Skip Navigational Links
LISTSERV email list manager
LISTSERV - LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG
LISTSERV Menu
Log In
Log In
LISTSERV 17.5 Help - IOWA-TOPICS Archives
LISTSERV Archives
LISTSERV Archives
Search Archives
Search Archives
Register
Register
Log In
Log In

IOWA-TOPICS Archives

August 2005, Week 2

IOWA-TOPICS@LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG

Menu
LISTSERV Archives LISTSERV Archives
IOWA-TOPICS Home IOWA-TOPICS Home
IOWA-TOPICS August 2005, Week 2

Log In Log In
Register Register

Subscribe or Unsubscribe Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Search Archives Search Archives
Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show HTML Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
Re: Rifle hunting for deer
From:
Orlando Schwartz <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Iowa Discussion, Alerts and Announcements
Date:
Wed, 10 Aug 2005 13:21:38 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (77 lines)
Use of assault rifles to hunt deer is a very minor issue.  Really, there 
just are not that many of them out there.  For those that are, very few 
have a capacity of just 6 shots; most have bigger clips.  I would bet 
that the DNR will require the use of special soft point hunting ammo, 
rather than the military, solid, armor piercing type they normally 
shoot.  Toying with numbers, I might guess there would be less than 100 
hunters out with those kinds of guns.  They are fairly worthless for 
hunting.  They make far better guns for hunting.

I have used a shotgun for all my deer hunting in Iowa.  It holds five 
rounds and is a semiautomatic shotgun, like the assault rifles that are 
semiautomatic (shoot once each time the trigger is pulled).  With some 
of the newer shotgun ammo I can kill deer at 200 yds; although they have 
lower velocity and hit the ground sooner than centerfire rifle bullets. 
Idoubt that the deer cares which he was hit with.   I doubt that a game 
warden thinks there is much diffence in approaching me with my 5 very 
rapid shots and someone with a very rapid 6 shot assault rifle.  Game 
wardens generally know how to take care of themselves.  Really, the use 
of assault weapons on deer is kind of begging the question.

Bill is right to a certain extent about entrenched gov't employees with 
political schemes and muscle.  I might come out on the side of 
scientific deer management with scientifically determined carrying 
capacities.  But, I realize there are sociopolitical carrying 
capacities.  I talked to the head of our DNR deer managment (Willie 
Suchy?) and he said that Wisconsin just has a greater tolerance for high 
deer numbers than do Iowans. 

Bill speaks of hunter fantasies with assault weapons.  But, we all have 
our fantasies.  I might think it idiotic to fantasize about the perfect 
golf club that might allow me to make holes-in-one.  But, we worship our 
fantasies.  Animal rights people fantasize on how awful it must be for a 
deer to die by being shot with an arrow.  In fact, most people that hunt 
with bow and gun report that deer die more quickly and less stressfully 
when shot with an arrow.  So, I think, let those very few have their 
fantasies with their assault guns hunting.  Tolerance folks.

There certainly is some role for the "special interests" of famers and 
insurers and nature lovers and hunters.  The politicians should be 
listening.  We do wonder these days if legislatures are totally for sale 
to the richer special interests.  What is unique is the very successeful 
role of the special interest of the NRA.  Federal and state legislatures 
certainly dance to their tune.  I have been waiting for an expose of the 
NRA.  Although they have several million dues paying members steeped in 
the view of the government coming to take their guns, there seems to me 
to be more there.  My question, do they receive financial support from 
gun and ammo manufacturers such as Remington, Winchester, Browning, etc?

So, wolves would solve our problem or maybe mountain lions?  As Bill 
note, people would be outraged.  Some back of the envelope 
calculations-- If a wolf or lion kills one deer per week and we want to 
reduce the deer herd by 200,000;  we need about 4,000 of them in the 
state to do the job.  Talk about the sociopolitical carrying capacity!

The dove hunting controversy of a few years ago was a classic conflict.  
DNR type agencies have always tended to be pro fisherman and hunter.  
Why?  Because all the money for virtually all game and nongame wildlife 
comes from those who buy licenses and pay Pittman-Robinson taxes.  Let 
those that said we were going to kill the "dove of peace" put up 
millions to promoate their interests, and then they would have a 
legiitmate voice.  I bought over $100 in licenses last year in state and 
$550 out of state.  I contibute thousands to the economy by my hunting 
and fishing.
 Lanny Schwartz

>  
>

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Join us at Sierra Summit 2005.  For information go to:
http://www.sierrasummit2005.org/
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Sign up to receive Sierra Club Insider, the flagship
e-newsletter. Sent out twice a month, it features the Club's
latest news and activities. Subscribe and view recent
editions at http://www.sierraclub.org/insider/

ATOM RSS1 RSS2

LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG CataList Email List Search Powered by LISTSERV