Are you a Deer Stalker or a killer?

MARCBO

Well-Known Member
I see a lot a traffic here about high value guns with higher value scopes being shot off of some form of artifical rest, bipod etc. I propose that those using such are not stalkers but rather shooters. A friend of mine who is a professional forester there in the Uk described hiself as a deer killer, not a stalker. I think these folks with their "sniper" set-ups are also "Deer killers", not stalkers. We are no longer subsistance hunters and in my mind are not true sportsmen unless we are shooting off our elbows or at most using a leather sling. Any moron with hi-tech equipment can shoot deer fron long ranges but they are certainly not stalkers.

SS
 

Shootgun

Well-Known Member
What's wrong in having hi-tech equipment? If this is what floats your boat, why not? There are more hi-tech morons in US than anywhere on Earth... :cuckoo:
 

topscots1

Well-Known Member
A bit of a harsh comment. I wouldn't say the use of a bipod or rest means you aren't a hunter. I would say that using whatever you can to ensure the animal is killed humanely is the decent thing to do. I can shoot of my elbows but would always use a bipod if possible.
 

Ranger22

Well-Known Member
Can you ever be to accurate when killing an animal? When i shoot i use whatever gives me the most stable shot, that can be a bipod, quad sticks, fence post or anything else i can use as a rest. I shoot a lot of deer, some on here will say because of my job i'm a killer but i am a stalker. I stalk the deer i shoot
 

Roedinator

Distinguished Member
Can you ever be to accurate when killing an animal? When i shoot i use whatever gives me the most stable shot, that can be a bipod, quad sticks, fence post or anything else i can use as a rest. I shoot a lot of deer, some on here will say because of my job i'm a killer but i am a stalker. I stalk the deer i shoot
Well said sir
sums it up nicely :tiphat:
Regards pete
 

rabbitter

Well-Known Member
Getting bored of your .243 thread and looking to stir the s££t elsewhere?
This!

What's next? Where do you draw the line?

"I only use cheap factory ammo because the premium stuff or home-loaded is too accurate and unsporting."

or

"I only use a milk-bottle attached to the rifle with an elastic band because modern optics ensure too much accuracy in low light."

This is a poor thread. As sportsmen, we owe it to our quarry to achieve the most humane kill. Any equipment which aids in that goal is surely a good thing. Go back to trolling in the .243 section. :D
 

Monkey Spanker

Well-Known Member
Whilst I kill deer, and not for sport, I would rather be referred to as a deer manager as I kill deer for the sake of the environment and the welfare of the deer themselves. Sure, I could make it much harder for myself by shooting off my elbows or off hand, but I would be far less efficient at what I do and would be at greater risk of injuring the deer rather than killing it humanely! You clearly have your own views of why we shoot deer, but we are not all freezer fillers or trophy hunters. Where do you fit in? Probably the latter group?
MS
 

Biathlonjimmy

Well-Known Member
Foolish comment. Regardless of your set up you can really only stalk deer in its true sense if you spot and follow i.e. stalk the deer on foot. If you happen to stumble across a deer on a jaunt did you stalk it? If you are sat in a high seat and a deer wonders across your path, did you stalk it? What is deer stalking? - Discuss. What is a sniper set up, is it iron sights and a .303? It used to be. Any moron can post what they believe to be deer stalking whether they use a leather sling or not. For what it's worth I believe stalking to be the active pursuit of deer on foot. Many will disagree but I'm buggered if I let you tell me I'm not a stalker because I use sticks or a bipod. Fly taken. ~ J
 
Last edited:

nun_hunter

Well-Known Member
Personally I hate the term "stalker" precisely because of threads like these. I describe myself as a hunter as putting meat in the freezer for me and my family is my goal and not much else.
 

Pine Marten

Well-Known Member
There are clearly those out there who just enjoy killing stuff. I don't like it, and avoid people like that. But an animal really doesn't care about the motivations of the person who kills it, there is no difference in outcome. That doesn't mean that stalkers' motivations aren't important, but they're important to people, not deer. Who can look into people's hearts? Who's going to judge their motives? All you can do is to promote what you think is respectful and sporting as best you can, and try and transmit that view to others. But there's no objective measure of this sort of thing.
 

willie_gunn

Well-Known Member
In another thread someone commented that the members on here who pi$$ them off are those who consider shots over 100 yards unethical. I was going to reply and say that the ones who make me smile are "those who shoot deer at over 300 yards but don't see the irony in still calling it stalking".

I am sympathetic to the notion that we are becoming technology-dependent, often to the exclusion of the deer. Night vision, thermal imaging, high-powered scopes, tactical rifles....they often seem to be an end in themselves rather than the means to an end. But I say this as an angler who still uses split cane, and who has just bought a side-by-side hammer gun for next pheasant season :cuckoo:

Of course the logical conclusion of this argument would be that you are only a true hunter if you use weapons you've built yourself entirely from natural materials. By using firearms we automatically place ourselves at an advantage, and complaining about using high-magnification scopes, etc only moves the argument into one about subtle degrees of difference.

Personally I view the fact that we are taking the life of another animal as providing the ultimate reason to use every possible advantage to ensure a clean kill - bipod, sticks, telescopic sight, etc. Killing another animal is less a test of our ability to overcome obstacles, and more a test of our morality.
 

MARCBO

Well-Known Member
In another thread someone commented that the members on here who pi$$ them off are those who consider shots over 100 yards unethical. I was going to reply and say that the ones who make me smile are "those who shoot deer at over 300 yards but don't see the irony in still calling it stalking".

I am sympathetic to the notion that we are becoming technology-dependent, often to the exclusion of the deer. Night vision, thermal imaging, high-powered scopes, tactical rifles....they often seem to be an end in themselves rather than the means to an end. But I say this as an angler who still uses split cane, and who has just bought a side-by-side hammer gun for next pheasant season :cuckoo:

Of course the logical conclusion of this argument would be that you are only a true hunter if you use weapons you've built yourself entirely from natural materials. By using firearms we automatically place ourselves at an advantage, and complaining about using high-magnification scopes, etc only moves the argument into one about subtle degrees of difference.

Personally I view the fact that we are taking the life of another animal as providing the ultimate reason to use every possible advantage to ensure a clean kill - bipod, sticks, telescopic sight, etc. Killing another animal is less a test of our ability to overcome obstacles, and more a test of our morality.
If we are going to resort to the latest technology to take game are we even truely hunters? I propose that we are not, merely technicians.
SS
 

pete evans

Well-Known Member
stalker, manager, killer, shooter, marksman etc etc. All just semantics. I shoot on bits of ground where I have no pressure to shoot anything, so I can take whatever approach I like. Other bits of ground have an almost zero deer policy and any legal way of maximising a cull are used.
Sure i prefer a summers evening bimble that results in a memorable foot stalk but I will do whatever I need to (legaly) to fulfill a cull if required. People that take the moral high ground on these matters may find themselves being asked to shoot more deer. Sorry stalk more deer.
 

palmer_mike

Well-Known Member
I don't, the question is "are you a sportsman or a technicial killing deer"?
Perhaps you'd like to outline the difference for us?
are telescopic sights ok at all, or are they only ok if they are below a certain magnification?
are certain calibres not acceptable because they shoot too flat or kill too effectively at range?
 

Top