Did I shoot him?

John Gryphon

Well-Known Member
e17794e5.jpg
 
did you, fok knows. I wouldn't at that point, it's unsafe. once further down the hill and with backstop, then yes, I would.

don't see the point of your post, sorry.
 
don't see the point of your post, sorry.

Well it is the PHOTO forum is it not? And its a reasonable photo of a young sambar stag heading out in the evening from his hidey hole in the heavy bush.

The deer is walking towards/across me on a left facing diagonal... its easy to save the pic and use your "lighten pic" tag and you will see where his front left leg is...CLOSEST to the camera!


And of course if i was to take the shot it would have meant waiting for him to walk another dozen yards or so and when he was well under the brow of the hill..... where one cannot get a photo!

The back property boundary over the hill btw is approx 4 kilometres away....I still dont take those sort of shots though.
 
Well it is the PHOTO forum is it not? And its a reasonable photo of a young sambar stag heading out in the evening from his hidey hole in the heavy bush.

The deer is walking towards/across me on a left facing diagonal... its easy to save the pic and use your "lighten pic" tag and you will see where his front left leg is...CLOSEST to the camera!


And of course if i was to take the shot it would have meant waiting for him to walk another dozen yards or so and when he was well under the brow of the hill..... where one cannot get a photo!

The back property boundary over the hill btw is approx 4 kilometres away....I still dont take those sort of shots though.

The back property boundary over the hill btw is approx 4 kilometres away........just out of interest how would that make the shot any safer??.....I kniw you dont take that sort of shot but you saw it as less hazardous??.........or am I missing the point completely??:doh:
 
I think you are indeed missing the point!

As a property that has no one except the hunter on it one would presume that if one was to actually be silly enough (note) to take such a shot that it would be a far better proposition than shooting on a 100 acre permission elsewhere in the world IE far safer.

Now lets say that instead of the deer it was the **** ing killer dingo that was responsible for killing 400 ewe`s over the last few years and it was he that wandered over that rise...I can tell you now that no landowner would hold off in the interests of safety when a back boundary is 4`s away and the first chance at the killer was there for the taking....there are exceptions you know!;)





Hey i`m no dill,i have rolled lots of deer in all sorts of situations,i don't take those type of shots as i bide my time in allowing for a a better presentation....no need to agitate now Martin.:cry:
 
I think you are indeed missing the point!

As a property that has no one except the hunter on it one would presume that if one was to actually be silly enough (note) to take such a shot that it would be a far better proposition than shooting on a 100 acre permission elsewhere in the world IE far safer.

Now lets say that instead of the deer it was the **** ing killer dingo that was responsible for killing 400 ewe`s over the last few years and it was he that wandered over that rise...I can tell you now that no landowner would hold off in the interests of safety when a back boundary is 4`s away and the first chance at the killer was there for the taking....there are exceptions you know!;)





Hey i`m no dill,i have rolled lots of deer in all sorts of situations,i don't take those type of shots as i bide my time in allowing for a a better presentation....no need to agitate now Martin.:cry:

Wwhat about the aircraft flying over the horizon????.....................
 
I think when you consider the population densities against the acreage of our two countries, UK: 62+,000,000 (Known). Australia: 22+,000,000. Then consider that Australia is 32 times Bigger that the entire UK. Then, take the 22,000,000, divide it by 32, and you get the number 687,500. That number is (in theory) the Australian population within one of the 32 areas the size of Great Britain.

Imagine driving through a UK populated by only 687,000 people, you could go for a long while not actually seeing Anybody. In Australia, there are places that people just do not go but once in a blue moon because there's either nothing there for them to see or it's deep inside a massive cattle property that you just don't have any access to.

A station i worked on in Queensland for example:

DSCF0442.jpg


It's 5.4 kilometers from where i took the photo to the peak in the background. If all the ringers are back at the station there is Nobody going to be between you and the peak, and there will be nobody for the same distance on the other side of the peak. There's no roads out there going through the station, just bush and paddocks, no picnickers, backpackers etc etc. So whether John takes those shots or not, it's a given that he could do it quite safely. The vastness of the place is a backstop in itself.

Another good pic John, would you have drilled him if he was down the bank a bit?
 
I think when you consider the population densities against the acreage of our two countries, UK: 62+,000,000 (Known). Australia: 22+,000,000. Then consider that Australia is 32 times Bigger that the entire UK. Then, take the 22,000,000, divide it by 32, and you get the number 687,500. That number is (in theory) the Australian population within one of the 32 areas the size of Great Britain.

Imagine driving through a UK populated by only 687,000 people, you could go for a long while not actually seeing Anybody. In Australia, there are places that people just do not go but once in a blue moon because there's either nothing there for them to see or it's deep inside a massive cattle property that you just don't have any access to.

A station i worked on in Queensland for example:

DSCF0442.jpg


It's 5.4 kilometers from where i took the photo to the peak in the background. If all the ringers are back at the station there is Nobody going to be between you and the peak, and there will be nobody for the same distance on the other side of the peak. There's no roads out there going through the station, just bush and paddocks, no picnickers, backpackers etc etc. So whether John takes those shots or not, it's a given that he could do it quite safely. The vastness of the place is a backstop in itself.

Another good pic John, would you have drilled him if he was down the bank a bit?


I would have drilled him if he was down the bank a bit....ie safe....
 
I think when you consider the population densities against the acreage of our two countries, UK: 62+,000,000 (Known). Australia: 22+,000,000. Then consider that Australia is 32 times Bigger that the entire UK. Then, take the 22,000,000, divide it by 32, and you get the number 687,500. That number is (in theory) the Australian population within one of the 32 areas the size of Great Britain.

Imagine driving through a UK populated by only 687,000 people, you could go for a long while not actually seeing Anybody. In Australia, there are places that people just do not go but once in a blue moon because there's either nothing there for them to see or it's deep inside a massive cattle property that you just don't have any access to.

A station i worked on in Queensland for example:

DSCF0442.jpg


It's 5.4 kilometers from where i took the photo to the peak in the background. If all the ringers are back at the station there is Nobody going to be between you and the peak, and there will be nobody for the same distance on the other side of the peak. There's no roads out there going through the station, just bush and paddocks, no picnickers, backpackers etc etc. So whether John takes those shots or not, it's a given that he could do it quite safely. The vastness of the place is a backstop in itself.

Another good pic John, would you have drilled him if he was down the bank a bit?


No digger not at all,there were nine of them all up eventually and many shots presented,my freezer is full and i am after grand daddy.

And yes Martin...i truly forgot about the cropduster ha ha however he wasnt flying at that time of night.

d7388158.jpg
 
Those cropduster pilots need their heads examined, they used to frighten the s##te out of me when I used to mark for them on the cotton out north of Wee Waa in the late 80`s , they would come in that low you would think they are going to take your head of
 
I think when you consider the population densities against the acreage of our two countries, UK: 62+,000,000 (Known). Australia: 22+,000,000. Then consider that Australia is 32 times Bigger that the entire UK. Then, take the 22,000,000, divide it by 32, and you get the number 687,500. That number is (in theory) the Australian population within one of the 32 areas the size of Great Britain.

Imagine driving through a UK populated by only 687,000 people, you could go for a long while not actually seeing Anybody. In Australia, there are places that people just do not go but once in a blue moon because there's either nothing there for them to see or it's deep inside a massive cattle property that you just don't have any access to.

A station i worked on in Queensland for example:

DSCF0442.jpg


It's 5.4 kilometers from where i took the photo to the peak in the background. If all the ringers are back at the station there is Nobody going to be between you and the peak, and there will be nobody for the same distance on the other side of the peak. There's no roads out there going through the station, just bush and paddocks, no picnickers, backpackers etc etc. So whether John takes those shots or not, it's a given that he could do it quite safely. The vastness of the place is a backstop in itself.

Another good pic John, would you have drilled him if he was down the bank a bit?

I was thinking that the chances of hitting sombody would be somewhere around nil, then came up with the odds of winning the lottery would probably be around the same.... now some lucky ba****s still win it:rofl: better safe than sorry
 
Back
Top