Birds in a tree AND ducks in the water are both LEGAL... not the way I prefer to hunt, but for some it is less about "sport" (wingshooting), and more about putting meat on the table... judgement causes division... none of us can afford that these days.
What's your "go to" upland gun and cartridge?
- Thread starter gobigorgohome
- Start date
Birds in a tree AND ducks in the water are both LEGAL... not the way I prefer to hunt, but for some it is less about "sport" (wingshooting), and more about putting meat on the table... judgement causes division... none of us can afford that these days.
Ar180shooter
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Ottawa, ON
I've been using a Tikka 512S lately, 12ga, with Kent upland fast steel.
I hear you HC, but I have to say, I disagree.
I'm fine with judging certain kinds of hunters. For example, I'm fine judging the guys who poach, shoot out of season, shoot over the limits, don't make every effort to recover downed game, wound animals and don't track them down etc etc. I'm okay judging the guys who trespass, leave garbage, shoot too close to others, barge into areas other hunters are already in, etc etc. I'm guessing you're okay with those kinds of judgements as well. So it's simply where the line gets drawn.
This thread is about upland guns and loads. Boasting about working your way up a tree, picking ruffies off with a .22 ISN'T a post about upland guns and loads.
Dorian Gray
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
I'll inject my 2 cents into this one for no better reason than it's 5:15am, i'm bored and i'm at the tail end of a nightshift. Disclaimer, i'm not trying to come off as rude or arrogant. Please try not to take this post that way:
Where i come from, yes, it is upland hunting. At least, it's our version. Just because we don't hunt over dogs in fields (the distinct lack of birds in fields, or fields for that matter, prohibits this type of activity) doesn't make it any less of a hunt or make us any less ethical. Also, yes, i'll shoot ducks on the water. I hunt to bring home meat, not to feel morally superior or to pat myself on the back while saying my way of doing things is somehow more "sporting" than someone elses. I'm not saying you see things that way, but your post kind of came off that way to me at least.
When it comes to the ethics side of things, which is where this thread took a derail, a different type of way to look at things is this: We're killing things here, not practicing graceful golf swings. Kill your game and kill it quickly. In my experience, killing them on the ground, or in a tree, has always been the most effective way of making that clean kill and making sure death comes as quick as possible for the bird. What's more sure? A head shot at a stationary target? Or a wing shot at something flying at any number of angles at 30 miles an hour? To each their own but it's something to think about.
Pretty well sums it up. As long as it's legal, we shouldn't bicker to much. We all have different sets of ethics that we stick to but as long as we're within the law, it's all good.
You're right. Most people i know wouldn't tolerate the types of things you've detailed. But most of those are legal issues. And you weren't disputing the law. You were disputing his ethics. That type of "upland" or bird hunting, whether he does it with a shotgun or a .22, might be the only type open to that gentleman in the area he lives in. It certainly is to me and i live in the same province as you.
I've recently purchased a .22 and am going to be trying to kill most, if not all of my birds this year on the ground, or in trees, with head shots. It's a major departure from the full choked 16 gauge Wingmaster that i'm used to. #4 Federals run great in that gun so if i had a "go to" "upland" type of gun/ammo combo, i guess that'd be it. But since i generally use the Wingmaster for headshots, on the ground or in a tree, getting used to the new .22 shouldn't be that tough. Just have to be a little more precise is all. On with the thread.
Where i come from, yes, it is upland hunting. At least, it's our version. Just because we don't hunt over dogs in fields (the distinct lack of birds in fields, or fields for that matter, prohibits this type of activity) doesn't make it any less of a hunt or make us any less ethical. Also, yes, i'll shoot ducks on the water. I hunt to bring home meat, not to feel morally superior or to pat myself on the back while saying my way of doing things is somehow more "sporting" than someone elses. I'm not saying you see things that way, but your post kind of came off that way to me at least.
When it comes to the ethics side of things, which is where this thread took a derail, a different type of way to look at things is this: We're killing things here, not practicing graceful golf swings. Kill your game and kill it quickly. In my experience, killing them on the ground, or in a tree, has always been the most effective way of making that clean kill and making sure death comes as quick as possible for the bird. What's more sure? A head shot at a stationary target? Or a wing shot at something flying at any number of angles at 30 miles an hour? To each their own but it's something to think about.
Pretty well sums it up. As long as it's legal, we shouldn't bicker to much. We all have different sets of ethics that we stick to but as long as we're within the law, it's all good.
You're right. Most people i know wouldn't tolerate the types of things you've detailed. But most of those are legal issues. And you weren't disputing the law. You were disputing his ethics. That type of "upland" or bird hunting, whether he does it with a shotgun or a .22, might be the only type open to that gentleman in the area he lives in. It certainly is to me and i live in the same province as you.
I've recently purchased a .22 and am going to be trying to kill most, if not all of my birds this year on the ground, or in trees, with head shots. It's a major departure from the full choked 16 gauge Wingmaster that i'm used to. #4 Federals run great in that gun so if i had a "go to" "upland" type of gun/ammo combo, i guess that'd be it. But since i generally use the Wingmaster for headshots, on the ground or in a tree, getting used to the new .22 shouldn't be that tough. Just have to be a little more precise is all. On with the thread.
Well this is moot, Doran pretty much covered it, but I will reiterate that judging the LEGAL activities of other hunters causes needless division... Judging the ILLEGAL activities of poachers (criminals) is something we all should do.
Canvasback... if you had grown up hunting the dense cover of Northern Ontario, you would better understand the tactics of those hunters who do shoot on the ground or in a tree... in this dense cover, it is very unlikely that a wingshot will present itself... going home empty handed after a dozen or more attempts to position for a wingshot has caused the evolution of the NorOnt practice of shooting sitting birds.
I do prefer wingshooting over our springers, but I understand why 95% of the hunters I know here, are "potshooters."
We have to seek out specific types of game, habitat and cover in order to make wingshooting over dogs feasible.
Connecticut Shotgun RBL 28 ga, Win Super X 1oz 6's, North Dakota
Older model AYA sidelock 12 ga, whatever I have in 1oz taget loads, 7.5's or 8's, between friends' 20's, Arrieta (left) and Ugartechia (right) after a pretty good upland day Renfrew area
Last edited:
I just spent a week out in Southern Alberta. I used a Beretta 20ga 686 Silver Pigeon for most of the week, but did take the Savage Milano out a few times. Remington Express Long Range in #6 with the 20ga & Kent Ultimate Fast Lead with Diamond Shot #6 with the 12ga.
Last edited:
Hoyt, I grew up in Winnipeg. Learned to hunt waterfowl and prairie upland in Manitoba and ruffed grouse in Northern Ontario, in the Lake of the Woods area. It's not that I don't understand the habitat. And when hunting that area I have gone home empty handed many times. IMHO that's why they call it hunting, not shooting. I spent the first 30 years of my hunting life NEVER hunting with dogs....not for waterfowl and not for upland.
The differences between "legal" and "illegal" are based on wide input from a variety of sources that attempt to define what we, "collectively", think is okay and what is not okay. That's all. It's pretty arbitrary at a certain level, and within our community there are and should be a wide variety of voices. It's by voicing those opinions and collectively discussing them that we either come to agreement or decide we should make changes.
Much as I recognize I'm a throw back to old guns and light loads and all that goes with that and that I don't hunt big game and I don't own black or hand guns and fail to see others' attraction for those things, I am a strong supporter of what should be our right to engage in those activities. But when we are talking about the act of killing....well I guess it was the poster's final comment "It's a riot" or something along those lines, that touched a nerve in me. I've spent a lot of time afield in Northern Ontario when ruffies were few and far between. To me it's like whether you think it's okay to flush a covey of quail or huns and then hunt every last one down until there is nothing left. Not my kind of hunting. Yes, it's legal but IMHO I don't think it's ethical.
I do apologize for the snarky tone of my original post. In hindsight, I should have made my point without being #####y.
The 5.6 pounds is really nice if you have been walking in the coulee's for a few hours.
