ARE YOU KIDDING ME?

What's wrong with a guy shooting 3 1/2" shells for waterfowl? How does that make him a "lesser" duck hunter than anyone else out there doing the work they need to do to fill a limit......I lean towards the views of Mark W and and the spinnner comment, but it doesn't stop there, it seems at times on here that if you don't have a Fox Sterling side x side, shooting handloaded bismuth over handmade decoys you get shunned.....I don't kow how many times someone posts a pic of 2 ducks besides a cork decoy that they killed in 6 hours of hunting and get all kind of responses saying "good job", but God forbid someone post a 2-4 man limit of mallards on a tailgate, little to no respsonse.....Now I am considerate and do the right thing when hunting and carry with me the values my Father taught me, as should everyone else, but I tell ya what, I duck hunt to kill ducks because wing shooting is a challenge, and I eat them, not because I think they're pretty, or that I just like to kill. I know the "other" duck hunting website is "decent" at the best of times......but this site is far from perfect guys. Being biased to hunting a certain way and shunning others for their methods when they have the same passion as you is just not gentleman like.
 
HI to you all..

Yes nothing is wrong with shooting a 3.5 inch shell at quackers and geese. A dead duck is a dead duck in the biological process.. With that said, I think that the point is not the shell length, nor the decoy, nor the spinning wings, but the attitude of the hunter. It is similar to the question why do you hunt? to boom off 3.5 inch shell? or to enjoy the outdoors and all of waterfowling? I think we sometimes confuse gadets and firearms with why we are out there. For example, I personally shoot a side by side or an auto depending on the day and what/where I am hunting, but does it subtract from the sunrise over the marsh? I think not.

I have said my penny's worth.

You all have a wonderful day.

Matt
 
but God forbid someone post a 2-4 man limit of mallards on a tailgate, little to no respsonse.....
Click to expand...

Dave, when a "tailgate shot" and talk of "numbers" is the entire context of the post,,,,,, It does make you wonder, why they hunt and what is important to them.
 
Dave, I find nothing wrong with anyone shooting 3.5 inch shells. My comment was merely showing that some people focus on the latest and greatest new item. 3.5's are relatively new in gunning and my point to this guy was that you don't HAVE TO shoot 3.5's. I did not belittle this man for using 3.5's, he even said himself that he was still pretty green in waterfowling. I was simply stating that he was SURPRISED that people shot 2 and 3/4 on ducks and geese. This is no different than someone telling me they only shoot a single shot 410 on doves.......that amazes me. I wouldn't even try that. I bought a shotgun on the cheap last year because the seller HAD to have an 835 Ultimag with the thumbhole stock that shoots 3.5's. He said it was the only way to get on turkeys. I told him the same thing....."you know kids are rolling up turkeys with 20ga guns with 2 and 3/4 shells? He wouldn't hear none of it. As far as the tailgate shots and limits, I personally don't mind them, but I don't post them either. My venting was focused on rule breakers and poor sportsmanship. I'm sure there are plenty of people that will read my "complaints" and think, "I don't see a damn thing wrong with breaking the rules as long as I get to hunt." To each his own I suppose. For anyone who wants to know I hunt over my own decoys that I made, they are black cork and I love them. I shoot a Remington 870 or a Benelli Nova using Remington Nitro steel (when on sale) out of a John boat or a walk in hunt using a game cart. I still have some plastic dekes for farm pond jump shooting. I gave away my Mojo because it spun under water more than above water because I couldn't get the damn stake into the rocky bottom. My dog has a fancy name (King Church's Magnum Benelli) but doesn't work field trials. He tends to break for the water after the shot (only 15 months old) because he assumes I am a better shot than I am. He hasn't mastered the immediate retrieve of a downed bird because he likes to do the "dance of the dying duck" where he swims in circles as it flops around for 30 seconds before grabbing it and bringing it back (definite loss on style points at a field trial). I have the same duck call around my neck since I was 16 and will never use anything but this call, if lost, I will buy the exact same thing. I don't snub anybody with a $300 call, I just can't see myself buying one. Sorry if I came off snooty Dave, that's not who I am. You can hunt with me anytime, but you have to supply the 3.5's. dc
 
it seems at times on here that if you don't have a Fox Sterling side x side, shooting handloaded bismuth over handmade decoys you get shunned.....I don't kow how many times someone posts a pic of 2 ducks besides a cork decoy that they killed in 6 hours of hunting and get all kind of responses saying "good job", but God forbid someone post a 2-4 man limit of mallards on a tailgate, little to no respsonse
Click to expand...


Dave

Why then don't outdoor magazines feature tailgate shots complete with bulging eyes? The reason is there is no artisitic composition at all in such shots and if you weren't part of the hunt or friends with the guys hunting there is usually nothing to connect with. I don't think shunning has anything to do with it. It's more along the lines of voicing approval for aesthetics. I love to see photos of wooden boats and decoys with tasteful duck poses. Tailgate shots don't convey anything to me other than someone was able to pull the triger a bunch. I like being on those hunts as much as you but when it's over I'd rather capture it in a way that is more creative and thoughful than a body pile.

Eric
 
it seems at times on here that if you don't have a Fox Sterling side x side, shooting handloaded bismuth over handmade decoys you get shunned.....I don't kow how many times someone posts a pic of 2 ducks besides a cork decoy that they killed in 6 hours of hunting and get all kind of responses saying "good job", but God forbid someone post a 2-4 man limit of mallards on a tailgate, little to no respsonse
Click to expand...


Dave

Why then don't outdoor magazines feature tailgate shots complete with bulging eyes? The reason is there is no artisitic composition at all in such shots and if you weren't part of the hunt or friends with the guys hunting there is usually nothing to connect with. I don't think shunning has anything to do with it. It's more along the lines of voicing approval for aesthetics. I love to see photos of wooden boats and decoys with tasteful duck poses. Tailgate shots don't convey anything to me other than someone was able to pull the triger a bunch. I like being on those hunts as much as you but when it's over I'd rather capture it in a way that is more creative and thoughful than a body pile.

Eric
Click to expand...


Which one of these photos is "better"?

Dead ducks on the stern of the BB3 around the DHBP decal?
2008_wigeon_hole1.jpg


OR dead ducks on alder branches next to a Dave Shady call turned from some of my old Myrtle wood?
shadydrakes2007.jpg


Both photos would appeal to someone.

The better photo from the first hunt is this one even though it is blurry.
Jesse and Tula in my boat out in the swamp has much more allure than a row of five dead birds.
2008_wigeon_hole2.jpg

 
[/QUOTE]


Dave

Why then don't outdoor magazines feature tailgate shots complete with bulging eyes? The reason is there is no artisitic composition at all in such shots and if you weren't part of the hunt or friends with the guys hunting there is usually nothing to connect with. I don't think shunning has anything to do with it. It's more along the lines of voicing approval for aesthetics. I love to see photos of wooden boats and decoys with tasteful duck poses. Tailgate shots don't convey anything to me other than someone was able to pull the triger a bunch. I like being on those hunts as much as you but when it's over I'd rather capture it in a way that is more creative and thoughful than a body pile.

Eric
[/QUOTE]


Hi Eric -

I think this then creates a dilemma for some - I know it has for me on occasion. I had some nice photos of the last hunt of the season this year. I didn't post them as I didn't want to put up with potential crap that the photos weren't "right", didn't pose the birds the proper way, might have had something in the background that others found objectionable, shown only my Lund duck boat and plastic dekes, etc.... It's not that I couldn't handle it, I just didn't want to explain anything. I'd love to say that I don't give a rats ass as to what others think or say about me on this site but that would be less than truthful. Rather best to be quiet and post less than put up with the trash talking some on this site tend to dish out.

My opinion is that when folks think twice about what they might say or might post for a picture, the whole DBHF loses.

For what it is worth.

Mark W
 
"THATS A BAD PICTURE", because of "plastic decoys", "non wooden boat", "not posed right", "objectionable object in t he background", on this site.....(I'll add "with the exception of Todd's post on the "decoy with the stick up its butt" which really doesn't qualify since that was about "technique" than the picture)...Personally I can't think of one and would like to be corrected if I'm wrong...

I'd agee that there are times when "tailgate pictures", "hero shoots", "money shots", "look at me shots", "guided shots with emphasis on the birds", don't get much response, (and I agree with Eric on the reason why for that), but I seriously can't recall anyone saying....."thats a crappy shot cause the boat is tin", or "the decoys are plastic", or "that pose is wrong".....

Help me out on this one cause while those aren't the pictures that make me say "niccceeeeeee", (like something from Gary March does), they haven't been "slammed" here like has been indicated that they have.....at least that I remember....

Thanks....

Steve
 
Mark

I seriously doubt the pictures you considered posting were body pile tailgate shots that David specified. Again, the more tasteful a pic is the more positive comments it will receive. Other than Tod getting on Derek & Zena for the spinner I can't think of a time where someone was chastised for not putting up magazine quality pictures. Please bring it to my attention the next time someone objects to a photo because of a plastic decoy or aluminum boat. As with many things pictures with good aestetics garner positive feedback. Poor photos will never get the same accolades but I'd really like to know when someone gets bashed because it wasn't good enough.

Eric
 
I posted a pic of my wife with an antelope from a couple years ago...and no comments...and that is ok....it wasn't a duck or a goose and was responding to a comment about women hunting....sort of a rare for a women to hunt avidly.....

But to all of you....I enjoy this site....about the most civil out there...and full of info and great guys that at least don't see fly ashtrays like I have been accused of HAHAHA!!!.

Matt
 
Eric,,

OK I will skin the antelope next time.....belly up...."topless"....the wife would only approve of that

But on a lighter note: did you ever figure out your "weed" as in smart issue?


Matt
 
It's smartweed. No doubt about it. The plans are to get a mud motor in their and chop it up. Then in the Spring start spraying.
 
Mark

I seriously doubt the pictures you considered posting were body pile tailgate shots that David specified. Again, the more tasteful a pic is the more positive comments it will receive. Other than Tod getting on Derek & Zena for the spinner I can't think of a time where someone was chastised for not putting up magazine quality pictures. Please bring it to my attention the next time someone objects to a photo because of a plastic decoy or aluminum boat. As with many things pictures with good aestetics garner positive feedback. Poor photos will never get the same accolades but I'd really like to know when someone gets bashed because it wasn't good enough.

Eric
Click to expand...


Eric and Steve, I'll actually agree with Mark that people have been slammed (if indirectly) for lousy pics. I think you need to consider this from Mark's hyper-sensative view and I think I see where he is coming from. There was a period when the good Mr. Sutton (and others) ranted quite a bit about tailgate shots, I can't remember if any tailgate shots were directly bashed, but my feeling is yes (not necessairily by Steve though) - this was long ago. That was great moderating work by Steve in shaping the makeup of the forum as far as I'm concerned if that reduced the quantity of tailgate shots and for that and many other reasons I say THANK YOU (Suttonesque emphasis intended). Think a tailgate shot is a good expression of your hunting experiance? - is that the level you are at? - the door is that way - bye - come back when you have some respect for the birds you kill.

I'll disagree with Mark that we are diminished one bit by loosing those too chickenshit to post their tailgate shots. First we don't need the pics and second we don't need any more chickenshit pussies.

T
 
Last edited:
tell me about em.......give it up.....the priorites have just changed...you're in Chicken Country and have internet......

TELL ME A CHICKEN STORY........

Steve
 
No stories other than china chickens. Dog is tired, I'm tired. This is a quest I may very well fail on.
 
My venting was focused on rule breakers and poor sportsmanship. I'm sure there are plenty of people that will read my "complaints" and think, "I don't see a damn thing wrong with breaking the rules as long as I get to hunt."
-------------------------
I am with you on this one. I believe you did the exact right thing. Each of us has a certain amount of ethics built in. The variance is what sparks debate here. If we were all the same this place would need some salt and pepper.

By the way, 3 1/2 inch loads throw pellets with less energy per pellet than 3 inch shells. This works out mathmetically, but it would take far too long to explain here. It's all physics (I love physics).
 
fail on the Scaled Quail.....

fail on the Gambels Quail.....

fail on the Montezuma's......

Just don't fail on the Lesser Prairie Chickens.......hell make it Lesser Prairie Chicken if you have to but I need to actually know someone that has held one in his hand that actually "knows" what he's holding in his hand....you are he......

GET IT DONE....

Steve
 
fail on the Scaled Quail.....

fail on the Gambels Quail.....

fail on the Montezuma's......

Just don't fail on the Lesser Prairie Chickens.......hell make it Lesser Prairie Chicken if you have to but I need to actually know someone that has held one in his hand that actually "knows" what he's holding in his hand....you are he......

GET IT DONE....

Steve
Click to expand...


If I fail it won't be for lack of trying, I have 2000 miles on the truck, a tired bloody dog, my bones feel like they are made of lead. My trigger finger has an aweful itch. I'll be out tomorrow with the sun. I just wish I had some 3 1/2" shells.
 
by being foolish enough to fall for the "anti-hunting / we want your guns steel shot hoax", extending that even to your Upland gunning out of some mis-placed belief that you have a responsibility to the land--(silly boy don't you remember you've been given "DOMINION" and are therefore entitled to do whatever you want to?). Do you really have to handicap yourself fruther by not shooting the biggest shells you can stuff into your gun?

GEEEEZZZLLLEEEE....no wonder you bought a little truck.....it wasn't for the gasmileage it was for the smaller tailgate so you wouldn't have to feel inferior for not being able to fill the thing up with the slain.......

GOOD LUCK in the a.m......Mike and I are pulling for you....

Steve
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top