Shooting Birds in Flight
- Thread starter jjjjeremy
- Start date
- Status
WardenWolf
member
When it comes to Gambel's quail, you take what you can get. If they're in a tree, they usually won't fly until you're right on top of them. Often you won't even see them until they jump out at you. So on the off chance you CAN get one on the ground or in a tree, you take it. When they fly, they fly straight and low, and dive to ground quickly. You only have a moment before you lose them.
oneounceload
member
This seems to be running similar to the hunting ethics thread near the top. I have been fortunate to hunt upland birds in FL, TX, CO, ND, NV, CA. Some were farm or planted, most were wild. IMO, it is considered not only bad form to ground sluice a bird, it is also a safety issue, especially with dogs. We always worked on the "blue sky" rule for wingshooting- no shots taken unless you can see sky to keep from shooting someone or the dog. As to the pheasant in a tree, perhaps you could have moved around the tree to get a shot when he flew, perhaps not - that is a shot you have to determine in your mind.
IMO, there is a difference between something that is legal versus ethical or "sporting". I hunt for the enjoyment of it - if my day afield resulted in an empty bag at the end of the day, I know two things - it was still a successful day, and I can stop at the store on the way home if need be so I won't starve. I have hunted Gambel's and California quail, bobwhite, blue and ruffed grouse, chukar, pheasant among others. With or without a good dog, birds will fly eventually - but the dog does make it easier.
As to the failed analogous comparison to shooting deer on the run - not if you want to eat the meat you won't - mulies and pronghorn taste nasty if they were running as you shot them - birds, not really an issue.
IMO, there is a difference between something that is legal versus ethical or "sporting". I hunt for the enjoyment of it - if my day afield resulted in an empty bag at the end of the day, I know two things - it was still a successful day, and I can stop at the store on the way home if need be so I won't starve. I have hunted Gambel's and California quail, bobwhite, blue and ruffed grouse, chukar, pheasant among others. With or without a good dog, birds will fly eventually - but the dog does make it easier.
As to the failed analogous comparison to shooting deer on the run - not if you want to eat the meat you won't - mulies and pronghorn taste nasty if they were running as you shot them - birds, not really an issue.
FLAvalanche
Member
Ground sluicing, ground sqwatting, call it what you want. I call it freezer filling. Wrap those dove in bacon and throw them on the grill and you can't tell if they were shot in the air, on the ground or in a tree.
My brain has ethics, my belly doesn't.
My brain has ethics, my belly doesn't.
it isn't ethics anyway, it's rules to add challenge.. it's challenging enough for me to get a day off work to go bird hunting, I don't need to add rules to make it an uneventful hunt.. I'm with you bacon and a real hot grill! mmmmmmmm........
if you choose not to shoot them I think that is admirable... just don't come knocking on my truck window when I shoot whatever presents it'self...just saying
Greybeard
Member
In some states (I believe oklahoma is one), it is indeed illegal to shoot quail on the ground. Grandpa used to call it a "skillet shot". And some people call it "Arkansawing 'em".
In Tejas, it is legal. And as Art mentioned, on blues, often ethical for those who have much experience hunting blues. But on bobwhite, I like the reason a teenage kid used a few years back in a hunter ed. class for NOT shooting them on the ground: "It's just Ch..Ch..Ch..CHEAP!!!"
In Tejas, it is legal. And as Art mentioned, on blues, often ethical for those who have much experience hunting blues. But on bobwhite, I like the reason a teenage kid used a few years back in a hunter ed. class for NOT shooting them on the ground: "It's just Ch..Ch..Ch..CHEAP!!!"
FWIW, shooting a dove not in flight is illegal under South Dakota law. Its sometimes not a matter of sport or ethics, but actually a rule of law.
If you're within the law, i won't be knocking....in violation of it, and it may not be me but your local conservation officer knocking instead.
ZeroJunk
Member
I have to say that all these years I thought it was illegal to shoot a sitting bird other than a turkey. But, I don't see it anywhere in NC regulations. Maybe I missed it.
Every hunter I have been with for 50 years assumed I suppose that it was illegal, at any rate they said you couldn't do it.
Learn something new evey day. But, I'll still let them fly.
Every hunter I have been with for 50 years assumed I suppose that it was illegal, at any rate they said you couldn't do it.
Learn something new evey day. But, I'll still let them fly.
Cosmoline
Member
My understanding and past practice has been that for .22's you generally shoot on the ground or close enough to it to have a good backstop. For wing shooting with a shotgun obviously it's in flight. But you don't wing shoot with a .22. At least I'm not that good! I'm not sure it's a good idea to fire a rifle at that angle anyway.
Much of it may come down to the area's hunting culture. For me this is a meat bag situation, not a day with dogs, special clothes, a ten grand doublegun and a crew of attendants out of some costume drama ;-) Besides the grouse run around a lot so it's not like it isn't a challenge. And stupid chickens (ptarmigan), are surprisingly good at being invisible on the ground.
Plus we're not talking about federally regulated migratory birds here, but what lower 48 people think of "upland" species. The upland birds are down in the valleys here. Deep in the thick stuff, sometimes impossible to get to. It's not easy unless you get lucky. You have to find areas where they're grabbing pebbles or wait for the right combination of rain and sunshine before they even become visible.
Thinking about it, if I ever did come across an area where there were dozens of ptarmigan or grouse yelling "take me take me" and just standing there, I'd get a little wary about just blasting them. But I've never seen such a place at least where hunting is legal. Most of the time you don't find the things because they're perfectly invisible in the branches or for whatever reason they're just not coming out of cover. And if I don't see one, i can't shoot it. I'm not sure how sending dogs in or thwapping bushes to make them come out is more ethical than just packing it in and shooting nothing because you have no clean shots. Also I remember many times not being able to shoot because the bird was at an angle where a rifle bullet was a no-no. So I had to track him from tree to tree until he was close down and a valid target. This isn't blasting away punt gun stuff.
Much of it may come down to the area's hunting culture. For me this is a meat bag situation, not a day with dogs, special clothes, a ten grand doublegun and a crew of attendants out of some costume drama ;-) Besides the grouse run around a lot so it's not like it isn't a challenge. And stupid chickens (ptarmigan), are surprisingly good at being invisible on the ground.
Plus we're not talking about federally regulated migratory birds here, but what lower 48 people think of "upland" species. The upland birds are down in the valleys here. Deep in the thick stuff, sometimes impossible to get to. It's not easy unless you get lucky. You have to find areas where they're grabbing pebbles or wait for the right combination of rain and sunshine before they even become visible.
Thinking about it, if I ever did come across an area where there were dozens of ptarmigan or grouse yelling "take me take me" and just standing there, I'd get a little wary about just blasting them. But I've never seen such a place at least where hunting is legal. Most of the time you don't find the things because they're perfectly invisible in the branches or for whatever reason they're just not coming out of cover. And if I don't see one, i can't shoot it. I'm not sure how sending dogs in or thwapping bushes to make them come out is more ethical than just packing it in and shooting nothing because you have no clean shots. Also I remember many times not being able to shoot because the bird was at an angle where a rifle bullet was a no-no. So I had to track him from tree to tree until he was close down and a valid target. This isn't blasting away punt gun stuff.
Last edited:
My Malamute bird dogs do a pretty good job of finding birds. If they're on the ground, they jump them and watch them sitting in the tree they flushed to until I get there, it's a hearing game of listening for a flush in the thick woods and heading for the sound. The birds are still very hard to see most of the time. A shotgun would actually be very hard to use, very seldom see a bird flying that could be shot on the wing.
Cosmoline
Member
And they have an uncanny ability to know where you can hunt them. On trails where they cannot be hunted, I've repeatedly had them literally stand in front of me in plain sight within rock throwing distance. If I didn't know their brains were tiny nerve clusters, I would swear they did it on purpose. It's particularly difficult to bear since to me they are flying hamburgers.
Sunray
Member
"...less sporting to go home with an empty bag..." Hunting isn't about what's in the bag.
Thsn use a camera sunray... I go hunting to bring home game...bottom line, if it's not dangerous cruel or illegal...hunting is 100% about bagging game... enjoying the wildlife and other animals than what your hunting, the peace and quiet are all a bonus. I go to bring home dead critters...sorry
pat86323
Member
"mulies and pronghorn taste nasty if they were running as you shot them"
not only is this untrue as i have eaten mulie that was shot on a dead run several times. But it doesnt make any sense. Are you suggesting that the meat somehow changes when an animal is in the act of running? Does the residual "running nasty" hang around in meat, meaning that if i see one running i have to wait a certain amount of time to wait for the "running nasty" to leave the meat 5 minutes? 10? 30? I would really enjoy a bit of explanation of that.
"Don't make it right........sorry you feel being a slob hunter is OK because it is legal.............
that's too bad.SOME of us have a higher moral view, too bad you don't"
Whoa, feeling a bit elite and "betterthenyou" today? Moral was a BAD choice of words there dude....really BAD. Lets talk about what makes something moral. A quick clean kill makes a moral/ethical shot. When are you more likely to make a clean kill and not cripple a bird never to be seen again? On the ground running at a relatively slow speed? On a bird flying 40mph through the sky? think about this for a second. Where are most people more apt to make a bad shot? Im failing to understand what makes shooting on the ground less moral. Fact is this is a very similar argument to one i hear over "can i use this caliber?" discussions and long range discussions as well. Just because it is more challenging to shoot a bird in the air does nothing to make shooting them on the ground less moral, much in the same way that shooting a deer at 100 yards isnt necissarily more moral/ethical then shooting them at 500. In the same manner that shooting a deer with a 223 isnt immoral in many cases.
not only is this untrue as i have eaten mulie that was shot on a dead run several times. But it doesnt make any sense. Are you suggesting that the meat somehow changes when an animal is in the act of running? Does the residual "running nasty" hang around in meat, meaning that if i see one running i have to wait a certain amount of time to wait for the "running nasty" to leave the meat 5 minutes? 10? 30? I would really enjoy a bit of explanation of that.
"Don't make it right........sorry you feel being a slob hunter is OK because it is legal.............
that's too bad.SOME of us have a higher moral view, too bad you don't"
Whoa, feeling a bit elite and "betterthenyou" today? Moral was a BAD choice of words there dude....really BAD. Lets talk about what makes something moral. A quick clean kill makes a moral/ethical shot. When are you more likely to make a clean kill and not cripple a bird never to be seen again? On the ground running at a relatively slow speed? On a bird flying 40mph through the sky? think about this for a second. Where are most people more apt to make a bad shot? Im failing to understand what makes shooting on the ground less moral. Fact is this is a very similar argument to one i hear over "can i use this caliber?" discussions and long range discussions as well. Just because it is more challenging to shoot a bird in the air does nothing to make shooting them on the ground less moral, much in the same way that shooting a deer at 100 yards isnt necissarily more moral/ethical then shooting them at 500. In the same manner that shooting a deer with a 223 isnt immoral in many cases.
Cosmoline
Member
This is a fascinating debate, actually. It touches on some very, very old hunting conflicts between the gentry who practiced the fine art of "shooting flying" with fowlers as far back as the 17th century and the peasants and professional hunters who used other methods. For many, it's the gentry's sporting methods and doctrine inherited from the old world that define what is "ethical." In some cases this has even been legislated. It is the old idea of an amateur who goes for the sport of it rather than anything so base as dinner.
The differences in price between a rimfire and ammo and a fine double gun highlights this distinction even today. As do the divergent gun cultures between the shotgunners and everyone else.
Of course, sportsmanship can be found or lost regardless of the tools or method used. As I pointed out it can be very difficult to hunt grouse and ptarmigan in thick forests with a rimfire. And conversely an "ethical" wing shooting session can be little more than a slaughter with bird after bird getting blasted out of the sky and a whole team of men involved in the gentleman's hunt.
If you really want to be an ethical wing shooter, you should forgo the finely tuned, perfectly fitted double gun and use a medium bore flintlock as the founders of the sport intended. IN SMALL CLOTHES mind. With a wig ;-)
The differences in price between a rimfire and ammo and a fine double gun highlights this distinction even today. As do the divergent gun cultures between the shotgunners and everyone else.
Of course, sportsmanship can be found or lost regardless of the tools or method used. As I pointed out it can be very difficult to hunt grouse and ptarmigan in thick forests with a rimfire. And conversely an "ethical" wing shooting session can be little more than a slaughter with bird after bird getting blasted out of the sky and a whole team of men involved in the gentleman's hunt.
If you really want to be an ethical wing shooter, you should forgo the finely tuned, perfectly fitted double gun and use a medium bore flintlock as the founders of the sport intended. IN SMALL CLOTHES mind. With a wig ;-)
rbernie
Contributing Member
I doubt that the quality of the discussion is enhanced by calling other folk by perjorative names. It's certainly not appropriate for The High Road.
Let's cool this one off a bit, k?
MCgunner
Member
Then there's the Texas redneck that lines 'em up on the powerline. 
Me, I jump 'em, at least. Turkey, next time I hunt turkey, it'll be with a .22 magnum, legal in Texas. I think shotguns are cruel on 'em, too much chance of a cripple. Yeah, migh ten gauge patterns tight at 40 yards with 6s, but hey, so does my .22 mag.
Me, I jump 'em, at least. Turkey, next time I hunt turkey, it'll be with a .22 magnum, legal in Texas. I think shotguns are cruel on 'em, too much chance of a cripple. Yeah, migh ten gauge patterns tight at 40 yards with 6s, but hey, so does my .22 mag. Remo223
member
Its even more sporting to shoot them on the wing with a handgun.
MCgunner
Member
Done it.....410 contender.
Remo223
member
I saw a relative hit a crow on the wing with a blackhawk 44 once(third shot I think). Saw a friend hit a sparrow on the wing with a lever action 22(second shot I think). Ithica brand.
oneounceload
member
Yes, when their adrenaline is coursing through the blood stream under duress, it does change it.
When it is on the ground running through thick brush, or in the wide open sky where the payload can be successfully delivered to the quarry??
- Status
