Bowhuntrben
Well-known member
For as long as I've been hunting, southeast Minnesota has been a shotgun-only area for deer hunting. Recent legislation opened it back up to allowing rifles but is leaving it up to counties to decide if they will allow it or not.
The county I hunt has had a couple of meetings on the subject, and I've been reading some of the comments made. I have to say that I've lost a lot of respect for some of the people I used to look up to growing up.
Here's one individual:
_____ questioned why rifles were needed for hunting in Houston County’s hill country. He said he had been hunting and climbing the County’s hills for 65+ years. He said if people could not hunt a deer with shotguns today, they did not need to be in the woods.
And another individual:
_____ from _____ said he killed his first deer in 1969. He said he was very interested in deer management. He asked: “When are we going to give these deer a chance?” He said guns were “good these days”. He said “enough is enough” for the deer.
Which was followed up by the same person with:
He said more things kept being added to pressure the deer. He said he was concerned about sportsmanship. He asked: “When are we going to do something for the deer?”
I know both of these individuals are big archery hunters, so I suspect some of this comes from the "elitism" that some archery hunters have. These same people that have a problem with the use of rifles don't have a problem with using modern archery equipment which allows them to effectively shoot as far as a shotgun.....for 3.5 months.....sitting over a food plot.....on private land.....with every day available to them because they are retired.
In terms of management, the trained, educated individuals that are entrusted to manage our wildlife want us to shoot the heck out of the deer herd. I know there is mistrust amongst people in DNRs, but the truth is in that part of the state, there are so many deer and so much private land that there just will not be enough deer killed to put a dent in the population.
I understand the second individual's sentiment about taking it easy on the deer, but I feel it is from a greedy perspective. I don't think they really care about managing the deer herd as they care about managing somebody else's ability to shoot "their" deer and wanting to grow bigger bucks. Don't get me wrong, I would prefer not allowing rifles, but it comes from the same greedy perspective of wanting to have deer survive another year to get bigger. It bothers me more to limit someone's ability to use the weapon of their choosing without a justifiable reason for it.
Do I think they need to use a rifle? No. But I think we need a better reason if we are not going to allow it.
Oh, and I don't give a crap if someone has been hunting there for 65 years. I care more about the 10 year old excited to get out there and shoot his first fork than the retired guy trying to shoot another Boone & Crockett.
I'm sorry to break it to these individuals, but if they've been hunting that long and think that getting a deer with archery equipment is really any more difficult than getting them with a shotgun or rifle when they have that much season to hunt..they are fooling themselves. I've shot more big bucks with archery equipment in this area than with a gun. The only reason more of my recent kills have been with a gun is because I have limited time to hunt with a young family. When I had more time to hunt, more often than not we would have a big one dead before gun season rolled around.
I can understand the concern some individuals have with the safety aspect of it. I get the same feeling now that I live in Wisconsin where rifles have been allowed for a long time (in the same type of terrain). The truth is, I just don't hear about any accidents that actually occur because of rifles being used. The stories I hear are usually somebody shooting themselves or a friend doing something careless that would happen with any type of firearm. Proper firearm/hunter education is what is needed, not limiting firearms. I just don't see the evidence to suggest that safety is a real factor, but I admittedly haven't researched it to death, just going off of what accidents I've heard about.
I will most likely continue to hunt with a shotgun regardless of the outcome, but I will be setting my son up with the rifle this fall if it goes that way largely because of the reduce recoil and because that is what I'm prepping him with for western hunts.
I prefer no rifles, but I hope they make a decision based off of real facts and not based off somebody trying to protect "their" deer.
While my flesh wants to agree with these guys, I just can't justify it. I guess we'll find out in the next month or so.
Sorry...rant over
The county I hunt has had a couple of meetings on the subject, and I've been reading some of the comments made. I have to say that I've lost a lot of respect for some of the people I used to look up to growing up.
Here's one individual:
_____ questioned why rifles were needed for hunting in Houston County’s hill country. He said he had been hunting and climbing the County’s hills for 65+ years. He said if people could not hunt a deer with shotguns today, they did not need to be in the woods.
And another individual:
_____ from _____ said he killed his first deer in 1969. He said he was very interested in deer management. He asked: “When are we going to give these deer a chance?” He said guns were “good these days”. He said “enough is enough” for the deer.
Which was followed up by the same person with:
He said more things kept being added to pressure the deer. He said he was concerned about sportsmanship. He asked: “When are we going to do something for the deer?”
I know both of these individuals are big archery hunters, so I suspect some of this comes from the "elitism" that some archery hunters have. These same people that have a problem with the use of rifles don't have a problem with using modern archery equipment which allows them to effectively shoot as far as a shotgun.....for 3.5 months.....sitting over a food plot.....on private land.....with every day available to them because they are retired.
In terms of management, the trained, educated individuals that are entrusted to manage our wildlife want us to shoot the heck out of the deer herd. I know there is mistrust amongst people in DNRs, but the truth is in that part of the state, there are so many deer and so much private land that there just will not be enough deer killed to put a dent in the population.
I understand the second individual's sentiment about taking it easy on the deer, but I feel it is from a greedy perspective. I don't think they really care about managing the deer herd as they care about managing somebody else's ability to shoot "their" deer and wanting to grow bigger bucks. Don't get me wrong, I would prefer not allowing rifles, but it comes from the same greedy perspective of wanting to have deer survive another year to get bigger. It bothers me more to limit someone's ability to use the weapon of their choosing without a justifiable reason for it.
Do I think they need to use a rifle? No. But I think we need a better reason if we are not going to allow it.
Oh, and I don't give a crap if someone has been hunting there for 65 years. I care more about the 10 year old excited to get out there and shoot his first fork than the retired guy trying to shoot another Boone & Crockett.
I'm sorry to break it to these individuals, but if they've been hunting that long and think that getting a deer with archery equipment is really any more difficult than getting them with a shotgun or rifle when they have that much season to hunt..they are fooling themselves. I've shot more big bucks with archery equipment in this area than with a gun. The only reason more of my recent kills have been with a gun is because I have limited time to hunt with a young family. When I had more time to hunt, more often than not we would have a big one dead before gun season rolled around.
I can understand the concern some individuals have with the safety aspect of it. I get the same feeling now that I live in Wisconsin where rifles have been allowed for a long time (in the same type of terrain). The truth is, I just don't hear about any accidents that actually occur because of rifles being used. The stories I hear are usually somebody shooting themselves or a friend doing something careless that would happen with any type of firearm. Proper firearm/hunter education is what is needed, not limiting firearms. I just don't see the evidence to suggest that safety is a real factor, but I admittedly haven't researched it to death, just going off of what accidents I've heard about.
I will most likely continue to hunt with a shotgun regardless of the outcome, but I will be setting my son up with the rifle this fall if it goes that way largely because of the reduce recoil and because that is what I'm prepping him with for western hunts.
I prefer no rifles, but I hope they make a decision based off of real facts and not based off somebody trying to protect "their" deer.
While my flesh wants to agree with these guys, I just can't justify it. I guess we'll find out in the next month or so.
Sorry...rant over
