bigrich wrote:
it still won't change the end result . any bad publicity for any form of hunting results in knee jerk reaction from politicians . whether it's right or wrong for the majority for hunters who do the right thing . look at what's happened to victorian duck hunting . such is the modern facebook/political correct/woke world we now live in leftists and anti gun people troll websites like this one looking for bad form . there were some strange new members on this forum asking some odd questions a few years ago
bigrich wrote:To get back on topic, roo’s are shot out to a limit of 200 meters with no lesser than a 222 , in the head,and a permit to do so. End of story
mickb wrote:bigrich wrote:To get back on topic, roo’s are shot out to a limit of 200 meters with no lesser than a 222 , in the head,and a permit to do so. End of story
Yes and I got an idea of the range the roo shooters shoot at usually , which was actually the main aim of the thread.
Thanks all
animalpest wrote:mickb wrote:bigrich wrote:To get back on topic, roo’s are shot out to a limit of 200 meters with no lesser than a 222 , in the head,and a permit to do so. End of story
Yes and I got an idea of the range the roo shooters shoot at usually , which was actually the main aim of the thread.
Thanks all
With a minimum of .222 and 50gr bullet. Or a .204 and 40gr.
One of the places I shoot the roos are often at 150-200 and windy across the open paddocks. That when I put the .223 away and out comes the heavy .243 or 25/06. Average ranges vary depending on the country.
Larry wrote:To be clear nobody should be shooting roos unless they have signed a permit to cull document. which you have to apply for and be interviewed at the property where the shooting is proposed. A shooter can not just go and shoot roos on the say so of a farmer or property owner. The shooter must sign onto the permit and know all the conditions and carry a copy of the signed permit with him at all times when shooting.
Larry wrote:To be clear nobody should be shooting roos unless they have signed a permit to cull document. which you have to apply for and be interviewed at the property where the shooting is proposed. A shooter can not just go and shoot roos on the say so of a farmer or property owner. The shooter must sign onto the permit and know all the conditions and carry a copy of the signed permit with him at all times when shooting.
Larry wrote:To be clear nobody should be shooting roos unless they have signed a permit to cull document. which you have to apply for and be interviewed at the property where the shooting is proposed. A shooter can not just go and shoot roos on the say so of a farmer or property owner. The shooter must sign onto the permit and know all the conditions and carry a copy of the signed permit with him at all times when shooting.
Larry wrote:To be clear nobody should be shooting roos unless they have signed a permit to cull document. which you have to apply for and be interviewed at the property where the shooting is proposed. A shooter can not just go and shoot roos on the say so of a farmer or property owner. The shooter must sign onto the permit and know all the conditions and carry a copy of the signed permit with him at all times when shooting.
geoff wrote:Larry wrote:To be clear nobody should be shooting roos unless they have signed a permit to cull document. which you have to apply for and be interviewed at the property where the shooting is proposed. A shooter can not just go and shoot roos on the say so of a farmer or property owner. The shooter must sign onto the permit and know all the conditions and carry a copy of the signed permit with him at all times when shooting.
Big fat wrong here bucko. I love it when heroes on the internet think that whatever applies to them must apply to everyone else as well
bigrich wrote:geoff wrote:Larry wrote:To be clear nobody should be shooting roos unless they have signed a permit to cull document. which you have to apply for and be interviewed at the property where the shooting is proposed. A shooter can not just go and shoot roos on the say so of a farmer or property owner. The shooter must sign onto the permit and know all the conditions and carry a copy of the signed permit with him at all times when shooting.
Big fat wrong here bucko. I love it when heroes on the internet think that whatever applies to them must apply to everyone else as well
Good point. In Queensland where I live and hunt, you need to be on a permit. Personally, I’m not into shooting roos. It’s a necessary job that needs to be done at times. My main targets of spotlighting are cats, foxes and wabbits. Which as well as roos, is the right game for 223 imho. Which state are you in mate that you don’t need a permit for roo culling? And I don’t consider myself a “internet hero “ when I post, I naturally consider what’s relevant to me where I live
Blr243 wrote:If we not careful blackened may toss a stick of dynamite down this rabbit hole
bigrich wrote:Blr243 wrote:If we not careful blackened may toss a stick of dynamite down this rabbit hole
i don't reckon things aren't out of hand, but i think the topic has run it's coarse
stick of dynamite to sort out wabbits would be interesting but BLR . your not related to wylie coyote are you ? crate load of TNT from ACME .....
mickb wrote:Never said shooting any animal in the butt with anything but a bullet, nice try though . As per earlier in the thread I meant this as the running away shot on game. Perfectly legal, at least in 2 states I hunt, and a valid one for very large game.
mickb wrote:Some of the comments about big game archery being the lowest point of ethics are pure garbage. But again, archers dont care two hoots with rifle hunters think anyway.
Fionn wrote:mickb wrote:Never said shooting any animal in the butt with anything but a bullet, nice try though . As per earlier in the thread I meant this as the running away shot on game. Perfectly legal, at least in 2 states I hunt, and a valid one for very large game.
Never said you did, your comment was vague and therefore so was my reply
A running away shot maybe be legal or may not be legal depends on a number of factors.mickb wrote:Some of the comments about big game archery being the lowest point of ethics are pure garbage. But again, archers dont care two hoots with rifle hunters think anyway.
Ethically bow hunting is not considered highly as most people would consider it a less humane way to kill animals compared to shooting them. But on the flip side, most people don't know how their meat is treated or killed, to them meat comes packaged from the supermarket and little thought given to what happened before this beyond an ethical trust.
Then we could start on halal meats and why its OK because its religion based.
But that leads into an ethics discussion on "ought".
animalpest wrote:Fionn wrote:mickb wrote:Never said shooting any animal in the butt with anything but a bullet, nice try though . As per earlier in the thread I meant this as the running away shot on game. Perfectly legal, at least in 2 states I hunt, and a valid one for very large game.
Never said you did, your comment was vague and therefore so was my reply
A running away shot maybe be legal or may not be legal depends on a number of factors.mickb wrote:Some of the comments about big game archery being the lowest point of ethics are pure garbage. But again, archers dont care two hoots with rifle hunters think anyway.
Ethically bow hunting is not considered highly as most people would consider it a less humane way to kill animals compared to shooting them. But on the flip side, most people don't know how their meat is treated or killed, to them meat comes packaged from the supermarket and little thought given to what happened before this beyond an ethical trust.
Then we could start on halal meats and why its OK because its religion based.
But that leads into an ethics discussion on "ought".
Fionn, you confuse "ethics" with "animal welfare". A common mistake.
mickb wrote:Im picking your the forum kid. The discussion is done but have fun semanticizing old posts.
animalpest wrote:Apologies Fionn if I have though you commented on ethics.
While ethics is important, it is the persons view of hunting/killing. If you like, it is inclusive of their moral view. That is not animal welfare.
mickb wrote:Unlike Fionn himelf who mis-interpreted my comments just a page back and when I pulled him up he went on to explain he'd answered my vagueness with further vagueness of his own or some such rubbish.
manning up, as he said, really is only for men
mickb wrote:Im picking your the forum kid. The discussion is done but have fun semanticizing old posts.
animalpest wrote:Apologies Fionn if I have though you commented on ethics.
While ethics is important, it is the persons view of hunting/killing. If you like, it is inclusive of their moral view. That is not animal welfare.
Fionn wrote:mickb wrote:Unlike Fionn himelf who mis-interpreted my comments just a page back and when I pulled him up he went on to explain he'd answered my vagueness with further vagueness of his own or some such rubbish.
manning up, as he said, really is only for men
I didn't misinterpret your comments, you just thought I did.
When I pointed it out, you had a little hissy fit with a Ad hominem attack and trying to shut down the discussion.
For you reference.mickb wrote:Im picking your the forum kid. The discussion is done but have fun semanticizing old posts.
mickb wrote:Fionn wrote:mickb wrote:Unlike Fionn himelf who mis-interpreted my comments just a page back and when I pulled him up he went on to explain he'd answered my vagueness with further vagueness of his own or some such rubbish.
manning up, as he said, really is only for men
I didn't misinterpret your comments, you just thought I did.
When I pointed it out, you had a little hissy fit with a Ad hominem attack and trying to shut down the discussion.
For you reference.mickb wrote:Im picking your the forum kid. The discussion is done but have fun semanticizing old posts.
My opinion hasnt changed.