"No different than gun laws because of bad guys with guns hurting the good guys with guns"
Shotgun capacity question
5,531 Views |
86 Replies |
Last: 5 days ago by BartInLA
rab4225 said:
Big reminder here, if you remove the three shell rule, you will immediately have people running 10+ shells with extensions meant for tactical competition just because they can. Then you are talking indiscriminate firing at groups and lots of wounded and lost birds.
I don't think so. I RARELY even fire the third round. The three round limit is dumb to me as well. This sounds like the constitutional carry mindset whereby "if you legalize it, everyone will carry a gun and blood will flow down the streets."
That didn't happen either.
I have tried to hunt birds with a Saiga 12 and maybe I'm just special but I couldn't hit **** with it.
Well said
Well. If we didn't have crimes being committed with bad guys with guns we wouldn't need any BS gun laws that just mess with all the good people with guns. So my point is the good folks that never break any laws take it in the shorts due to bad guys with guns. If you think that is a trash premise so be it.
Yeah, you don't get it. "crimes being committed with bad guys with guns" is not a legitimate reason for gun control.
I didn't say that. Read it again. I said they (the bad guys) were responsible for idiot law makers using their (the bad guys) bad actions to pass BS gun laws that do nothing but hurt the good people that do nothing bad with their guns.
Maybe I misread, but I don't see where Gunny claimed that was a legitimate reason for gun laws, nor where he supported them. He's just saying that has been the impetus for their creation.
Exactly. Thank you.
HarryJ33tamu said:
If you can't hit your bird with 3 shots, you should probably practice some more.
?
If the plug were out he'd get 40% more practice with each reload.
HarryJ33tamu said:
If you can't hit your bird with 3 shots, you should probably practice some more.
How often do you get 5 shots at a bird?
Ive gone 6 for 6 on quail. (Dont need a plug for that pursuit).
Point is rule says gun can only have three for migratory. Plug or not it is 3. Can only load 3.
The plug rule is an additional so man cant cheat. Which is sad. If you have modified your gun to hold a ghost load that will also get you in trouble while hunting migratory birds. Shouldn't matter.
But it is all a big meh for me. The rules are easy to follow and I have always had a blast getting out. Not concerned with needing or wanting to make a fourth shot.
Www.gowithgrem.com
If you really want to get western do the late goose conservation season. Ive seen guys have two semi autos laying side by side with huge extended magazines that hold 12 shots each. They get the geese staged up circling overhead and empty both guns as fas as they can up into the cicling levels. 24 shots per volley.
I guess you could have two duck guns side by side with three each if you really thought you were good enough....no rule against that. Getcha some.
I guess you could have two duck guns side by side with three each if you really thought you were good enough....no rule against that. Getcha some.
Www.gowithgrem.com
IMHO if the limit says x number of birds taken per day, who really cares how you obtain that limit. If the objective is to regulate the harvest by allowing a daily bag limit, why further control the means?? Why can't you use an 8 gauge or have 4 or 5 shells. If you reach the limit in two volleys, so be it.
If you have a 6 fish limit and catch 2 on a double drop 3 times, why is that worse than catching 1 at a time x 6?
Stupid law.
If you have a 6 fish limit and catch 2 on a double drop 3 times, why is that worse than catching 1 at a time x 6?
Stupid law.
You are absolutely correct. It's just gentlemen's gun control. Even the not another inch guys go right along with it in the name of sportsmanship.
HarryJ33tamu said:
If you can't hit your bird with 3 shots, you should probably practice some more.
How often do you get 5 shots at a bird?
This is always the most misguided argument. The 3rd shot almost always goes to a new target that presents itself before there is time to reload. It's rarely a 3rd shot after 2 misses. A larger capacity would be awesome because it would reduce the number of time you have to reload
We get to Sargent and my buddy's dad had a rod that he checked all our guns with, it was marked I guess on where three shells would be. He gets to the Mossberg I borrowed from his son and his hand hits the gun. Oooops, no plug, we forgot to put it back in after scrubbing it down. So he goes and gets this thick plastic coat hanger and cuts it and puts it in trimming it a couple times till it only allows three. Next morning we are trying to get a few more birds to limit and we hear a speaker. My buddy's dad says everyone empty your guns the warden is coming to check us. He gets to me and checks license and he has a metal rod, and slam s it about 3-4 times and the last one it just breaks the plastic hanger. This hanger was thick. He gave me a ticket and told me I could not have the gun in the blind and was done for the day. My buddy's dad had a few choice words for the guy, we loaded up and went straight to town and he had a cop waiting to let us in at a JP's office. Told us to wait in the truck. He waived me in a few minutes later and I signed a warning ticket as the warden walked in and the Cop and JP started asking him questions, he went from billy badass to stuttering fool. I was told in the car ride home that his dad was attempting to make them buy him a new shotgun with the abuse and he had never been treated so poorly, they just tore it up and then asked me to come in and sign a warning. That was 1990, 2 years later we are at San Bernard area and the warden is talking to all of us that were drawn and goes into a story about hunters using objects other than the manufactures plug. I look up and it's him. I kept my head down the whole time.
Second Hardest Workin Man on Texags
96ags said:Gunny456 said:
What deems it to be effective, reasonable and necessary? Ducks U. and many state agencies report that our national numbers of migratory waterfowl are in a pretty downward decline. Same for Mourning Doves. So one would have to ask….does the regulation accomplish its intent? Or are there folks who don't care and violate it anyway causing problems? And what effect will it have on the resources if it is done away with? All good questions I think.
I agree with you on not needing anymore regulations than necessary or gov overreach.
So our argument here is we need to do away with the regulation for why? Just because it's a regulation? Or so we can get in….get out….and get our limit quicker?
I suppose my argument would be that hunter's rights should not be limited unless it can be proven to be necessary, not the other way around.
Almost everybsingle reg, limit, etc is a function of the fact that there wasnt one before and because of the fact that there wasnt one we had serious problems with wildlife management.
The reason duck limits exist today is because of the market hunters at the turn of the 20th century. The duck populations before and after were night and day different and we were in danger of seeing some species of duck gobi to extinction at least here in the US.
We used to have quail populations in Texas all the way to the coast before the combination of fsrming, ranching and over harvesting made them almost non existent in the old coastal regions and throughout much of the state.
Passenger pigeons were once the most abundant bird in north America. But they went extinct in 1900 due to over hunting due to zero regulations and loss of habitat.
Texas had to implement the 13" rume in much of tge state on deer because peolke are people and they were shooting out white tail herds by shooting the first buck they woukd see regardless of age.
None of us lime regulatiins for the most part. But human history has shown that without them, humans can and will eradicate entire species off the earth because as a whole we are incapable of self policing. And those regulations out in place in the 1930's are largely why we can still hunt many of the things we hunt today.
schmellba99 said:96ags said:Gunny456 said:
What deems it to be effective, reasonable and necessary? Ducks U. and many state agencies report that our national numbers of migratory waterfowl are in a pretty downward decline. Same for Mourning Doves. So one would have to ask….does the regulation accomplish its intent? Or are there folks who don't care and violate it anyway causing problems? And what effect will it have on the resources if it is done away with? All good questions I think.
I agree with you on not needing anymore regulations than necessary or gov overreach.
So our argument here is we need to do away with the regulation for why? Just because it's a regulation? Or so we can get in….get out….and get our limit quicker?
I suppose my argument would be that hunter's rights should not be limited unless it can be proven to be necessary, not the other way around.
Almost everybsingle reg, limit, etc is a function of the fact that there wasnt one before and because of the fact that there wasnt one we had serious problems with wildlife management.
The reason duck limits exist today is because of the market hunters at the turn of the 20th century. The duck populations before and after were night and day different and we were in danger of seeing some species of duck gobi to extinction at least here in the US.
We used to have quail populations in Texas all the way to the coast before the combination of fsrming, ranching and over harvesting made them almost non existent in the old coastal regions and throughout much of the state.
Passenger pigeons were once the most abundant bird in north America. But they went extinct in 1900 due to over hunting due to zero regulations and loss of habitat.
Texas had to implement the 13" rume in much of tge state on deer because peolke are people and they were shooting out white tail herds by shooting the first buck they woukd see regardless of age.
None of us lime regulatiins for the most part. But human history has shown that without them, humans can and will eradicate entire species off the earth because as a whole we are incapable of self policing. And those regulations out in place in the 1930's are largely why we can still hunt many of the things we hunt today.
I'm not sure what all of that is supposed to say, but I don't see anything that you typed that would seem to describe the "necessity" of this particular rule. I do understand what and why regulations exist. I don't really see a need for this particular one.
And comparing game laws to gun control laws is stupid. They arent the same and neither have the same intention.
Things like bag limits, 13" rule, shell capacity limits, etc are designed to ensure we dont mismanage through over harvesting, wounding but not recovering, etc. the game species. And the intent is to ensure our kids and grand kids and great grandkids have the same opportunity to hunt deer, ducks, dove, quail, etc that we do. Because we dont have the same opportunities that our great grandparents did because of the lack of good game management back then.
Gun control laws are designed to erode and ultimately elimnate our 2A rights entirely.
One is used to protect and preserve, the other is used to punish and restrict. They are not the same.
Things like bag limits, 13" rule, shell capacity limits, etc are designed to ensure we dont mismanage through over harvesting, wounding but not recovering, etc. the game species. And the intent is to ensure our kids and grand kids and great grandkids have the same opportunity to hunt deer, ducks, dove, quail, etc that we do. Because we dont have the same opportunities that our great grandparents did because of the lack of good game management back then.
Gun control laws are designed to erode and ultimately elimnate our 2A rights entirely.
One is used to protect and preserve, the other is used to punish and restrict. They are not the same.
SGrem said:
If you really want to get western do the late goose conservation season. Ive seen guys have two semi autos laying side by side with huge extended magazines that hold 12 shots each. They get the geese staged up circling overhead and empty both guns as fas as they can up into the cicling levels. 24 shots per volley.
I guess you could have two duck guns side by side with three each if you really thought you were good enough....no rule against that. Getcha some.
I've heard 10+ shots in a matter of seconds (while deer hunting), only be told later that it was 2 guys duck hunting with 2 guns each on the levee of a pond. As I've been told, they can limit out in under 30 minutes with regularity.
schmellba99 said:
And comparing game laws to gun control laws is stupid. They arent the same and neither have the same intention.
Well tell your pro regulation side that as it was gunny that made the comparison first
schmellba99 said:96ags said:Gunny456 said:
What deems it to be effective, reasonable and necessary? Ducks U. and many state agencies report that our national numbers of migratory waterfowl are in a pretty downward decline. Same for Mourning Doves. So one would have to ask….does the regulation accomplish its intent? Or are there folks who don't care and violate it anyway causing problems? And what effect will it have on the resources if it is done away with? All good questions I think.
I agree with you on not needing anymore regulations than necessary or gov overreach.
So our argument here is we need to do away with the regulation for why? Just because it's a regulation? Or so we can get in….get out….and get our limit quicker?
I suppose my argument would be that hunter's rights should not be limited unless it can be proven to be necessary, not the other way around.
Almost everybsingle reg, limit, etc is a function of the fact that there wasnt one before and because of the fact that there wasnt one we had serious problems with wildlife management.
The reason duck limits exist today is because of the market hunters at the turn of the 20th century. The duck populations before and after were night and day different and we were in danger of seeing some species of duck gobi to extinction at least here in the US.
We used to have quail populations in Texas all the way to the coast before the combination of fsrming, ranching and over harvesting made them almost non existent in the old coastal regions and throughout much of the state.
Passenger pigeons were once the most abundant bird in north America. But they went extinct in 1900 due to over hunting due to zero regulations and loss of habitat.
Texas had to implement the 13" rume in much of tge state on deer because peolke are people and they were shooting out white tail herds by shooting the first buck they woukd see regardless of age.
None of us lime regulatiins for the most part. But human history has shown that without them, humans can and will eradicate entire species off the earth because as a whole we are incapable of self policing. And those regulations out in place in the 1930's are largely why we can still hunt many of the things we hunt today.
All you did was regurgitate what has already been discussed but in a rambling and often incoherent manner. The fact is that many or most of these regulations went in decades ago. We have already covered that. And how now we have bag limits and tags to manage what things like limiting capacity used to help with.....as in they are no longer needed as they have been superceeded by other regs/laws. How about you address why they are still needed in your opinion?
Not all game wardens were at the top of their class. We had a state warden in SE Tx for awhile who would regularly ask to see our Ducks during Dove season. Was pretty much clueless about everything it seemed. I haven't seen Ms Washington lately.
And a new at the time federal warden who came out undercover at night once to a site we were staking out to catch a repeat copper thief. Just happened the electric irrigation pumps and motors were right beside the hunting reservoir he had located on google earth maps. JS has not been back since that night.
And a new at the time federal warden who came out undercover at night once to a site we were staking out to catch a repeat copper thief. Just happened the electric irrigation pumps and motors were right beside the hunting reservoir he had located on google earth maps. JS has not been back since that night.
" Things like bag limits, 13" rule, shell capacity limits, etc are designed to ensure we dont mismanage through over harvesting, wounding but not recovering, etc. the game species."
Please explain how another two in the pipe is mismanagement through over-harvesting.
Please explain how another two in the pipe is mismanagement through over-harvesting.
Micropterus said:
" Things like bag limits, 13" rule, shell capacity limits, etc are designed to ensure we dont mismanage through over harvesting, wounding but not recovering, etc. the game species."
Please explain how another two in the pipe is mismanagement through over-harvesting.
Micro, serious question. Do you duck hunt a lot? Almost every weekend maybe a few weekdays thrown in and a trip outside your normal hunt area?
Second Hardest Workin Man on Texags
I don't bird hunt enough to get too wrapped around the axle on this one. However, I also agree that rules/laws need to be revisited & that "thats the way its always been" is not a good enough reason.
I guided a lot of paying hunters back in the day. Giving most....I say again most....."hunters" 7-10 shots at birds is going to cripple a lot of birds. That said, it would be good for the ammo companies.
I guided a lot of paying hunters back in the day. Giving most....I say again most....."hunters" 7-10 shots at birds is going to cripple a lot of birds. That said, it would be good for the ammo companies.
Where I was going with the question to Micro was if you don't hunt much you just will not see the issue at hand. I consider myself a pretty good shot, good enough that I know percentages and don't waste ammo or flare birds. I want to limit as much as the next guy but there are ways of making a hunt good for you and the ones around you.
I see it more when at the coast and places like drawn hunts. But I see groups of four empty their guns at two birds and they fly away. I wonder will they die somewhere or are all four really that bad. If they had no plugs the only happy people would be the ammo manufacturers.
IMO the biggest problem today with hunting is that it has become the super rich mans sport with properties being very expensive. Property owners have too much liability these days and most hunters have have no moral compass to treat the land and or wildlife like it should be. Whether it is incompetence or greed they don't care and those folks ruin it for the rest. And the fix has been to have very expensive leases, and contracts to give land owners some way to protect the land and themselves. You used to be able to find landowners who would lease to you and you improved the property and made lifelong connections. Not so much anymore.
And with duck hunting we have less farming to add to the above problem, and that has changed the landscape dramatically, pumping water from reservoirs you name it.
I see less hunters now than ever. Most are fickle great weather hunters. They purchase the goods and keep the sport alive and the parks open but they are not the diehards. But we need them. Conservation ideas change with time and changes in weather cycles, but IMO water and farming is the reason we are in a decline around the country.
My .2 cents
Maybe .40
I see it more when at the coast and places like drawn hunts. But I see groups of four empty their guns at two birds and they fly away. I wonder will they die somewhere or are all four really that bad. If they had no plugs the only happy people would be the ammo manufacturers.
IMO the biggest problem today with hunting is that it has become the super rich mans sport with properties being very expensive. Property owners have too much liability these days and most hunters have have no moral compass to treat the land and or wildlife like it should be. Whether it is incompetence or greed they don't care and those folks ruin it for the rest. And the fix has been to have very expensive leases, and contracts to give land owners some way to protect the land and themselves. You used to be able to find landowners who would lease to you and you improved the property and made lifelong connections. Not so much anymore.
And with duck hunting we have less farming to add to the above problem, and that has changed the landscape dramatically, pumping water from reservoirs you name it.
I see less hunters now than ever. Most are fickle great weather hunters. They purchase the goods and keep the sport alive and the parks open but they are not the diehards. But we need them. Conservation ideas change with time and changes in weather cycles, but IMO water and farming is the reason we are in a decline around the country.
My .2 cents
Maybe .40
Second Hardest Workin Man on Texags
Great post and dead on
I think my first real duck hunt was in 1985 or 86. Do I get to get after em like I would like to 40-50 days a year? No because I have to work.
I see what you're talking about with skybusting all the time. Learn how to call, when (and when not) to call, which cadence to use, or if you dont possess those skills, wait and let em work. And a whole lot of the time, no calling is better than calling at all. But a skybuster is going to do that regardless of shell capacity of the gun.
Agree it is becoming more of an elitist sport, and thats not a good thing. Permission used to be more easily attained, but sadly those days are gone.
But I digress. The question is about the validity and usefulness of an archaic law. As Gunny asked, has it outlived its usefulness? I, for one, think it has. And this is for any migratory species, not just waterfowl.
I see what you're talking about with skybusting all the time. Learn how to call, when (and when not) to call, which cadence to use, or if you dont possess those skills, wait and let em work. And a whole lot of the time, no calling is better than calling at all. But a skybuster is going to do that regardless of shell capacity of the gun.
Agree it is becoming more of an elitist sport, and thats not a good thing. Permission used to be more easily attained, but sadly those days are gone.
But I digress. The question is about the validity and usefulness of an archaic law. As Gunny asked, has it outlived its usefulness? I, for one, think it has. And this is for any migratory species, not just waterfowl.
All I've known is three shots for migratory birds. So I guess its just not something I've ever thought much about. Interesting discussion.
Micropterus said:
" Things like bag limits, 13" rule, shell capacity limits, etc are designed to ensure we dont mismanage through over harvesting, wounding but not recovering, etc. the game species."
Please explain how another two in the pipe is mismanagement through over-harvesting.
Because 90% of the time or more tvose otger two in the pipe are going to be used on game that is out of range and it results in wounded game that is not recovered.
I think it was ursus that either found a study years back or did the study when he was a biologist on dove hunting and tge ranges most often guessed or shot at by hunters. Most of the guesses or shots on distance were woefully bad - hunters that swore birds were st 20 yards werr shooting st birds st 50-60 yards.
The point is that most bird hunters arent great or are flat out terrible st estimating ranges, and that leads to bad shots and wounded game that ends up dying as a result.
There is also the fact that a lot of bird hunters lime to shoot - a lot. A large contingent arent going to go out, load 10 rounds in their extended mag auto scatterguns and be happy with limiting out in 2 volleys in 8 minutes.
Like it or not, history shows that when there arent rules and regs, people in general will hunt animals into near extinction given the opportunity to do so.
Sorry you cannot comprehend anything more than 3 sentences.
I guess if these rules are so useless, you can just ignore them. You seem like the type that probably does anyway.
I guess if these rules are so useless, you can just ignore them. You seem like the type that probably does anyway.
It says you know nothing about history and why the regs are in place.
Coming in a little hot to a 3 day old conversation aren't you there tough guy?
The same eco terrorist studies yall quote are no better than the "peer reviewed" 6' distancing and fishing buffs prevent the spread of respiratory viruses studies.
schmellba99 said:
Sorry you cannot comprehend anything more than 3 sentences.
I guess if these rules are so useless, you can just ignore them. You seem like the type that probably does anyway.
Did you get your feeling hurt?
Seriously, are you drunk? We all make typos but good lord....
Featured Stories
See All
17:40
8h ago
5.2k
Saturday (1/10) Portal Storylines: Visitors see Aggie hoops win at Reed
by TexAgs Recruiting
4:59
8h ago
1.3k
Game Highlights: Texas A&M 83, Oklahoma 76
by Matthew Dawson
3:17
12h ago
1.0k
2027 Hutto wideout Jaiden Fields looking forward to a busy spring
by Cade Draughon