It was an innocent-enough mistake — well, not really a mistake; perhaps an error in polite judgment — but it provided an opportunity for some folks to examine their principles, and maybe their perspectives, on a question for which there may be no satisfactory answer.
This started with an invitation to join an online group devoted to grouse hunting. It’s one of my favorite early-fall activities. It was sheer coincidence the invitation somewhat coincided with my work on last week’s column about working on my classic Ruger Standard .22-caliber semi-auto pistol. I’ve killed grouse with this pistol, and with my much newer Ruger MKIV, and it was the posting of an image of me with the newer pistol and a dead grouse, to sort of introduce myself which ignited the fireworks.
Considering a handful of reactions, you’d have thought I punched the Pope. I sensed there might be a problem when one guy remarked, “Not how I would ever shoot a grouse short of being starving.” Ooookay!
Another fellow chimed in, “Shotgun & bird dog more sporting.” A third stated, “They would stand a chance if you let them fly.” A fourth gent sneered, “Try wing shooting them like a grown up.” If everyone agreed all of the time, I wouldn’t have anything to write about.
There were ample defenders of my plugging a fool hen with a handgun — dubbed “ground swatting” and it’s not a compliment — including the very diplomatic group administrator, who sagely observed, “It’s not my preferred method of harvesting them, nor do I believe I (or anyone else) am entitled to be condescending of your methods. We are all part of the hunting community. Congratulations on your successes with your preferred method of harvesting! Shoot straight & often in your upcoming season!”
In my defense, one guy wrote, “I’ve always enjoyed the holier-than-thou faction of the grouse hunting community.” Another observed, “Head shooting spooky grouse with a pistol is more of an accomplishment than with a rifle or shotgun on the wing.”
In all, more than 185 comments were generated, and it reminded me of my days as managing editor of a monthly publication about hunter education. Frequently, somebody would bring up “ethics,” and as one might guess, one person’s ethics sometimes turned out to be another guy’s definition of elitism.
In this case, I found myself up against some folks who religiously hunt over dogs, using shotguns, and anyone doing it differently is apparently … something less.
Elmer Did It, Too!
My guess is that the purist dog crowd never heard of Elmer Keith, whose name is hardly strange to American Handgunner and GUNS Magazine readers. Keith was the father of long-range handgunning, and his 600-yard shot on a wounded mule deer buck with a .44 Magnum is the stuff of legend. On page 126 of my revised 1961 edition of “Sixguns By Keith” is a photo of Elmer taken in 1932. He’s holding three dead blue grouse in his left hand and a Smith & Wesson .38/44 in his right.
During my online discussion with the grouse group, I and a couple of other people explained to the crowd how shooting grouse with handguns is completely legal and something of a tradition in western states, which seemed to surprise some of those folks. To prove it, I contacted wildlife agencies in Idaho, Montana, Colorado, Utah and Oregon. They all allow shooting grouse with rimfires, and it is safe to conclude birds taken in such a way are shot on the ground or sitting on a stump or tree limb.
Is it ethical? Here’s where the fun begins. Wingshooting purists don’t care for it, while everyone else seems to at least understand it or embrace it. Last year, I wrote an Insider column about using pistols for small game which seemed to have been read by many of my pals. It’s hardly a “lost art,” and it takes more than mediocre skill to maintain consistency.
Balance shooting a grouse off a tree limb with a pistol at 20-25 yards or farther against walking in on a bird holding tight to cover because of a good dog hovering close. When the unfortunate fowl finally explodes from cover, it will be facing a spreading payload of birdshot, as opposed to dodging a single projectile. Which is truly more “sporting?”
What is ‘Fair Chase?’
People talk about “fair chase.” What is that, exactly? According to the Boone and Crockett Club, fair chase “is the ethical, sportsmanlike, and lawful pursuit and taking of any free-ranging wild game animal in a manner that does not give the hunter an improper or unfair advantage over the game animals.” Okay.
Straight from the B&C website come these tenets:
1. Obey all applicable laws and regulations.
2. Respect the customs of the locale where the hunting occurs.
3. Exercise a personal code of behavior that reflects favorably on your abilities and sensibilities as a hunter.
4. Attain and maintain the skills necessary to make the kill as certain and quick as possible.
5 .Behave in a way that will bring no dishonor to either the hunter, the hunted, or the environment.
6. Recognize that these tenets are intended to enhance the hunter’s experience of the relationship between predator and prey, which is one of the most fundamental relationships of humans and their environment.
Well, whaddaya know, items #1 and #2 apply directly to my situation, as well as #3 and #4. Evidently #5 is subject to some dispute (I’d suggest taking it up with Elmer!), and #6 seems open to personal judgment at the end of the day when the game bag may be full or not.
Here, again, sportsmen and women do not necessarily concur on the finer points. I know guys who have stalked game over considerable distances in order to get close enough for a clean, humane shot. Is that different than someone who may be on wide-open ground, and who takes an accurate shot at several hundred yards, using a rifle chambered for a long-range caliber?
Yet there are some in the outdoors with a “my way or the highway” approach. They tend to look down their noses at others who do things differently. This may be where “ethics” becomes “elitism.” Not everyone can afford a hunting dog, nor do they have the time or a home big enough, and neither can they afford a hunting lease. Having hunted on public and private land, and a couple of times by invitation at a “hunting club” or “preserve,” I’m not sure there is a pat answer about fair chase, despite what B&C says. It’s not clear whether anyone at B&C ever hunted blue grouse, a bird of such remarkable stupidity at times that it will freeze in place or run along on the ground rather than take wing. Birds that dumb might deserve getting plugged by me, or Elmer.
Question: Is “fair chase” going without a professional guide? If you hire a guide, is that somehow less “fair” than hunting on your own? Maybe there is no correct answer, so we each do what, in our hearts, is the “right” thing; what you’d do if grandpa was watching. Maybe that’s ethics, and in some ways, it might be tinged with a bit of elitism.
And Then There’s This
My state’s wildlife agency encourages hunters to:
• Be considerate of non-hunters’ sensibilities and strive to leave them with positive images of hunting and hunters.
• Do not flaunt your harvested animals.
My reaction on social media was to be as considerate of non-hunters’ sensibilities as they are to mine (I’ve had people yell how they wished I’d get shot). I recall “big buck” contests held at local sporting goods stores in the days of my youth, when hunters were encouraged to show off their successes. There’s noting wrong with this. Yet nowadays hunters are encouraged to cover up their game, as if to hide what we do.
Back On Target
Last time I lamented one of my Ruger .22 pistols was shooting low and left. Practice pays off because a couple of hundred rounds has gone downrange since our last visit, and my pistol is back on track.
It still shoots a bit low, so all I’ve got to do is raise the front sight just a bit, or gently stone it down a bit. Windage seems to be fine — I didn’t do a thing to change it — so maybe I was just a bit rusty.
The great thing about practicing to shoot small game with a rimfire sidearm is being able to afford lots of ammunition and having the time to leisurely burn it up.
At some point, I may have to change my bullet weight from 40 to 36 grains, or simply switch brands of ammunition. I doubt there will be an effort to drift the rear sight slightly to the right (I’ve got a sight adjustment tool from Brownells for this purpose), but at least the equipment is at hand.
I was using different ammunition to punch the target in the accompanying image; 36-grain lead hollowpoints, where previously I was shooting 40-grain RNL ammunition.
Learn from my experience. Even with all the years I’ve had shooting handguns, my skills can suffer without regular range visits. You are no more or less prone to share the same experience at some point. Don’t throw in the towel, find out where the problem is and adjust accordingly.
Shoulda Known Better
You might think a fellow in his early 60s would know better than trying to break into a home, with a gun in his hand, especially in Missouri.
Recently, Fox News reported an incident in which an older guy — who probably should have been enjoying his senior years in a lounge chair or on a porch somewhere — entered a home in Missouri’s McDonald County. Only too late did this guy discover he had picked the wrong house. The residents were there, and both had guns of their own.
According to the narrative, the suspect in this caper fired at the homeowners. Probably to his surprise, they shot back. He missed, they didn’t. He wasn’t killed, just wounded in both legs. The homeowners held their unwelcome guest for the local sheriff’s department.
No News is Good News
Rasmussen is a seasoned polling firm, and their survey results are typically spot-on, so when they recently did a poll on media trustworthiness, it was worthy of attention.
Turns out 25% of likely voters don’t think the major news networks are reliable. Another 25% like Fox News, 13% favor CNN, while 12% trust MSNBC, Rasmussen noted. The “big three” are in single digits: NBC and ABC (7% apiece) and CBS (6%).
“Fifty-eight percent (58%) of voters believe the problem of bias in the news media is getting worse,” Rasmussen said, “compared to just 13% who think the problem is getting better. Twenty-six percent (26%) say the media bias problem is about the same as usual.”