PRELUDE: This entry was born from Facebook activity and is not adapted to the readers of this blog with the correct English pronouns and tense. Nevertheless, the meaning is easy to infer and its importance is obvious. I also referenced a person named Gil Ash. If you want to consult with him, note the following: Gil Ash, Phone: 800-838-7533; Owner of OSP Shooting School; Shooting Editor for Sporting Clays Magazine and Shotgunning Editor for Safari Magazine. I did not come to those conclusions willy-nilly, but through careful thought and almost a half a century of experience hunting birds. That does not suggest that I discredit a high level of ethics. However, I do think it is wise to reflect on held opinions from time to time; and to challenge the logic used to arrive at the same opinions.
This particular post was not intended to generate discussion about the ethos of shooting game birds not in flight. Nevertheless, that is the conversation it drew out. The tenor of the replies show there is a popular ethical stance against shooting birds on the ground, water, or in trees. To me, the appropriateness of such shots depends on the context of the situation, and in one of my replies I addressed that. Most of the time there is not an opportunity for the proverbial “pot shot” or “skillet shot” because upland game birds usually explode into flight before hunters can detect them.
The first step to kill a pheasant or other game bird is to get within lethal shotgun range of them. That alone presents a challenging set of conditions. It is remiss to assume that just because birds were taken with a “pot shot”; that the bird(s) were taken under easy conditions. In my opinion, it is the hunters that follow state stocking trucks and pursue birds almost immediately after their release that are unethical and intentionally tipping the odds in their favor – thereby acting in an “unsporting” manner.
If I may refer you again to YouTube; there you will also find numerous videos of hunters picking birds up from the grass and throwing them to be shot, or of birds that will not fly unless nudged by the boot of a hunter (or “dog handler”). That includes many youth hunts. One of the persons that condemned “skillet shots” sent us a PM and said he was leaving this group because by his own words he owned “a large private hunting club in New Jersey”. I infer from this that he believes the practice of shooting at stationary or running birds on a state pheasant release site is unsporting, while hunting on a commercial preserve provides greater fair-chase. I disagree with that notion; it takes considerable effort to locate and get within shotgun range of birds on state release sites.
Others have expressed another popular motivation – “it is all about the dog”. Although that is another common tenor, it is not universal across all bird hunters, and it certainly is not across the hunting population at large. That attitude also implies that opportunities for “pot shots” do not occur while hunting with dogs. Not only is that not true, but it may signal that hunters that hold this belief are not paying enough attention while hunting. In fact, I am certain that is true in many instances.
In certain waterfowl hunting cultures, for example certain sections where there are flooded green timbers, the cultural norm is not to shoot at a duck unless it is called in. Other hunters elsewhere might not necessarily care if the birds respond to calling, but insist it is finished in the decoys. Other waterfowl hunters do not use either call nor decoys.
This particular post was not intended to generate discussion about the ethos of shooting game birds not in flight. Nevertheless, that is the conversation it drew out. The tenor of the replies show there is a popular ethical stance against shooting birds on the ground, water, or in trees. To me, the appropriateness of such shots depends on the context of the situation, and in one of my replies I addressed that. Most of the time there is not an opportunity for the proverbial “pot shot” or “skillet shot” because upland game birds usually explode into flight before hunters can detect them.
The first step to kill a pheasant or other game bird is to get within lethal shotgun range of them. That alone presents a challenging set of conditions. It is remiss to assume that just because birds were taken with a “pot shot”; that the bird(s) were taken under easy conditions. In my opinion, it is the hunters that follow state stocking trucks and pursue birds almost immediately after their release that are unethical and intentionally tipping the odds in their favor – thereby acting in an “unsporting” manner.
If I may refer you again to YouTube; there you will also find numerous videos of hunters picking birds up from the grass and throwing them to be shot, or of birds that will not fly unless nudged by the boot of a hunter (or “dog handler”). That includes many youth hunts. One of the persons that condemned “skillet shots” sent us a PM and said he was leaving this group because by his own words he owned “a large private hunting club in New Jersey”. I infer from this that he believes the practice of shooting at stationary or running birds on a state pheasant release site is unsporting, while hunting on a commercial preserve provides greater fair-chase. I disagree with that notion; it takes considerable effort to locate and get within shotgun range of birds on state release sites.
Others have expressed another popular motivation – “it is all about the dog”. Although that is another common tenor, it is not universal across all bird hunters, and it certainly is not across the hunting population at large. That attitude also implies that opportunities for “pot shots” do not occur while hunting with dogs. Not only is that not true, but it may signal that hunters that hold this belief are not paying enough attention while hunting. In fact, I am certain that is true in many instances.
In certain waterfowl hunting cultures, for example certain sections where there are flooded green timbers, the cultural norm is not to shoot at a duck unless it is called in. Other hunters elsewhere might not necessarily care if the birds respond to calling, but insist it is finished in the decoys. Other waterfowl hunters do not use either call nor decoys.
People involved in upland bird hunting that are dog fanciers often insist that the hunting experience plays out according to a script composed by a dog organization or an outdoor journalist or writer. Certain conditions must be present for dog fanciers to enjoy themselves and/or deem a hunt a “success” and are measured by how closely the hunt followed the ideology. As some green timber mallard hunters will not pull the trigger on a drake unless they called it in as if they pulled in on a string; some upland hunters want the point, the dog steady through the shot, and the retrieve to hand. Not everybody is onboard with that and neither should they be. It is the idealist, the fanatic, and the perfectionists that perhaps should reflect on his/her modus operandi. As is the case with trophy deer hunting, narrow and specific motivations of mentors are hard for youth or learning hunters to grasp and turns them away from hunting. If you are a perfectionist you lose the drive to fail and learn. Ironically, the perfectionist attitude in bird hunting often leads to participation in canned hunts, especially to make an impression on youth and novices. However, the novice often views this as unsporting and even cruel instead of embracing the hunting experience. Even if the newcomer is not put off, easy success can be a catalyst for failure and/or unrealistic expectations. It certainly does not foster the work ethic that is important to succeed at pheasant hunting.
Paradoxically, the aspect of shotguns and shotgun shooting has fell to low place among the passion aspects of bird hunters. The lack of attention to shooting is one of the factors that creates hunter dissatisfaction. Seeing and bagging pheasants rank high in hunter satisfaction surveys. I suspect that bagging pheasant is even more important than these surveys indicate. Nevertheless, pheasant hunters generally do not act to improve their shooting in order to bag more pheasant and increase their own satisfaction. Nor is the shooting aspect emphasized to beginners. In response, I began addressing this element of hunting, and eventually sought the help of Gil Ash, one of the top shotgun shooting instructors who also has real insight into hunting through real hunting experience. Nevertheless, even a pro like Gil Ash is prone to being blind-sided by his primary passion and specialization. When I asked Gil to elaborate on another gentleman’s video depicting how to approach a pointing dog, he provided a well-thought out and sound response. However, his response was not sensitive to the importance of seeing one’s dog on point is to dog fanciers, in recommending they do not look at the dog. In addition to that, Gil’s advice to focus your eyes on a distant object, such as a tree limb, was purely from a shooting perspective, especially under the context of pheasant hunting, although other game birds (valley quail, chukar) are like pheasant highly prone to run; all upland game birds do in fact often run, including bobwhite, woodcock, ruffed grouse and every other species. In real hunting, it is essential to trap the birds between hunter(s) and dog(s). This often requires noting the direction of the dogs head and checking back to see if the dog starts looking in a different direction. It also is key to watch for birds running on the ground and/or movements in the grass which are caused by a running bird or mammal. This discussion now becomes circular – because the dog fanciers perspective – a hyper focus on the dog, or the dog’s behavior, interferes with detecting and flushing birds, while simultaneously maintaining a presence of mind conducive to both safety and shooting.
The circular nature of these discussions is linked to what hunters need to do to kill more birds and reduce frustration; and what state agencies need to teach to hunters – both who are beginners and established hunters. As the population of pheasant hunters and general upland game hunter’s age, knowledge is lost; and state wildlife staff increasingly lacks an understanding of the hunting culture, this discrepancy is going to widen. As knowledge is lost, the hunting industry and entrepreneurs fill the knowledge gap with fluff. There is an urgent need to return to basics if the integrity of the bird hunting culture is to be preserved, or if bird hunting will last at all.
Paradoxically, the aspect of shotguns and shotgun shooting has fell to low place among the passion aspects of bird hunters. The lack of attention to shooting is one of the factors that creates hunter dissatisfaction. Seeing and bagging pheasants rank high in hunter satisfaction surveys. I suspect that bagging pheasant is even more important than these surveys indicate. Nevertheless, pheasant hunters generally do not act to improve their shooting in order to bag more pheasant and increase their own satisfaction. Nor is the shooting aspect emphasized to beginners. In response, I began addressing this element of hunting, and eventually sought the help of Gil Ash, one of the top shotgun shooting instructors who also has real insight into hunting through real hunting experience. Nevertheless, even a pro like Gil Ash is prone to being blind-sided by his primary passion and specialization. When I asked Gil to elaborate on another gentleman’s video depicting how to approach a pointing dog, he provided a well-thought out and sound response. However, his response was not sensitive to the importance of seeing one’s dog on point is to dog fanciers, in recommending they do not look at the dog. In addition to that, Gil’s advice to focus your eyes on a distant object, such as a tree limb, was purely from a shooting perspective, especially under the context of pheasant hunting, although other game birds (valley quail, chukar) are like pheasant highly prone to run; all upland game birds do in fact often run, including bobwhite, woodcock, ruffed grouse and every other species. In real hunting, it is essential to trap the birds between hunter(s) and dog(s). This often requires noting the direction of the dogs head and checking back to see if the dog starts looking in a different direction. It also is key to watch for birds running on the ground and/or movements in the grass which are caused by a running bird or mammal. This discussion now becomes circular – because the dog fanciers perspective – a hyper focus on the dog, or the dog’s behavior, interferes with detecting and flushing birds, while simultaneously maintaining a presence of mind conducive to both safety and shooting.
The circular nature of these discussions is linked to what hunters need to do to kill more birds and reduce frustration; and what state agencies need to teach to hunters – both who are beginners and established hunters. As the population of pheasant hunters and general upland game hunter’s age, knowledge is lost; and state wildlife staff increasingly lacks an understanding of the hunting culture, this discrepancy is going to widen. As knowledge is lost, the hunting industry and entrepreneurs fill the knowledge gap with fluff. There is an urgent need to return to basics if the integrity of the bird hunting culture is to be preserved, or if bird hunting will last at all.