Shooting ducks on the water? :)

I have shot a few ducks on the water. that was years ago, and I was hungry. I still hunt for food, but seldom while hungry. And I get more satisfaction in collecting my food the hard way. It is more interesting and fun to shoot ducks on the wing only. If I was hungry enough, I'd shoot on the water.
 
Eiders and scoters and even sometimes oldsquaws too ...

The flushing shot is definitely best. I'd say the vast majority of spot-and-stalk hunts with my buddies end when the bird flushes and we paste it once it's off the deck. Much easier to kill that way.

I was curious on everyone's views because I know in the states, where waterfowling is more of a "sit in your blind on public land" thing, it's very frowned upon, yet I have literally never met anyone in Canada who wouldn't do it.

badgreenbird said:
I did when MUCH younger, and when a lot of my hunting was along the east coast, like the OP. If you were able to sneak up on an eider or scoter, you took the shot. Those birds generally dive to escape, rather than fly. They'd just pop up about 100 yards out & keep swimming. Since moving west, where the duck hunting is far, far better, there's just no need. Any bird that swims into the dekes just adds to the effectiveness of the spread. Any that sneak by and land before I get a shot, get a free pass. When jump-shooting, I wait 'til the birds actually jump. And I'm with The Spank on killing shots. A sitting bird is much harder to kill cleanly, unless it's a head shot. I finally found some #7 steel to use for head shot cripple rounds.

Thanks, Gatehouse for attempting to improve the spelling of the forum, but efforts along these lines are generally met with abuse and scorn from the illiterate masses. I'll sign up for some of that by pointing out that the term so often butchered these days is actually "I couldn't care less", as in 'I do not care at all'.
Click to expand...
 
TheCoachZed said:
So I'm curious -- who here shoots ducks on the water? I know a lot of guys find it un-sporting. I personally have no problem with it, particularly because I do a lot of walking and stalking on the coast here. If I walk a half mile of bog to sneak up on a black duck, you'd better believe I'll shoot it, whether it sees me or not. Everybody I hunt with is the same here, although we generally prefer to get them feet down in dekes. But that isn't always possible, especially if you're walking. Or, right after liftoff works pretty well too.
Click to expand...

Not only is it unsporting, its not very effective. Water makes for very good armour, and if half the bird's body is underwater, you stand a very good chance of scoring only a crippling hit.

the spank said:
That being said the only time I am a water swatter is on cripples. Ducks are DAMNED hard to kill on water. Much, much, harder than on the wing and I don't means in terms of actually hitting them. I mean killing them. When they are flying and especially in tight slowed down over decoys or opened up or slowed right down trying to get going again they are much easier to put pellets in the vitals and kill. Sneaking up on them I would flush them as they are much more vulnerable to good vital hits than sitting low on or in the water with wings folded over the body. It seems with the larger shot sizes required with steel head hits on the water do not come easy beyond 20-25 yards due to pattern density. Those are my thoughts on the subject.
Click to expand...

Saw your post afterward, spank. Obviously I agree.
 
I agree with the above. And that's why I always carry some fine steel or other no toxic load .#6 steel or finer will kill crippled birds on the water with head and neck hits ..Dutch
 
To further this thread I would like those who say it is "not sporting" to define sporting? What is giving the duck a sporting chance? I have heard or read these terms all my life. I still have yet to grasp what is meant by being sporting? I have shot ducks in every conceivable manner they could be shot legally. I have water swatted a few in my day, I have shot ducks standing in a field decoys spread, jump shot them both on water and field, have let them land on a field walking around in the decoys to draw in and finish bigger flocks for the group to get shooting at. I haven't shot one other than cripples on water in many years and since moving to the prairies I don't even hunt water any longer and sold off my water spread. I shoot ducks coming to the grain fields. I shoot them out of the sky. Why? Well for starters as I said before I truly find a duck that is opened up much easier to kill. Plus I just plain enjoy shooting them out of the sky and watching them fold up and fall. Do I consider it sporting or giving them a sporting chance? I can't say yes to that because honestly I have no idea what is actually meant by that? To me it's an outdoor writers term to inject some kind of romance or elevate the hunter to some mythical status in the story to make him sound like some kind of ultra ethical hunter. But based on whose ethics? Sporting or sporting chance in my opinion are terms which hunters should not use. I don't believe hunting is a sport in any form. Hunting is a way of life,it is something deeply ingrained in me, its who I am and what I do but it sure as hell doesn't make me feel sporty or sporting?! I don't get that feeling from hockey or baseball or any other "sport" for that matter. Those are sports. Hunting is not, hunting is hunting. To me sports are contested as man vs man or team vs team and to me hunting is not either of those contests nor do I consider it man vs beast. It is IMO a form of harvest and gathering no different than it has been for centuries when we (humans) drpended upon it for our basic survival. Now it's no longer needed by many as a means of survival so the idea of it being a sport somehow wormed it's way into the picture? And another term when referring to hunters is the term "sportmen". I am no sportsman, hell my basic round shape proves that but I will gladly accept the term "hunter" any day and with pride!!
 
Last edited:
I've shot birds on the ground, on the water, and on the wing - I think they'd generally prefer if you didn't shoot them at all. If I'm with my dog, I shoot on the wing, and I wish I could tell you it was for some romantic notion of dog and hunter working together in the ballet of point, flush, shoot, steady, retrieve - but mostly it's to avoid pumping my best hunting buddy full of bird shot.
 
the spank said:
To further this thread I would like those who say it is "not sporting" to define sporting? What is giving the duck a sporting chance? I have heard or read these terms all my life. I still have yet to grasp what is meant by being sporting? I have shot ducks in every conceivable manner they could be shot legally. I have water swatted a few in my day, I have shot ducks standing in a field decoys spread, jump shot them both on water and field, have let them land on a field walking around in the decoys to draw in and finish bigger flocks for the group to get shooting at. I haven't shot one other than cripples on water in many years and since moving to the prairies I don't even hunt water any longer and sold off my water spread. I shoot ducks coming to the grain fields. I shoot them out of the sky. Why? Well for starters as I said before I truly find a duck that is opened up much easier to kill. Plus I just plain enjoy shooting them out of the sky and watching them fold up and fall. Do I consider it sporting or giving them a sporting chance? I can't say yes to that because honestly I have no idea what is actually meant by that? To me it's an outdoor writers term to inject some kind of romance or elevate the hunter to some mythical status in the story to make him sound like some kind of ultra ethical hunter. But based on whose ethics? Sporting or sporting chance in my opinion are terms which hunters should not use. I don't believe hunting is a sport in any form. Hunting is a way of life,it is something deeply ingrained in me, its who I am and what I do but it sure as hell doesn't make me feel sporty or sporting?! I don't get that feeling from hockey or baseball or any other "sport" for that matter. Those are sports. Hunting is not, hunting is hunting. To me sports are contested and to me hunting is not a contest.
Click to expand...

It is undoubtedly extremely subjective. I consider hunting to be sporting because - at its most basic level - you are pitting yourself against nature in a contest of skill and luck. You can modify (and to some extent, spoil or ruin) the element of "sport" as much as you like or as little as you like, of course, and within the spectrum you will invariably find disagreement over ethics and whether something is "unsporting". Examples: truck or road hunting, long range hunting, hunting with night vision gear, hunting over bait, etc. The list of potential argument is endless.

To avoid getting too far off track, swatting ducks on the water is "unsporting" - imho - because it isn't very challenging and because it is more likely to result in crippled birds (which is worse).
 
medvedqc said:
you got it. it was a perfect legal act there and they are still doing it. we were even using live bait ducks ... that was the way they were hunting. different country different habit.
Click to expand...

Its perfectly legal to kill Christians in certain countries...doesnt make it right. My morals and ethics dont waiver regardelss of what country Im standing in. Shooting firearms in the dark and at night is not safe or ethical. Shooting roosting birds while they sleep at night is not ethical or moral. I dont care what country you are in, your ethics and morals should stay true. If they dont, it speaks lots about the person. There.....thats my judgement. I hope you can handle it.
 
1963beretta said:
Its perfectly legal to kill Christians in certain countries...doesnt make it right. My morals and ethics dont waiver regardelss of what country Im standing in. Shooting firearms in the dark and at night is not safe or ethical. Shooting roosting birds while they sleep at night is not ethical or moral. I dont care what country you are in, your ethics and morals should stay true. If they dont, it speaks lots about the person. There.....thats my judgement. I hope you can handle it.
Click to expand...

See the problem there? Who are you to decide what someone else's morals or ethics should be and pass judgement on them?
 
Superbrad said:
See the problem there? Who are you to decide what someone else's morals or ethics should be and pass judgement on them?
Click to expand...

im speaking to my own morals. I would never discharge a firearm at night to have an unfair advantage on animals that are roosting. I wouldnt do that here or anywhere else for that matter. But thats just me. And i well aware that not everyone share the same morals and values I do.
 
IMHO, shooting sitting ducks doesn't take much skill....making it less sporting than wing shooting.

I guess it depends on how much hunting one does or has done, but for me the satisfaction factor is much higher from wing shooting. Also I will only shoot Greenheads, the hens get a pass.:)
 
hawk-i said:
IMHO, shooting sitting ducks doesn't take much skill....making it less sporting than wing shooting.

I guess it depends on how much hunting one does or has done, but for me the satisfaction factor is much higher from wing shooting. Also I will only shoot Greenheads, the hens get a pass.:)
Click to expand...

I guess it goes back to Spank's post in my opinion.... Where do we draw the line? At what point does it become "sporting"? I agree that wing shooting is harder, but picking them out of the air with flu flu arrows would be harder than that, does that mean wing shooting with a 12 gauge is not sporting now?
 
H Wally said:
If it's legal, it's legal. A stationary animal stands a far lower chance of being wounded, which I'm fine with.
Click to expand...

Yes.

I actually get irritated at all this "sporting" silliness that comes up in hunting threads, whether it relates to shooting over bait, or long range hunting or whatever.

If I want "sporting" I can go play floor hockey or something.

When it comes to hunting, the only "legal" matters; everything else is just "toe-may-toe" vs. "toe-mah-toe", which is pure silliness to discuss, even on the internet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom