Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

The_Real_Chris wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

And yeah, you don't want to kill all the young bucks before they get to maturity, but there is a good argument against only allowing larger bucks to be taken. Namely because it creates a selective pressure for smaller antlers. This is why for salt water fish a lot of species have both a minimum and a maximum. Not that there is enough hunting in CA to actually thin out the large bucks, but it would be an issue in other more hunter dense states.

Animal husbandry isn't my thing, but surely you would want people to shoot the smallest and sickest? Not the biggest and fittest?

nope. Certainly not in general since deer where there are not enough predators are actually pests. Sure, eliminating sick ones is prefereable but when you have too many they damage trees, especially young ones. Hence why locally they get shot despite having now introduced more predators (mostly lynx and now sadly wolves.)

Here in the Midwest deer populations are estimated to be 9 times what they were 200 years ago. Crops provide more nutritional value than prairie grass.

The_Real_Chris wrote:
Is that a new phenomenon? Here when a show for one thing (say toy soldiers) starts to see sales of other stuff it is normally economic stress but also a shortfall in buyer/sellers of the normal stuff. Or have the shows always been so diversified?

This has been the case since I started going to them regularly, 30 years ago. It's really quite simple: people who sell outdoor-sy stuff know that those people also are interested in firearms. So buy a table and rake in the profit.

It's basically a Venn diagram in action. The same people who are likely to buy guns also are likely to hunt. That means they like meat. So jerky and sausages sell well, as do seasonings for them.

As for game management, mature bucks are likely near the end of their lifespan. If they are strong enough to dominate an area during mating season, they may not have the fat reserves to survive the winter, so reducing them to a trophy (and many dinners) is better than them stumbling onto a highway while starving.

That also opens up space for the new generation to grow and mature.

The_Real_Chris wrote:

I don't know about the sickest, but it's just like fishing regulations that have you throw the young ones back.

Which is why a lot of fishing regulations do now have maximum size limits too, but there isn't an equivalent for big game. Though again hunting pressure in the US is not even close enough to cause negative pressure on the deer populations, there are simply too dang many of them.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Which is why a lot of fishing regulations do now have maximum size limits too, but there isn't an equivalent for big game. Though again hunting pressure in the US is not even close enough to cause negative pressure on the deer populations, there are simply too dang many of them.

A lot of inland fisheries have been negatively impacted by invasive species. Zebra mussels, lampreys and other ballast-water dweller have put native fish populations on the ropes.

There are no indigenous predators for these critters, and local fish have no defense against the

Deer are more threatened by chronic wasting disease and bovine tuberculosis than an influx of ravenous European or Asian wolves. Feral hogs are a menace wherever they are found. Indeed, they're the invasive species, which is why so many states have an open limit.

Feral hogs also remind us why boar hunts used to be a big deal.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Which is why a lot of fishing regulations do now have maximum size limits too, but there isn't an equivalent for big game. Though again hunting pressure in the US is not even close enough to cause negative pressure on the deer populations, there are simply too dang many of them.

A lot of inland fisheries have been negatively impacted by invasive species. Zebra mussels, lampreys and other ballast-water dweller have put native fish populations on the ropes.

There are no indigenous predators for these critters, and local fish have no defense against the

Deer are more threatened by chronic wasting disease and bovine tuberculosis than an influx of ravenous European or Asian wolves. Feral hogs are a menace wherever they are found. Indeed, they're the invasive species, which is why so many states have an open limit.

Feral hogs also remind us why boar hunts used to be a big deal.

We have the same issue in the U.K. with Crawfish, which outcompete native Crayfish species.

I think we need to borrow some Cajuns, ship them over with their gear and Old Bay, teach others the wisdom of Devouring Those Pesky Crustaceans. Show them what happens when you irritate the world’s top species of predator.

I was thinking about raising backyard shellfish, but that's another topic.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
We have the same issue in the U.K. with Crawfish, which outcompete native Crayfish species.

I think we need to borrow some Cajuns, ship them over with their gear and Old Bay, teach others the wisdom of Devouring Those Pesky Crustaceans. Show them what happens when you irritate the world’s top species of predator.

Hmm, I'm not sure what firearms one uses to hunt crawfish. Even a speargun seems overkill.

A quarter-stick of dynamite is probably the best one can do.

Basket net things seem to be the way.

I reckon a few years of extensive “let’s eat as many of them as we can” ought to balance the books. Though it seems the problem is the females rarely leaves their nests, making them a rare catch. And of course just a single male can then have a whale of a time ensuring the population.

But even so. We should be catching and eating them. 1 for the environment, 2 because they are delicious.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Basket net things seem to be the way.

I reckon a few years of extensive “let’s eat as many of them as we can” ought to balance the books. Though it seems the problem is the females rarely leaves their nests, making them a rare catch. And of course just a single male can then have a whale of a time ensuring the population.

But even so. We should be catching and eating them. 1 for the environment, 2 because they are delicious.

LOL! I love this, especially the way people (and ESPECIALLY GAMERS) can get off track in ways normal human beings probably couldn't work their heads around.

Somehow a thread on a gaming site called "Firearms You Own..." turned into "lets eat as many invasive wildlife critters as we possibly can."

Love you people. I just do.

Notice we're on page 187. Hopefully the topic doesn't get killed.

 Adeptekon wrote:
Notice we're on page 187. Hopefully the topic doesn't get killed.

I don't see any danger of that. Not wanting to tempt the mods, of course

Thread hi-jacking won't come until page 211.

 NapoleonInSpace wrote:
LOL! I love this, especially the way people (and ESPECIALLY GAMERS) can get off track in ways normal human beings probably couldn't work their heads around.

Somehow a thread on a gaming site called "Firearms You Own..." turned into "lets eat as many invasive wildlife critters as we possibly can."

Love you people. I just do.

To be fair, it came via feral hogs, which are not only a problem and a menace, but also almost entirely made of food.

The number one reason why invasive species are a problem is that they typically have no natural predators, so they just displace everyone else. Since humans have a track record of hunting creatures to extinction, it stand to reason that we could do this deliberately, rather than the historical norm of achieving it by accident.

That's why I'm pretty certain that if people really wanted to wipe out particular critters, the time-tested bounty system would do the trick. Offer a few shillings for each dead crawdad or whatever it is, and pretty soon you will have dedicated, full-time hunters working to clean those things out for the good of the nation and also for profit, but mostly for profit.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

 NapoleonInSpace wrote:
LOL! I love this, especially the way people (and ESPECIALLY GAMERS) can get off track in ways normal human beings probably couldn't work their heads around.

Somehow a thread on a gaming site called "Firearms You Own..." turned into "lets eat as many invasive wildlife critters as we possibly can."

Love you people. I just do.

To be fair, it came via feral hogs, which are not only a problem and a menace, but also almost entirely made of food.

The number one reason why invasive species are a problem is that they typically have no natural predators, so they just displace everyone else. Since humans have a track record of hunting creatures to extinction, it stand to reason that we could do this deliberately, rather than the historical norm of achieving it by accident.

That's why I'm pretty certain that if people really wanted to wipe out particular critters, the time-tested bounty system would do the trick. Offer a few shillings for each dead crawdad or whatever it is, and pretty soon you will have dedicated, full-time hunters working to clean those things out for the good of the nation and also for profit, but mostly for profit.

To be honest, I think human beings tend to get a little silly about this stuff. I have to admit, its been awhile since I last saw a velociraptor in my neighborhood.

But, in fact, the raptors died off for good reason, and if ten thousand of them just plopped down in widely separated areas of the planet today, they'd probably be dead within a decade?

Why? Chipmunks, squirrels, rats, etc., would devour their eggs, which is what happened to their great-great-+ grandparents umpteen million years ago. If humanity is pushing evolution forward, again, the toughest will survive.

My thoughts, for all that they are worth. Write a few down, take 'em to the corner store, and see what they'll give you.

***

Now, just to keep this on topic, do you think a velociraptor would prefer a revolver, or is he more the semi-automatic type?

 NapoleonInSpace wrote:
Now, just to keep this on topic, do you think a velociraptor would prefer a revolver, or is he more the semi-automatic type?

In the book version of "Jurassic Park," the big game hunter (who lives through it) uses anti-tank rockets against them and they are indeed effective.

I mean, that comes down to a lot of the issues with critters vs guns. Yes, trying to take down tyrannosaur with a snub-nosed .38 is going to require exquisite shot placement, but a Maxim gun would certainly make an impression. I don't think I'd go lighter than 7.62mm, though. Something like a Garand might make an impression. Or a BAR.

This is why the Pacific Rim sort of movies amuse the heck out of me. If such a creature popped up in the real world, it would be obliterated by over-the-horizon artillery fire, not helicopters that literally fly within arms' reach.

The truth is that dinosaurs wouldn't be any tougher than existing creatures today. Even the relatively few that were actually bigger than what we have now. If anything, their vitals would be easier to hit because its a bigger target.

A T-rex is a walking heart+lung shot waiting to happen. Raptors might be fast but they are hardly going to be tougher than a wolf or a human for that matter.

You could probably take a T-rex out with a single rifle round through the chest. If you got the heart it would drop more or less immediately. Just the lungs might take a while and you would need to retreat to a safe distance in case it notices your presence. Granted, you might use .50bmg over .308 or 7.62x54 just for expediency but they could get the job done.

Raptors, even the big ones the size of cars, would be much more squishy. The real question is how long would it take to domesticate them and just have scaly dog analogs.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Raptors, even the big ones the size of cars, would be much more squishy. The real question is how long would it take to domesticate them and just have scaly dog analogs.

We already have domestic raptors.

 Adeptekon wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Raptors, even the big ones the size of cars, would be much more squishy. The real question is how long would it take to domesticate them and just have scaly dog analogs.

We already have domestic raptors.

Well yes, but chickens could be much scarier

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Adeptekon wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Raptors, even the big ones the size of cars, would be much more squishy. The real question is how long would it take to domesticate them and just have scaly dog analogs.

We already have domestic raptors.

Well yes, but chickens could be much scarier

I'm joking of course.

 Grey Templar wrote:
The truth is that dinosaurs wouldn't be any tougher than existing creatures today. Even the relatively few that were actually bigger than what we have now. If anything, their vitals would be easier to hit because its a bigger target.

The big target is a key point. The "game trails" of dinosaurs would be of immense size, facilitating truck-mounted weaponry.

Hunting from helicopters would also be pretty easy.

This is really zombie movie trope territory in a lot of ways. Zombies always attack people limited to shotguns and revolvers because they cycle manually, so you can use low-powered blanks without needed an adapter.

Within the generally understood "rules," one could simply sit on a rooftop with a .22 and piles of ammo doing head shots all day. No need for the giant sniper rifle or 12-gauge slugs.

For those that Hunt.

In terms of suitable firearms, have you ever gone a bit overboard accidentally, and wound up spifflicating the target?

And what’s the etiquette on bringing the right tools? I mean, I know part of the etiquette is for every hit to be a kill, and where that doesn’t quite work out you track the wounded beastie and finish the job. But has someone ever brought a ridiculous gun and been told “not with that you’re not”, whether it was OTT for the prey, or massively underpowered?

If the goal is getting meat, you don't want to use overkill. You use a killing caliber and good shot placement. If you can't get the right shot placement you don't pull the trigger.

even then you may be tracking. Son2 got a big buck at the back of one of the horse pastures last season. It went a couple hundred yards towards a creek before it dropped. At least one lung was blown out but it still hopped the fence and got into the woodline. Probably only lasted like 10-20 seconds but moved pretty quick in that time.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
For those that Hunt.

In terms of suitable firearms, have you ever gone a bit overboard accidentally, and wound up spifflicating the target?

And what’s the etiquette on bringing the right tools? I mean, I know part of the etiquette is for every hit to be a kill, and where that doesn’t quite work out you track the wounded beastie and finish the job. But has someone ever brought a ridiculous gun and been told “not with that you’re not”, whether it was OTT for the prey, or massively underpowered?

It depends on what you mean by "hunting." Here in the vast fruited plain, there are such things as pests critters from whom no meat will be taken. With them the only requirement is a clean kill to prevent needless suffering, so "overpowered" would only be relevant in terms of ammo expense or (depending on location) travel of the round after it hits the intended target.

There are minimum requirements for certain game animals. I've never had someone be told "you mean more gun."

I have seen people get "Are you really going with that?" simply because the degree of difficulty.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:I think we need to borrow some Cajuns, ship them over with their gear and Old Bay

Oof. That's a little like borrowing Londoners with their haggis

(Cajuns have creole while Old Bay's a Maryland thing- and they are very protective of their respective spices)

When I was growing up in sub-Saharan Africa, my mom used a lot of Indian spices to cover up the gaminess of zebra and wildebeest. Works a treat.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:For those that Hunt.

In terms of suitable firearms, have you ever gone a bit overboard accidentally, and wound up spifflicating the target?

And what’s the etiquette on bringing the right tools? I mean, I know part of the etiquette is for every hit to be a kill, and where that doesn’t quite work out you track the wounded beastie and finish the job. But has someone ever brought a ridiculous gun and been told “not with that you’re not”, whether it was OTT for the prey, or massively underpowered?

Usually the constraint is bringing enough gun for the job. All things being equal a lighter, smaller-caliber rifle is easier to carry, set up, rest with, and shoot, but the size of the game might dictate a larger caliber.

.223/5.56mm is commonly used on deer, for example, but in some localities it's prohibited as too small of a cartridge. .308 or .30-06 is sufficient for most four-legged game.

I want this for Christmas: https://www.marlinfirearms.com/s/model_1895trapper/

 Adeptekon wrote:
I want this for Christmas: https://www.marlinfirearms.com/s/model_1895trapper/

We are very close to achieving my vision of a polymer-stocked lever gun with a top rail.

My 1990s conception of an over-under 6" .410 has already been realized.

I'd say I need to write these ideas down, but what I really need is access to the capital. I *did* write the .410 down. Obviously someone saw it.

Can't you print it?

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

We are very close to achieving my vision of a polymer-stocked lever gun with a top rail.

Ahem...


Lever action belt fed .44 magnum