than sharing their land for hunting.

In fifty years public land will be so full of "protected" Wolves, Cougar, and Coyotes that game animals won't have much space to flourish.

Perceptions of Disney influenced adults will view hunting as unnecessary for food and the value of strictly rural sports won't be of much value to them, nor the idea of head hunting for trophies. It will go out of style like chewing tobacco or smoking.

I apologize in advance for being so negative, but the question was asked and I'm just expressing the momentum I've seen progressing against hunting or even gun ownership at all.

Things have changed, when I was a kid my dad and I bought a used double barreled shotgun at a pawn shop in 1958 in downtown Dallas,TX. The merchant didn't wrap it or put it in a gun sock or anything. I just carried it to where we had parked about 3 or 4 city blocks away, and nobody was reacting at all. I think reactions would be different today in a central business area.

I agree that the days of hunters just grabbing their gun and going hunting today are pretty well gone.
Today It is an intensely planned affair starting with planning what draws to put in for, booking the time off work, squaring it with the significant other, getting the necessary landowner permission, getting all the gear assembled, arranging accommodation and travel arrangements, range time to sight in the rifle etc etc etc.
It is not a casual thing to do but rather is evolving into an intense sport costing big money.
I think it will evolve along the European model where you will eventually have to hire a guide and that will be considered quite normal. So much for the bad part - the good part is it might probably significantly reduce the slobbish behavior.

You don't understand the potency of the chemicals you would be dealing with. Or the varying individual response. Looks good on tv when they shoot one for study and then let it go on its way. However, often there are trained people monitoring vital signs other than aging and weighing. Work for the most part for veterinarians or highly skilled biologists.


It is not the same as catch and release fishing or even close. No doubt it could be done, but don't kid yourself on it being something the average hunter would be able to do on a regular basis.

I'd get no satisfaction out of catch and release hunting.

Hunting is a blood sport. Anything else is observation.

IMO, killing with respect for the game and past traditions will play a major part in our future.

It's been that way as long as I've been involved.If you have to travel any distance at all,it's "expensive" in time and money. Even DIY is the same.

High quality photography, with a small telephoto, would be a simple catch and release. If you get under 100 yard and take a good clear photo, you were in a position kill and probably would have. Of course, just like real hunters, photo hunters would look for every advantage and the lenses would soon look like a drain tile.

A major difference between us an the various countries in Europe I think is that in many continental countries the land owner owns the game also and there is local control of the same. Am I correct in this? Here, the state does, issuing ever complicated regulations and more expensive and exclusive tags. In the midst of that the federal government chooses to govern certain species and of course trumps all else.

This, at both levels where government is involved, is where politics often rears it's ugly head. For example, in Iowa, it took a long time before we obtained a dove season as decided by the legislature due to the emotion people had about the dove as a song bird. Legislatures however also pass many dumb and even stupid laws. We've all seen it trump strictly biological and environmental reasoning at both the state level and above.

Government never shrinks; it always grows. Where government reigns, we see activist groups and judges campaigning for and making judgements base on ideology, not biology and tradition can just be damned ("we are the nouveau enlightened ones").

As our population grows and becomes ever more urbanized fewer and fewer will have grown up with the hunting tradition. Urbanization brings with it a kind of unreality and generally liberal decision makers and political correctness all of which bodes ill for the poor, redneck sod that wants to take gun and go kill a nice deer or an elk once a year. Beautiful song birds too.

Hence my comment that the technology would have to evolve to be a viable option. I'm just saying the concept is there, and is an interesting one that would warrant pursuit, and perhaps be a money making one at that.

Most of the high quality photos you see of big game come from parks and game preserves where they can't be hunted.