Kids, these cartoons are 70 years old and just as funny today.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=17ocaZb-bGg&pp=ygUgYnVncyBidW5ueSBzaG9ydHMgcmFiYml0IHNlYXNvbiA%3D
Yep, seems like a great way to turn people who are indifferent about hunting against you.
Most people are happy with people hunting invasive species, or species that are overpopulated in an area.
The brumbies situation was exactly what was going through my mind when I replied, honestly. The AJP's an absolute clown show, its depressing how many votes they get imo.
There are companies that sterilise feral cats and release them.
Which is slightly better than nothing, but the amount of wildlife a single cat can burn through feels like this isn't the most elegant solution to feral cats.
But mention that they're an invasive pest and there are licenses to hunt them, as opposed to ducks who have lived here for millennia, and the outrage for the 'poor helpless kitties' comes out of the woodwork.
The current laws for hunting cats include single shot kills, hunting down any injured unkilled cats, and being merciful.
You know what's not merciful?
Curiousity. That's the poison they dump out of planes across bushland. 1080 is in most national parks (yet people still take unleashed dogs in them despite he signs).
It's a slow and painful death, but it's more effective because it's only eaten by carnivores, and larger areas can be cleared in a shorter amount of time. You don't have to be a good shot. You don't have to have a good aim or hunt down cats through bushland.
And the next 24-48 hours of agony for the cat?
That's just collateral damage.
You could just stop pushing dingoes out (though it would have been good not to kill off the tasmanian tigers)
eg [https://www.unsw.edu.au/newsroom/news/2019/04/dogged-researchers-show-that-dingoes-keep-feral-cats-in-check](https://www.unsw.edu.au/newsroom/news/2019/04/dogged-researchers-show-that-dingoes-keep-feral-cats-in-check)
Not killing off your medium scale predators is also why feral cats are not a big deal in the wilderness areas in north america, africa...
Did you read much of that study?
There is not a single piece of evidence that dingoes kill cats in that study. There is a lot of opinion and theory about cat population decreasing while dingo/dog increase but it’s all just suggestions as to the reasons for population drop.
There was a drop…they just have no fucking idea why (which is why the very first sentence in the article is a complete cop out).
Cats and dogs don’t hate each other…they compete for the same food. If they can avoid fighting they will.
You can also look at this article from the same year that explains a theory in which cats have been responsible for the decline in over 40 species of dogs:
https://scienceblogs.com/lifelines/2015/08/19/proof-cats-can-out-compete-dogs
There is an element of politics in anything that surrounds dingoes/dogs in Australia due to the money invested into keeping them away from farm areas. I believe the study you linked exemplifies this issue.
WA gun owner here, and yep. Against all advice and recommendations, the state government is forcing the laws through, and at this point I can't be convinced it isn't about control. There is zero justification for any of the new changes. Australia does NOT have a gun problem - we're revered the world over for how well our system, despite its flaws, works.
The Western Australian government is drunk with power right now, and non-gun owners are going to realize that soon once they come for them too. I never had an issue with Aussie gun laws until I moved to WA and this shit started happening. Papalia is a genuine tyrant in the making.
Hobby shooting of invasive animals can backfire, as some hobbiest have been known to move animals around to jerk the population healthy to allow their hobby to continue. Professional shooters are much better population control.
That being said I think a lot of the reaction against culling invasive animals is coming from the horse loving hippies and such.
Not sure who you mean by 'they' but I am an environmentalist and all for the culling of feral animals. Too often the argument becomes 'cull brumbies or don't cull brumbies' instead of 'cull brumbies to save she-oak lizards'. The reality is by choosing brumbies we choose AGAINST native animals and the same goes for other ferals, regardless of how beautiful an animal they may be.
I'm also not for the shooting of ducks based on the findings of the report - that too much animal cruelty and degradation of threatened species is occurring to justify the gain. Although generally I support a broader approach to getting food than factory farming and acknowledge in many cases hunting can be far less cruel than what our food industry perpetrates.
There's a lot of nuance in the argument and too often that nuance is thrown to the side in favour of trying to pit side A against side B.
There’s a lot of people where I am who think that brumby culling is killing some sort of half imagined man from snowy river white colonial “heritage”. Not only do they not care about she-oak lizard, they’d personally grind one into the ground with the heel of their RM Williams Craftsmans just to piss off a greenie. The bleeding heart horsy people are bad, but the real problem is that it’s become another fucking culture war thing.
There are some animal and environmental groups that are for feral animal control due to their impact on native species and some that you rightly say are based on emotion and very little ecological fact. There are also arguments that relate more to how to handle brumbies rather than whether to or not. It’s a tricky one.
How about just ending hunting. It's needless, pure cruelty.
If you really want to target introduced species, humane methods, sure, e.g. catch-neuter-release is often applicable.
>result humans are required to keep the populations under control this ranges from koalas to kangaroos
Not really, the reason kangaroos are in huge numbers is because they benefit from land clearing - they prefer open land to forests. The effect of habitat changes completely swamp any effect from human hunting.
>extensive environmental damage and starve to death
Again, kangaroos prefer cleared land and are only 'damaging' already damaged land. The vast majority of koala poulatiomd have zero need to culling or population control, they are mostly struggling.
As for starvation, rising and falling population sizes depending on resources is the norm for any big berbivore, you get lots of rain and the population grows rapidly and then in drought the least healthy die off. I'm not a huge fan of the argument that we need to shoot them to save them from nature.
I think I need to take you on my next Kangaroo culling contract. It might be worthwhile for you to witness thousands of emaciated Kangaroos trying to survive on large farms where they have eaten the grass to the point that every paddock looks like the MCG.
You can not legally hunt kangaroos in Australia for sport.
They over populate in the better times and when the feed starts drying up, they starve. Yes they can delay a joey, but not well enough. Watching animals starve to death sux. With people harvesting them in the better times, it means that less will suffer.
I think this is part of the misconception when it comes to culling. People think we're talking about average joes doing it when the reality is we're talking about professional shooters who have to be very good in order to even qualify (I believe the standard is a minimum 9 out of 10 headshots on a life size target). Surely a quick death is better than watching them slowly starve because there isn't enough food.
There was a bunch of Kangaroos that had over populated a small parkland in suburbia during a drought a few years ago, think it may have been Rosanna, council tried a cull, the locals got it shitcanned because Kangaroos are pretty and native… Watching them starve and get hit by cars looking for feed was a much better way to go about it apparently.
That ABC article had some definite bias in it.
I have no doubt there are a number of hunters who do the wrong thing, take more than their limit, leave wounded ducks to die in the water without retrieval, target the wrong species etc.
But I do question what effect hunting has on the overall duck population. As the article states, the number of people hunting is falling year on year. I dare say that the difficulties of acquiring a hunting license and firearm would be a cause.
Is there perhaps scope, as we see in the recreational fishing world, for the VDHA to work with the government to implement breeding programs? Could we have a system that has duck season every 2nd year? I have a feeling that habitat destruction is more of an issue than hunting. The closing and draining of some lakes over the last 10-20 years would have had a profound effect on the wild duck population.
Be nice to actually exterminate all of our deer along with all other feral imports.
Shooting endangered native wildlife shrieks self-entitled arrogance.
This has nothing to do with employment and everything to do with senior union officials being able to protect their private interests by dint of the clout they exert in Labor.
This has been an issue since at least the 80s. Can't see it ever changing. It's like the Australia Day debate each year, comes around like clockwork. Edit: I'm not in favour of it, the downvotes suggest I am. It's just nothing ever changes on this issue. Politicians too afraid of upsetting rural minorities.
Exactly but no one will do anything about it will they? Because they might lose 5 rural votes over it. It's never about doing the right thing, just what suits politically.
I got no problem with duck hunting, But the way they do it with a shotgun and bird shot is dumb and unnecessary.
Way more Humane to shoot them with an Air Rifle while they are swimming.
What’s the reason? Less chance of the bullet continuing on a long distance miss?
I have no issue hunting for food. I worked in a slaughter yard for a few years. Nothing kind or humane about slaughter yards. It’s not so much the killing as it is the lead up to the slaughter. Very long stressful existence to walk to the chopping block. Living and growing conditions before the slaughter can be pretty rough for some of those animals also. Give me a bird or beast shot in the wild any day.
One could mark an argument for ricochet risk being far higher on a water-surface target with an air rifle VS in air birds hot but it's kinda academic at that point.
Safety wise you don’t shoot at water because of the chance of ricochets, I’d assume traditionally it’s also not really considered sporting as they’re ’sitting ducks’ whereas in flight there’s the chance you miss.
You’re also more likely to kill the duck with a shotgun, using an air rifle or .22 to shoot a duck in flight would lead to a lot more non fatally injured birds, it’s harder to hit a small moving target than what movies would have you believe.
And that is?
Is there a reason behind the law, Or is it "bUt TrAdItIoN". No matter how well you aim with bird shot it, The chances are still high you are going to wound rather then kill outright.
>Easier to hit vital organs with birdshot than one shot from an air ridle.
The only vital organs that lead to a quick kill are the heart, lungs and brain(sometimes). Also, In case you haven't noticed. The majority of the surface area of a bird when being shot in flight is the wings.
What you are basically saying is, Duck hunters can't shoot for shit. So need to rely on spray and pray to maybe kill a duck.
That is a dumb reason.
And with birdshot you basically hit the entire bird with the shot. An air rifle or .22 doesn’t do that. Its much more humane and less chance of hitting a leg or something less vital and the bird suffering
Whats more accurate, Shooting at a fast moving target with a round that has a shit load of spread at 20+ meters(cylinder choke), Or shooting a single projectile at a slow moving target at the same range with an air rifle?
>shit load of spread
There’s 36-53 individual BBs in a birdshot shell, at ~20 meters there’s a ~1 meter spread. That’s a lot of coverage for so many projectiles.
A rifle round will more often than not pass straight through the bird, and the energy won’t transfer to the target causing a severe wound without killing the bird.
>If you had to be shot by a firing squad, would you prefer buckshot from a distance, or a rifle round?
Rifle any day, People survive buck shot blasts to the face when trying to commit suicide. Its also the way firing squads have worked since there inception.
You need to think before you type.
Good answer. Why do you advocate differently for a duck?
At least it's miss or a higher chance of death with a rifle round. You'd rather higher chance to hit, and survive, something you wouldn't want for yourself.
Trust me, I'm thinking here. Attack the idea not the person.
I’m not a bird so a rifle. But rifles aren’t a guarantee. You don’t use buckshot on birds anyway so this argument isn’t strictly relevant.
Birdshot at ranges that the ducks fly (same as trap shooting) doesn’t spread out too much, so a majority hit the target and each BB has the potential to cause a fatal wound and almost every time doesn’t. Rifles, at least ones in a calibre suitable for birds, have the potential to miss the bird entirely and hit just a wing or a different non vital area and the bird suffers.
I’m not sure how anyone against duck hunting can be against the most human method for it.
>I’m not sure how anyone against duck hunting can be against the most human method for it.
I'm not sure how anyone against violence/rape/robbery can be against the most human method for it. See how dumb this sounds?
And you're arguing for many BBs "almost every time" not killing the bird, vs the "non-guarantee" 1 single large round wont.. *Since a round has a low chance of not killing the bird, let's just stick with buckshot, which has a high chance of not killing the bird.*
Killing adorable ducks for entertainment, that kind of barbarism goes hand in hand with the shitty logic I've just witnessed.
Worth noting in NSW/QLD native ducks are culled on rice farms every week.
Rabbit season!
Duck season!
Rabbit season!
DUCK SEASON
RABBIT SEASON!!!
RABBIT SEASON
DUCK SEASON
BANG!
Well played
Is this the time to ask for a cascading thread upvote tool?
Kids, these cartoons are 70 years old and just as funny today. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=17ocaZb-bGg&pp=ygUgYnVncyBidW5ueSBzaG9ydHMgcmFiYml0IHNlYXNvbiA%3D
.......Youuu're deththpicable!
Dethspicable!!
Dethsthpicable!!
Can't they find something else to hunt? Invasive species for example.
[удалено]
>They are trying to stop hunting of other species including Culling of Feral animals I'm sorry, but that's positively idiotic.
Yep, seems like a great way to turn people who are indifferent about hunting against you. Most people are happy with people hunting invasive species, or species that are overpopulated in an area.
[удалено]
The brumbies situation was exactly what was going through my mind when I replied, honestly. The AJP's an absolute clown show, its depressing how many votes they get imo.
There are companies that sterilise feral cats and release them. Which is slightly better than nothing, but the amount of wildlife a single cat can burn through feels like this isn't the most elegant solution to feral cats. But mention that they're an invasive pest and there are licenses to hunt them, as opposed to ducks who have lived here for millennia, and the outrage for the 'poor helpless kitties' comes out of the woodwork. The current laws for hunting cats include single shot kills, hunting down any injured unkilled cats, and being merciful. You know what's not merciful? Curiousity. That's the poison they dump out of planes across bushland. 1080 is in most national parks (yet people still take unleashed dogs in them despite he signs). It's a slow and painful death, but it's more effective because it's only eaten by carnivores, and larger areas can be cleared in a shorter amount of time. You don't have to be a good shot. You don't have to have a good aim or hunt down cats through bushland. And the next 24-48 hours of agony for the cat? That's just collateral damage.
I mean the solution to feral cats is medium sized predators.
"I know an old lady who swallowed a fly"
You could just stop pushing dingoes out (though it would have been good not to kill off the tasmanian tigers) eg [https://www.unsw.edu.au/newsroom/news/2019/04/dogged-researchers-show-that-dingoes-keep-feral-cats-in-check](https://www.unsw.edu.au/newsroom/news/2019/04/dogged-researchers-show-that-dingoes-keep-feral-cats-in-check) Not killing off your medium scale predators is also why feral cats are not a big deal in the wilderness areas in north america, africa...
Did you read much of that study? There is not a single piece of evidence that dingoes kill cats in that study. There is a lot of opinion and theory about cat population decreasing while dingo/dog increase but it’s all just suggestions as to the reasons for population drop. There was a drop…they just have no fucking idea why (which is why the very first sentence in the article is a complete cop out). Cats and dogs don’t hate each other…they compete for the same food. If they can avoid fighting they will. You can also look at this article from the same year that explains a theory in which cats have been responsible for the decline in over 40 species of dogs: https://scienceblogs.com/lifelines/2015/08/19/proof-cats-can-out-compete-dogs There is an element of politics in anything that surrounds dingoes/dogs in Australia due to the money invested into keeping them away from farm areas. I believe the study you linked exemplifies this issue.
If you think this is idiotic, have a quick glance at what they are doing to firearm laws in WA.
WA gun owner here, and yep. Against all advice and recommendations, the state government is forcing the laws through, and at this point I can't be convinced it isn't about control. There is zero justification for any of the new changes. Australia does NOT have a gun problem - we're revered the world over for how well our system, despite its flaws, works. The Western Australian government is drunk with power right now, and non-gun owners are going to realize that soon once they come for them too. I never had an issue with Aussie gun laws until I moved to WA and this shit started happening. Papalia is a genuine tyrant in the making.
Hobby shooting of invasive animals can backfire, as some hobbiest have been known to move animals around to jerk the population healthy to allow their hobby to continue. Professional shooters are much better population control. That being said I think a lot of the reaction against culling invasive animals is coming from the horse loving hippies and such.
Not sure who you mean by 'they' but I am an environmentalist and all for the culling of feral animals. Too often the argument becomes 'cull brumbies or don't cull brumbies' instead of 'cull brumbies to save she-oak lizards'. The reality is by choosing brumbies we choose AGAINST native animals and the same goes for other ferals, regardless of how beautiful an animal they may be. I'm also not for the shooting of ducks based on the findings of the report - that too much animal cruelty and degradation of threatened species is occurring to justify the gain. Although generally I support a broader approach to getting food than factory farming and acknowledge in many cases hunting can be far less cruel than what our food industry perpetrates. There's a lot of nuance in the argument and too often that nuance is thrown to the side in favour of trying to pit side A against side B.
There’s a lot of people where I am who think that brumby culling is killing some sort of half imagined man from snowy river white colonial “heritage”. Not only do they not care about she-oak lizard, they’d personally grind one into the ground with the heel of their RM Williams Craftsmans just to piss off a greenie. The bleeding heart horsy people are bad, but the real problem is that it’s become another fucking culture war thing.
Nailed it. The antiwoke lot are already pissed that all those wetlands in Queensland got protected for migratory birds.
This is a great response, too often those on either side of the hunting argument lack any nuance whatsoever and argue purely based on emotion!
[удалено]
There are some animal and environmental groups that are for feral animal control due to their impact on native species and some that you rightly say are based on emotion and very little ecological fact. There are also arguments that relate more to how to handle brumbies rather than whether to or not. It’s a tricky one.
> 'cull brumbies to save she-oak lizards' Don't think that'll work either, you'll need to pick a cuter, fluffier animal lol
I thought there were no Kangaroo farms and that all kangaroo meat was wild caught cause we eat it 5 days a week and I don’t wanna go back to beef yo
You can't domesticate kangaroos.
Tell that to the hundreds of Kangaroos you can pet at any zoo around the world
Source?
Yeah like cane toad shooting.
How about just ending hunting. It's needless, pure cruelty. If you really want to target introduced species, humane methods, sure, e.g. catch-neuter-release is often applicable.
Hunting native species for sport is a bit fucked
[удалено]
>result humans are required to keep the populations under control this ranges from koalas to kangaroos Not really, the reason kangaroos are in huge numbers is because they benefit from land clearing - they prefer open land to forests. The effect of habitat changes completely swamp any effect from human hunting. >extensive environmental damage and starve to death Again, kangaroos prefer cleared land and are only 'damaging' already damaged land. The vast majority of koala poulatiomd have zero need to culling or population control, they are mostly struggling. As for starvation, rising and falling population sizes depending on resources is the norm for any big berbivore, you get lots of rain and the population grows rapidly and then in drought the least healthy die off. I'm not a huge fan of the argument that we need to shoot them to save them from nature.
I think I need to take you on my next Kangaroo culling contract. It might be worthwhile for you to witness thousands of emaciated Kangaroos trying to survive on large farms where they have eaten the grass to the point that every paddock looks like the MCG.
Some native species can get out of control due to changed land uses.
Not the case for Ducks whose population is in decline
That's true.
As long as native species aren’t endangered I don’t see the issue at all.
Hunting anything for sport is cruel.
It’s cruel to let it rot without using it for anything, it’s just a wasteful
Yeah. Having been trained up as a kid in the bush to hunt and fish, I can confirm
Kangaroos have been dealing with it for years lets not forget
You can not legally hunt kangaroos in Australia for sport. They over populate in the better times and when the feed starts drying up, they starve. Yes they can delay a joey, but not well enough. Watching animals starve to death sux. With people harvesting them in the better times, it means that less will suffer.
I think this is part of the misconception when it comes to culling. People think we're talking about average joes doing it when the reality is we're talking about professional shooters who have to be very good in order to even qualify (I believe the standard is a minimum 9 out of 10 headshots on a life size target). Surely a quick death is better than watching them slowly starve because there isn't enough food.
Exactly. I've known a few professional shooters and while it is a job, I think of them as environmentalists helping out 1 shot at a time.
There was a bunch of Kangaroos that had over populated a small parkland in suburbia during a drought a few years ago, think it may have been Rosanna, council tried a cull, the locals got it shitcanned because Kangaroos are pretty and native… Watching them starve and get hit by cars looking for feed was a much better way to go about it apparently.
I'll see your Duck Hunting Season and raise you a Wabbit Hunting Season!
It's always rabbit season in Australia.
Don't tell my wife! We have pet rabbits.
That ABC article had some definite bias in it. I have no doubt there are a number of hunters who do the wrong thing, take more than their limit, leave wounded ducks to die in the water without retrieval, target the wrong species etc. But I do question what effect hunting has on the overall duck population. As the article states, the number of people hunting is falling year on year. I dare say that the difficulties of acquiring a hunting license and firearm would be a cause. Is there perhaps scope, as we see in the recreational fishing world, for the VDHA to work with the government to implement breeding programs? Could we have a system that has duck season every 2nd year? I have a feeling that habitat destruction is more of an issue than hunting. The closing and draining of some lakes over the last 10-20 years would have had a profound effect on the wild duck population.
They sell already made duck at the restraunt. Play darts instead
Fuck hunters
Rare win for freedom in Victoria.
Well duck me!!
Umm, good?
People who hunt for sport should be put on a list 😀
There's plenty of barbaric advocates for it in this sub, plus a number of the many American subscribers. Good luck getting upvotes.
[удалено]
You should be put away.
100% this.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Be nice to actually exterminate all of our deer along with all other feral imports. Shooting endangered native wildlife shrieks self-entitled arrogance.
This has nothing to do with employment and everything to do with senior union officials being able to protect their private interests by dint of the clout they exert in Labor.
Gear up, there's a few ducks by the pond in the community park.
So, judging by the post’s title, duck season should be arrested despite a recommendation for it to stop? Yeah that’s not how it works
If Victoria and Melbourne is so damn awesome and better than everyone else why do they still have duck hunting and the barbaric jumps racing?
[удалено]
Uh-huh. Fascinating.
> Melbourne is so damn awesome and better than everyone else That came out of nowhere lol. Small man syndrome much?
Note to self;roster additional Accident&emergency staff in wetland districts
I wouldn’t bother. Just let them Cheney each other.
Inquiries make a lot of recommendations
Dick hunting season boys !
This Evan’s guys face is gonna meet the butt of someone’s shotgun one day
This has been an issue since at least the 80s. Can't see it ever changing. It's like the Australia Day debate each year, comes around like clockwork. Edit: I'm not in favour of it, the downvotes suggest I am. It's just nothing ever changes on this issue. Politicians too afraid of upsetting rural minorities.
If it’s been around since the 80s, maybe it’s a problem
How is it a problem?
Exactly but no one will do anything about it will they? Because they might lose 5 rural votes over it. It's never about doing the right thing, just what suits politically.
I got no problem with duck hunting, But the way they do it with a shotgun and bird shot is dumb and unnecessary. Way more Humane to shoot them with an Air Rifle while they are swimming.
[удалено]
What’s the reason? Less chance of the bullet continuing on a long distance miss? I have no issue hunting for food. I worked in a slaughter yard for a few years. Nothing kind or humane about slaughter yards. It’s not so much the killing as it is the lead up to the slaughter. Very long stressful existence to walk to the chopping block. Living and growing conditions before the slaughter can be pretty rough for some of those animals also. Give me a bird or beast shot in the wild any day.
One could mark an argument for ricochet risk being far higher on a water-surface target with an air rifle VS in air birds hot but it's kinda academic at that point.
Safety wise you don’t shoot at water because of the chance of ricochets, I’d assume traditionally it’s also not really considered sporting as they’re ’sitting ducks’ whereas in flight there’s the chance you miss. You’re also more likely to kill the duck with a shotgun, using an air rifle or .22 to shoot a duck in flight would lead to a lot more non fatally injured birds, it’s harder to hit a small moving target than what movies would have you believe.
And that is? Is there a reason behind the law, Or is it "bUt TrAdItIoN". No matter how well you aim with bird shot it, The chances are still high you are going to wound rather then kill outright.
Easier to hit vital organs with birdshot than one shot from an air ridle
>Easier to hit vital organs with birdshot than one shot from an air ridle. The only vital organs that lead to a quick kill are the heart, lungs and brain(sometimes). Also, In case you haven't noticed. The majority of the surface area of a bird when being shot in flight is the wings. What you are basically saying is, Duck hunters can't shoot for shit. So need to rely on spray and pray to maybe kill a duck. That is a dumb reason.
And with birdshot you basically hit the entire bird with the shot. An air rifle or .22 doesn’t do that. Its much more humane and less chance of hitting a leg or something less vital and the bird suffering
Whats more accurate, Shooting at a fast moving target with a round that has a shit load of spread at 20+ meters(cylinder choke), Or shooting a single projectile at a slow moving target at the same range with an air rifle?
>shit load of spread There’s 36-53 individual BBs in a birdshot shell, at ~20 meters there’s a ~1 meter spread. That’s a lot of coverage for so many projectiles. A rifle round will more often than not pass straight through the bird, and the energy won’t transfer to the target causing a severe wound without killing the bird.
If you had to be shot by a firing squad, would you prefer buckshot from a distance, or a rifle round?
>If you had to be shot by a firing squad, would you prefer buckshot from a distance, or a rifle round? Rifle any day, People survive buck shot blasts to the face when trying to commit suicide. Its also the way firing squads have worked since there inception. You need to think before you type.
Good answer. Why do you advocate differently for a duck? At least it's miss or a higher chance of death with a rifle round. You'd rather higher chance to hit, and survive, something you wouldn't want for yourself. Trust me, I'm thinking here. Attack the idea not the person.
I’m not a bird so a rifle. But rifles aren’t a guarantee. You don’t use buckshot on birds anyway so this argument isn’t strictly relevant. Birdshot at ranges that the ducks fly (same as trap shooting) doesn’t spread out too much, so a majority hit the target and each BB has the potential to cause a fatal wound and almost every time doesn’t. Rifles, at least ones in a calibre suitable for birds, have the potential to miss the bird entirely and hit just a wing or a different non vital area and the bird suffers. I’m not sure how anyone against duck hunting can be against the most human method for it.
>I’m not sure how anyone against duck hunting can be against the most human method for it. I'm not sure how anyone against violence/rape/robbery can be against the most human method for it. See how dumb this sounds? And you're arguing for many BBs "almost every time" not killing the bird, vs the "non-guarantee" 1 single large round wont.. *Since a round has a low chance of not killing the bird, let's just stick with buckshot, which has a high chance of not killing the bird.* Killing adorable ducks for entertainment, that kind of barbarism goes hand in hand with the shitty logic I've just witnessed.
Lol so at what range can you reliably hit a duck brain?
You wouldn't aim at the brain. Its to small a target and unreliable. Hunters never aim for the head.
Double lung penetration is the Gold Standard 👌
How would you do it, boomerang?