Thread: Could it be so simple?

Originally Posted by PerazziSC3

I think having a "rule" for only shooting a 6 point stag in the month of april is a very good idea. As said above, doesn't need to be 100% enforced just the odd check at a road end and a bit of advertising around the fact that you "might" be checked would be enough for people to 2nd guess what they are shooting and ID the target. The idea has merit.

Disagree. Shouldn't matter what sort of deer it us. Hind, fawn. 6 or 16 You shouldn't shoot a human, maybe they could enforce that at the road ends

Just Identify your target

Hamish

Sent from my E5823 using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by HNTMAD

Disagree. Shouldn't matter what sort of deer it us. Hind, fawn. 6 or 16 You shouldn't shoot a human, maybe they could enforce that at the road ends

Just Identify your target

Hamish

Sent from my E5823 using Tapatalk

yeah saying "identify your target" on the internet certainly doesn't stop people shooting people. Should we just continue the way it is now?

Can post it in a letter if ya want.



Sent from my E5823 using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by HNTMAD

Can post it in a letter if ya want.



Sent from my E5823 using Tapatalk

na i will be alright

I'm more worried about the people that shoot anything they want because they think its there right to do so

Originally Posted by PerazziSC3

na i will be alright
I'm more worried about the people that shoot anything they want because they think its there right to do so

Really, why do they worry you


Sent from my E5823 using Tapatalk

Because instead of having a target animal in mind some have the mindset of if its brown its down and therefore, drum roll please.... don't properly identify the target

Sorry totally disagree, my target animal is a deer so I will shoot it regardless of what it it is after having positively identifying it. Does that make me a bad person??

you also forgot if if it's red it's dead or if it has eyes it dies.

Sent from my E5823 using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by HNTMAD

Sorry totally disagree, my target animal is a deer so I will shoot it regardless of what it it is after having positively identifying it. Does that make me a bad person??

you also forgot if if it's red it's dead or if it has eyes it dies.

Sent from my E5823 using Tapatalk

*cringes and walks away from conversation

Originally Posted by PerazziSC3

*cringes and walks away from conversation

But why do you cringe and walk away??

Essentially what you are saying though is that if you restricted what sort of deer you shoot this may stop people getting shot. People will stop getting shot if people identify their target beyond all doubt regardless of if it is hind, fawn, 6 or 16. No point getting down on guys that go out and shoot what they want when they want, that is a whole other thread that has nothing to do with identifying your target

Hamish

Sent from my E5823 using Tapatalk

Identifying that it's a deer doesn't seem to be enough, so requiring hunters to identify the sex will force hunters to look closer, and in greater detail. That process SHOULD reduce the number of people being shot. It's easier to mistake a human for a deer than it is to mistake a human for, say, a stag with a minimum of 6 points.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by Pengy

And there in lies the rub. If one has to positively identify the target as a stag, then one has to look harder before squeezing the trigger.
All of the shooters involved are adamant that they saw and shot a deer. No mention of whether they saw a stag or whatever, simply a deer.

I don't think you're right about that, I remember at least one report where the shooter said how certain he was that it was a deer and that he (thought he) was looking at the antlers to confirm it before shooting. How would you even really know unless you've talked to the shooter yourself? Media reports are hopelessly unreliable and would probably simplify it to "thought he saw a deer" regardless of how specific the description was.

In any case if part of the problem is confirmation bias, a shooter may well ask themself "is it a stag" instead of "is it a deer" and make a mental jump straight to yesBANG in either case - I don't know that it would make a difference in that situation, because their mind is seeing what it wants to see instead of what is actually there.

Other situations like shooters consciously/deliberately firing at what they think is a deer when they know they can't see enough of it to identify age/sex, yes it might help.

If it made it safer for us all, then I'm all for it. However it will never get off the ground here in NZ, as it attacks the root of NZ deer hunting culture (or lack of) and that's what all of this is really about, not only safety directly, but changing an overall culture. Its the reason that people will be shot every year without fail until we either A. get our guns taken from us and end up with heavy hunting restrictions placed on us or B. we as a group make an active start on changing NZ hunting culture.

Like others mentioned here, shooting hinds in the roar is at minimum, counter productive. Where there's girls there's boys etc.

Originally Posted by stretch

So every hunter that shoots someone is inexperienced? How do YOU define (and differentiate) an experienced hunter from an inexperienced one? Once you've defined what an 'experienced' hunter is (time spent hunting? animals seen/shot?), does the act of mistakenly shooting a human revert the hunter back into the 'inexperienced' group?

To me, it seems like experience level and the ability to make lethal mistakes are not mutually exclusive and your logic that 'hunters that shoot hunters are not experienced' is flawed.

It may be flawed to you and that is fine. But it makes perfect sense to me.

Experience in hunting is not strictly a time or how many animals you have shot thing for me. It does help imo.

It is an idividuals decision and standards process that severely reduces the risks of these events happening.








Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by sneeze

Cant follow your logic at all really.

I laughed when he showed me the bottle but had to eat some humble pie after tasting. Given you've slurped every bottle Iv turned up with and probably cant remember what was on the label I rekon I can at least change your mind on Asian whiskey

I will try any drink once I spose.

You're not even allowed to use butter so it no surprise you can't follow my logic.

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by Pointer

If it made it safer for us all, then I'm all for it. However it will never get off the ground here in NZ, as it attacks the root of NZ deer hunting culture (or lack of) and that's what all of this is really about, not only safety directly, but changing an overall culture. Its the reason that people will be shot every year without fail until we either A. get our guns taken from us and end up with heavy hunting restrictions placed on us or B. we as a group make an active start on changing NZ hunting culture.

Like others mentioned here, shooting hinds in the roar is at minimum, counter productive. Where there's girls there's boys etc.

Are you suggesting countries with restrictive hunting rules and limits on what animals you can shoot at different times don't have accidental shootings? That deserves a tui sign!

Personally I have no problem with shooting a hind during the roar if I want the meat, I'm more of a meat hunter than a trophy hunter. Doesn't mean I don't identify it first though.

I wonder if there is any record of what proportion of accidental shootings were during trophy hunting vs meat hunting? Trophy hunters suggest that meat hunters don't bother identifying their target properly, meat hunters suggest that trophy hunters get hopped up on adrenaline and turn their brains off...