admin

Various Kinds of Hunting Bullets

April 1, 2012 By admin Leave a Comment

I have taken moose with 1 shot kills at distance across a large pond with both my .270 Wby. magnum and my .300 Wby. magnum. In the .270 I used 150gr and in the .300 I used 180gr. Never a problem. I even load them into my sons Mosin Nagant in 7.62X44R. and he has taken 3 deer, all with one shot hits. I’ve used the “regular” bullets in factory loads as well as various premium types. I think there is little benefit from premium bullets in deer hunting, although if they shoot well in your rifle, there is no harm either.

Nosler Partitions are an excellent starting point into premium bullets. I’ve used Winchester Fail-Safes for Moose and have found that they give excellent penetration. Many others are not impressed with them. Last year I had Swift A-frames in my .338, but no Moose in my sights for the season. I just wanted to try another bullet, no reason other than that. Generally, the regular bullets will be acceptable in most cases, unless you prefer more penetration. Partitions will not retain their weight as well as some of the other premiums, but they have generally had great accuracy for me.

Ballistic Tips are an excellent choice for deer sized game, provided they shoot well in your rifle. If you decide on what “class” of bullet you want (regular or premium) and have they time to test, I’d simply use the most accurate bullet in my rifle. I generally try the premium bullets in my rifles because I enjoy the shooting and they are the cheapest part of a hunt. Often this means the bullets are more than is necessary for deer. The caliber you shoot is also important. I’m much less picky about the bullet when throwing 350g of 45-70 bullet than I am hunting moose with a .30 caliber (and I use larger calibers for moose hunting now).

Best Hunting Bullet

April 1, 2012 By admin Leave a Comment

I thought it would be neat if everyone shared their thoughts on the Best hunting bullet. What does everyone like to shoot.. So far I’ve tried Hornady Interlock BTSP 180′s and 165′s but unfortunately haven’t tried them on any game and targets don’t care what bullet hit them, there’s always a hole. haha. So please feel free to tell me what you think is the best hunting bullet for big game. Especially in 30 Caliber. Since I sometimes shoot at distances better than 200 yards, I need accuracy. I like the 165 grain Sierra GameKing bullets.

The SBT is very good, but the HPBT is every bit as accurate as the 168 grain MatchKing even if it does have a funny looking nose. In my rifle, the point of impact is about the same for the 165 HPBT as for the 168 grain MatchKing (which I usually shoot at the range) out to 300 yards. Both go through the tough hide of a Russian boar hybrid (Got a lot of these in California) and do all the necessary damage to drop the fat, heavy beast. I will be taking my new replica Sharps 45-70 out next time though. That’ll be a 405 grain jacketed flat nose.

There is no “best” bullet. It depends on what you want it to do and what is most important for your situation. What are you looking for – expansion, weight retention, penetration, accuracy? No bullet has it all, but if you match the bullet you use to what is most needed in your situation, you’re on the right track. I have yet to find anything superior than Nosler Partitions for both accuracy and knock down power, in any variety of .30 caliber, For deer I use 165 Gr in my Gamemaster pump in 30.06.

Filed Under: Hunting and Fishing Jobs Tagged With: georgia hunting and fishing license, hunt for big fish, hunting and fishing, hunting and fishing catalogs, hunting and fishing decals, hunting and fishing gear

The Difference Between Culling and Hunting

April 1, 2012 By admin Leave a Comment

” It simply isn’t true that ‘culling’ is a euphemism for ‘sport hunting’, as has been explained to you repeatedly. Not is it the case that those who are involved in culling would neccesarily hunt for fun.The problem is that the perpetration of the practice of ”hunting”, e.g. on ‘shooting estates’, means that the need for ”culling” is never significantly reduced (stuff is always escaping into the wider countryside). If management could be achieved without shooting deer then I think this would be a situation preferred by most, but it just isn’t going to happen without a radical turn-around in the way such animals are managed.

The word culling isn’t used because it is more acceptable – it’s not like people (in the field) don’t know what it means – it’s just an attempt to…. um…. to demonstrate?, no…. a way of informing the public of the difference that exists between running around shooting everything in sight because it is such good fun, and the selective removal of pest (usually introduced) species to enable sustenance of a more biologically diverse ecosystem.

If you mean farm animals, I am not in favour of killing them but am realistic enough to realise that as the majority of the country are meat eaters it is probably unlikely that this would be banned. Although, interestingly, since BSE and F&M many people are reconsidering their eating habits and the slaughter of these animals in future may be considerably reduced. But hunting wildlife is a different story altogether. Hunting for fun and the attempt at respectablising it by calling it culling in the name of conservation, is the next in line for banning after foxhunting with hounds and is an achievable aim. A softer target, if you like; and I make no apologies for attacking it.

Filed Under: Hunting and Fishing Equipment Tagged With: alabama hunting and fishing license, alaska hunting and fishing, georgia hunting and fishing license, hunting and fishing equipment, hunting and fishing gear

Culling vs Hunting

April 1, 2012 By admin Leave a Comment

What are the practical differences between culling and hunting? I think there are some schools of thought where it is perceived that hunting is the ”sport” form – so animal/bird is gauranteed to be there/ numbers kept artificially high/ ‘hunter’ pays for the privilidge, wheras culling is the management form – marksman requires some skill to do his job/ efforts are to lower numbers/ hopefully bird/animal wont be there/ hunter paid to do job (or often keeps kills in lieu of work).

Though I do subscribe to this differentation I still use either word interchangably except on this ng, where it seems that some means of classification is required. Most people I’ve spoken to (the general public) don’t care that there is any difference in terminology, as in the nature conservation context it is obviously going to be the ‘culling’ dfeinition that will apply. I suppose the thinking behind it is that people do not often pay others for the privilege of doing a job for themselves, normally you pay someone elso to do a job -for- you.

That means that the person doing the culling does it as a job, so that’s supposedly ok, wheras in the case of ‘hunting’ where it is for sport, that isn’t ok (where poor defenceless animals are reared for the purposes of being killed…. and so on). If you haven’t already thought of it, you might like to consider that if ‘hunting’ as a business was stopped in the UK, then after 40 – 50 years the need for culling might also be reduced (although it would not go away completely until all muntjac, sika, japanese water deer, fallow had been eradicated).

In almost all cases culling and hunting amounts to the same thing but those in favour of killing wildlife find “culling” a more acceptable word to euphemise the killing of wildlife perpretrated by the same people who do so for fun, in the name of “sport”. Many, many people accept the need for culling and not the need for ‘sport’ hunting. To quote the League Against Cruel Sport: “In the absence of a state wildlife management system, the League does not oppose shooting for the purposes of pest control, the provision of food or population control – provided that such shooting is efficient and selective, and a more humane alternative is not reasonably available.

Filed Under: Hunting and Fishing Catalogs Tagged With: georgia hunting and fishing license, hunting and fishing, hunting and fishing catalogs, hunting and fishing decals, hunting and fishing equipment

Conservation Extremism and Barbarity

April 1, 2012 By admin Leave a Comment

The sickening sight of mutilated carcasses piled in a field following the helicopter herded slaughter of 600 deer at Glenfeshie Estate in Scotland is representative of current conservation fascist principles where it is no longer enough to plant trees or protect rare species without cruelly butchering wildlife that is competing for the same habitat. This philosophy, driven by political dogma and a desire for a national environmental identity, is only one short step away from the intolerant fanaticism of those who perpetrate ethnic cleansing against human populations.

Conservation has now become synonymous with extremism and it is time the public condemned such cruelty by withdrawing support from the uncharitable charities that advocate and encourage such barbarity. So which charities advocate and encourage this killing and which should you consider boycotting? The following paragraph was part of a letter sent some time ago to Ross Finnie, MSP, Minister for the Environment and Rural Development: “We point out to the Minister that populations of deer in Scotland are at record levels and, according to the Deer Commission, red deer numbers are still increasing in most areas.

The impact on the natural environment of the current high populations has been a major concern for many years with repeated requests from environmental organisations and others for higher culls and population reductions. A major drop in deer culls in the coming season would result in a further sharp rise in populations.” Conservationists would have us believe that it is necessary to reduce deer numbers to an acceptable population level that doesn’t cause ecological damage.

When asked why the population has increased so rapidly, they tell us that deer reproduce prolifically and that there are no large predators, namely the wolf, left to control their numbers. On the face of it, that seems a reasonable explanation but it is more of a plausible excuse for hunters to enjoy their grizzly fun and conservationists to employ them to hunt in almost exactly the same way under the more respectable guise of culling.

There is no doubt that wolves were predators of deer, but not for a very long time. The last wolf was killed in the UK around 1750, more than 250 years ago, and their numbers were in serious decline for many decades before that. So it is reasonable to assume that wolves have had little impact on deer for the past 300 – 350 years. With that in mind one could be excused for thinking that deer numbers would have escalated at an enormous rate over that period. But it is only in the last 50-60 years that their numbers have increased significantly, coinciding with a thriving hunting industry and reforestation that provides shelter.

So is there a connection? Of course there is! To understand the whole sorry mess, one must examine the structure and covert allegiances between hunters and conservationists that form alliances within “deer management groups” that are overseen by the Deer Commission to maintain an artificially high deer population to satisfy the requirements of hunting estates. But as deer know no boundaries, the population expands to other areas unchecked, where they can damage unprotected saplings, ground flora and ground nesting habitats. This is when the deceit of the conservationists comes to the fore.

Having supped with the hunters, they now tell us they need to cull deer to reduce the increase in population that the hunters were responsible for in the first place. The horrid cycle continues year after year. Why don’t the conservationists abandon their hunting cronies and oppose the real reason for the deer population increase? Not a chance – it’s all about money. The government via the Deer Commission wishes to maintain the hunting industry for tourism income and the conservationists depend on government grants via the Forestry Authority to plant their trees etc.

Filed Under: Hunting and Fishing Tagged With: alaska hunting and fishing, georgia hunting and fishing license, hunting and fishing catalogs, hunting and fishing equipment, hunting and fishing shows

Hunting and Democracy

April 1, 2012 By admin Leave a Comment

Making voting on hunting a priority (after 7 years) is wrong apparently, say the hunting lobby, and not banning hunting at once is a evidence of poor priorities too. This doublethink is typical of the hunting lobby who say that fox hunting is about vermin control and also conserving foxes, that it’s more humane than shooting but it’s so ineffective that most hunts never kill a fox, etc. It seems that whatever arguments seem to work that is what they’ll use and consistency be buggered.

If they think they can claim the majority of people don’t think a hunting bill should be a priority they trumpet that, if they think most people who are in favour of a ban don’t live in the country they say they are ignorant of the issues (so the public agree with the hunt, sort of, they are right, they disagree and they’re misinformed). No doubt if there was a Tory majority in the commons next time (purely hypothetically you understand) this minor trivial life and death cultural issue that is nothing to do with class and no concern of people from council estates that should have been discussed at another time, any other time, if at all, never, will magically become a more important priority than the NHS and the transport system again.

Tories don’t have principles, they have causes. Banning hunting is a moral issue, the will of the commons is clear. The timing is of course political and was aimed at averting backbench rebellions in the short-term and putting off a messy period of conflict and civil disobedience until after the election, while at the same time having the quite reasonable excuse of giving the hunts time to adapt to the new realities. Neither of those points detract from the fact that the majority of people dislike hunting and the majority of MPs want to see it banned and have voted accordingly.

Filed Under: Hunting and Fishing Stores Tagged With: alaska hunting and fishing, georgia hunting and fishing license, hunt for big fish, hunting and fishing, hunting and fishing catalogs, hunting and fishing decals, hunting and fishing gear

Hunting and Environmentalism

April 1, 2012 By admin Leave a Comment

It’s the short term expedient behavior of politics and economics that have “always ended in human catastrophe” . Does it matter whether Siberia’s forests were raped by political commissars fufilling the “plan’s” quotas in soviet times, or today, by Japan’s market demand? If there was some exotic, introduced, mammal destroying the Russian taiga, and it required the use of hunters’ guns to eliminate them, would not the ARM oppose this?

Would not the ARM’s arrogance about “nature taking its course” destroy these forests every bit as effectively as a party apparchatik or robber baron? Yet the ARM would hide behind their inaction and let the destruction of the world’s largest forest be a sign of their “purity”. We see this in California with the ban on hunting and selling burro meat. Or now you want to go there? Are you aware the history of the domestication of the dog (wolf) is intimately tied to them as partners in hunting?It is part of being one with “man’s best friend”, our first domesticated animal. The skill of pack management, it is.

“Symbolic” hunting is not just practiced by those high class hound hunters you want to unleash your imaginary class war on. Aboriginal cultures have it too, it’s called “hunting for ceremonial purposes”. The feathers of raptors are obtained by such hunting, though not always. With the exception of the ceremonial Makah whale hunt, (hunting by “cultural necassity”), the ARM won’t speak out against Native Amnerican “trophy hunting”. Ohh no, They must patronize modern aboriginal cultures, I guess in the case of the UK ARM, this would be your modern version of the “white man’s burden”. Old style British colonialism is alive and well. The US ARM isn’t immune to our uniquely historical forms of patronising like this too. We learned well from our mother country as colonial overlords, did we not?

Filed Under: Hunting and Fishing License Tagged With: alabama hunting and fishing license, georgia hunting and fishing license, hunting and fishing catalogs, hunting and fishing decals, hunting and fishing gear hunting and fishing stores

How to determine if an animal is a predator or a herbivore?

April 1, 2012 By admin Leave a Comment

There is a simple test to determine if an animal is a predator or a herbivore. A predator has eyes that basically face front and have stereoscopic vision most of the time. A herbivore has eyes on the sides of the head so they can scan the horizon for predators. Thus herbivores get two separate views… one from each eye. The teeth can also suggest what was originally eaten.

Why do you think they call four of our teeth, canines? I am not saying that humans are exclusively meat eaters, we are much like bears.Two thirds of their diet is veggies. Much of the “meat” they eat is insects such as grubs and maggots from an old kill left by wolves. The problem is not hunting per se, so much as it is the destruction of habitat. It is really sad that people are converting the world into a human oriented amusement park.

I have no argument with the characterization of human hunting patterns, although one might argue that natural selection still takes place (albeit with different criteria than would be true with wolves). And I point out that if a predator takes the young, said predator is not necessarily taking the genetically weak…it is taking the immature, and there is a distinct and signif- icant difference. Predators take the weak and unwary; whether they are old, young, diseased, or stupid is irrelevant. An argument might be made that humans are not too different from non-human predators in this regard.

Filed Under: Hunting and Fishing Jobs Tagged With: alabama hunting and fishing license, alaska hunting and fishing, georgia hunting and fishing license, hunting and fishing catalogs, hunting and fishing decals, hunting and fishing equipment

Hunting-Violence or Reverence?

April 1, 2012 By admin Leave a Comment

I believe an important distinction needs to be made. Violence has a negative connotation, but hunting and predation can certainly be positive, in fact usually are in Nature. Otherwise, energy doesn’t flow. Again, the assumption killing is bad and destructive. Predation/hunting certainly serve a constructive role in nature. Let’s examine this from the Native Americans’ hunting perspective.

They hunted and killed deer, elk, buffalo, etc. What was the effect? I don’t think I would have to try too hard to convince most people that there attitude toward the animals they killed was reverence. In fact, they considered deer to be (abstractly perhaps) their brothers and sisters. This theme runs through all traditional hunting societies doesn’t it? Now what about the American hunter? Many posters here will claim American or “modern hunters” are bad, evil, and destructive.

This leads to a relevant topic, but I wonder if ARS/veggies are willing to grant traditional hunting societies as having reverence toward the animals they hunted and killed? Herein lies another interesting connection: even vegetarians can’t get away from killing. In fact, a strong case has been made by Ted Kerasote that a vegetarian requires more kcalories of petroleum than hunters for a given caloric intake (whether meat or vegetarian). And obviously petroleum usage extracts a certain amount of pollution, environmental destruction, etc.

I think we have a lot of finnicky people who find meat eating abhorrent for the simple fact that they have the convenience of their own refrig. and the local Safeway store. Most people in this country have never been really hungery, and interestingly, have never been responsible for a single meal in their entire life (whether containing meat or not). I suggest hunting may lead to a deeper reverence for wildlife, and may also have the societal value of “keeping us honest” re: where food and calories comes from…an important fact we are losing sight of in the day of instant and prepacked foods.

Filed Under: Hunting and Fishing License, Uncategorized Tagged With: alaska hunting and fishing, georgia hunting and fishing license, hunting and fishing, hunting and fishing catalogs, hunting and fishing decals

ad hoc management for hunting

April 1, 2012 By admin Leave a Comment

The very characteristics that make ad hoc management for hunting necessary in such environments make it unnecessary to hunt at all. “Third, hunting in moderately fluctuating environments is not necessary if a good complement of effective natural predators is present. The selectivity of natural predators (more correctly stated as the vulnerability of the prey) is a more exact way to retain equilibrium values of residual populations.

Hunting can accomplish the same end, but because of its lack of selectivity, a higher kill is required than for natural predation to achieve the same end. Stated another way, natural predators are better at reducing chronic mortality than are human hunters, because the former remove the vulnerable individuals most likely to succomb to chronic mortality factors. Thus there is very high substitutability of predator kills for chronic mortality, while for human hunting, chronic mortality is somewhat more additive, although still substitutable to a considerable extent.

“As professionals, wildlife biologists and managers must distinguish between cases where hunting is necessary and where it is not. It is possible to recognize the legitimate interests and necessary roles of human hunters without becoming apologists or advocates for the recreation. Bias toward hunting in situations where hunting is not necessary can only result in loss of credibility. Professional integrity demands that no side of a controversy be given favor on biological grounds that cannot be justified by the biology of the case under review. If hunters are favored because they pay the costs of management through license fees and special taxes, let that be the justification, and not an indefensible position that hunting is necessary in cases where it is not.

Filed Under: Hunting and Fishing Catalogs Tagged With: alabama hunting and fishing license, alaska hunting and fishing, georgia hunting and fishing license, hunting and fishing catalogs, hunting and fishing decals, hunting and fishing equipment