Do you think it is wrong for hunting to be used as a sport?

[Sarahkka]

I am not saying all Amercans are like this, it's just this specific programme was based in the US, Minnesota. They were just killing for fun and what was described as a sport. I don't see how this is justified along with many other animals that are killed unless you are doing to keep you family alive and this is the case in certain parts of the world.

Like close to the Arctic and Atlantic oceans well between there, there is a place called Greenland inwhich there are a community well infact a town of people called the Inuit hunters in North Greenland now these are people that rely on there source of food by hunting. They will kill seals and walrusses to feed there families. It's not like they can go pick up a chciken or cow at there local supermarket. In certain parts they do offer meat that is shipped across but they cannot afford to pay £40.00 for a few lamb chops.

The point I am trying to make is why do they need to hunt bears, aligators ect when there is a source of food already like cows, chickens, lamb, beef ect. What is the point in killing more animals when there is no need and certainlly killing them for fun?

I want to address a few points that you have made.
1) You are using the word "hunting" to describe an act of poaching. They are very very different things, which is part of the reason the families who do hunt are reacting to your post the way they are. Please understand that in North America, hunters and fishers have been VERY active in protecting habitat, wildlife, educating people about doing so, and promoting respect for their sport. Poaching is considered to be reprehensible by legitimate hunters and fishers.
2) Please remember that just because it's a wildlife special you saw on TV, it doesn't make it an accurate representation of hunting and fishing in North America. The producers of this show cut, paste and edit footage for you to get a storyline. It's just like a reality TV show in that respect. You are watching a program that is designed to make you feel a certain way. Don't forget to use your critical faculty while watching such a thing and question what you are being told.
3) Those who get their food from hunting are not killing animals as well as going to the store and buying heaps of meat there. They are killing their food in the bush instead of buying it in the store. As stated before, it is much much more humane and far better for habitat (which protects more animals) to eat off the land as a hunter than it is to go buy factory farm meat. If you want to get upset about something, go watch some specials on modern agribusiness meat production. Then come back here and tell us how bad hunting is.
The fact is that the average city dweller puts far more pressure on the habitat of most wildlife, resulting in crashing populations and destroyed ecosystems. How is that not cruelty to animals?

 

[xemmax]

fox hunting is a way to control the fox population. it may be illegal to go fox hunting now but the same amount still die every year as they are killed anyway by farmers to protect there livestock and if anything they die a more painful death now as most are shot but dont die instantly

more painful than being killed by a pack of dogs? i think that's questionable.

 

[Nic1107]

I don't agree with hunting for pure sport; I hate to see it when someone's gone and shot a big cat or a fox, took it to the taxidermist and stuck it in a case in their living room. I don't understand it, and I don't like it.

But most hunters are not big-game sport hunters- the food goes to feed their families. Our families, in fact- my husband's father is an avid hunter. We've had venison, bear and squirrel this year from his hunts (yeah, I eat squirrel, call me a hillbilly if you like ).

I was thinking, just reading through this, it would make for sad reading if I were a chicken or a cow. They don't exist just to feed humans either iykwim, and I truly don't see the difference between capping a gator for the meat and knocking out a cow for the meat? We don't need to eat store-bought chicken any more than we need to eat a wild-caught quail, right?

 

[katrina1987]

I am not saying all Amercans are like this, it's just this specific programme was based in the US, Minnesota. They were just killing for fun and what was described as a sport. I don't see how this is justified along with many other animals that are killed unless you are doing to keep you family alive and this is the case in certain parts of the world.

Like close to the Arctic and Atlantic oceans well between there, there is a place called Greenland inwhich there are a community well infact a town of people called the Inuit hunters in North Greenland now these are people that rely on there source of food by hunting. They will kill seals and walrusses to feed there families. It's not like they can go pick up a chciken or cow at there local supermarket. In certain parts they do offer meat that is shipped across but they cannot afford to pay £40.00 for a few lamb chops.

The point I am trying to make is why do they need to hunt bears, aligators ect when there is a source of food already like cows, chickens, lamb, beef ect. What is the point in killing more animals when there is no need and certainlly killing them for fun?

I want to address a few points that you have made.
1) You are using the word "hunting" to describe an act of poaching. They are very very different things, which is part of the reason the families who do hunt are reacting to your post the way they are. Please understand that in North America, hunters and fishers have been VERY active in protecting habitat, wildlife, educating people about doing so, and promoting respect for their sport. Poaching is considered to be reprehensible by legitimate hunters and fishers.
2) Please remember that just because it's a wildlife special you saw on TV, it doesn't make it an accurate representation of hunting and fishing in North America. The producers of this show cut, paste and edit footage for you to get a storyline. It's just like a reality TV show in that respect. You are watching a program that is designed to make you feel a certain way. Don't forget to use your critical faculty while watching such a thing and question what you are being told.
3) Those who get their food from hunting are not killing animals as well as going to the store and buying heaps of meat there. They are killing their food in the bush instead of buying it in the store. As stated before, it is much much more humane and far better for habitat (which protects more animals) to eat off the land as a hunter than it is to go buy factory farm meat. If you want to get upset about something, go watch some specials on modern agribusiness meat production. Then come back here and tell us how bad hunting is.
The fact is that the average city dweller puts far more pressure on the habitat of most wildlife, resulting in crashing populations and destroyed ecosystems. How is that not cruelty to animals?

You have really gone around my point in a way. But also it has nothing to do with some of the points made. I can see we are not going to agree on this. I think it is wrong and you think it is right. I dont agree with the killing of animals when there are already animals being farmed in the thousands for us to eat again chickens, beef, lamb ect. So why do we need to eat or kill a bear, big cats ect when there are these other meats. I know there are limitations but quite offen people do-not stick to that? Do you agree with killing a lion cub or a tigger cub and then to eat it? This is what you are basically saying?

 

[Sarahkka]

I am not saying all Amercans are like this, it's just this specific programme was based in the US, Minnesota. They were just killing for fun and what was described as a sport. I don't see how this is justified along with many other animals that are killed unless you are doing to keep you family alive and this is the case in certain parts of the world.

Like close to the Arctic and Atlantic oceans well between there, there is a place called Greenland inwhich there are a community well infact a town of people called the Inuit hunters in North Greenland now these are people that rely on there source of food by hunting. They will kill seals and walrusses to feed there families. It's not like they can go pick up a chciken or cow at there local supermarket. In certain parts they do offer meat that is shipped across but they cannot afford to pay £40.00 for a few lamb chops.

The point I am trying to make is why do they need to hunt bears, aligators ect when there is a source of food already like cows, chickens, lamb, beef ect. What is the point in killing more animals when there is no need and certainlly killing them for fun?

I want to address a few points that you have made.
1) You are using the word "hunting" to describe an act of poaching. They are very very different things, which is part of the reason the families who do hunt are reacting to your post the way they are. Please understand that in North America, hunters and fishers have been VERY active in protecting habitat, wildlife, educating people about doing so, and promoting respect for their sport. Poaching is considered to be reprehensible by legitimate hunters and fishers.
2) Please remember that just because it's a wildlife special you saw on TV, it doesn't make it an accurate representation of hunting and fishing in North America. The producers of this show cut, paste and edit footage for you to get a storyline. It's just like a reality TV show in that respect. You are watching a program that is designed to make you feel a certain way. Don't forget to use your critical faculty while watching such a thing and question what you are being told.
3) Those who get their food from hunting are not killing animals as well as going to the store and buying heaps of meat there. They are killing their food in the bush instead of buying it in the store. As stated before, it is much much more humane and far better for habitat (which protects more animals) to eat off the land as a hunter than it is to go buy factory farm meat. If you want to get upset about something, go watch some specials on modern agribusiness meat production. Then come back here and tell us how bad hunting is.
The fact is that the average city dweller puts far more pressure on the habitat of most wildlife, resulting in crashing populations and destroyed ecosystems. How is that not cruelty to animals?

You have really gone around my point in a way. But also it has nothing to do with some of the points made. I can see we are not going to agree on this. I think it is wrong and you think it is right. I dont agree with the killing of animals when there are already animals being farmed in the thousands for us to eat again chickens, beef, lamb ect. So why do we need to eat or kill a bear, big cats ect when there are these other meats. I know there are limitations but quite offen people do-not stick to that? Do you agree with killing a lion cub or a tigger cub and then to eat it? This is what you are basically saying?

What is your point then?
I've addressed numerous points that have everything to do with your original statement of asking whether or not hunting for sport is cruel.
Several posters, myself included, have told you that your idea of hunting seems to be misconstrued - you consistently cite examples of illegal hunting or poaching and call that hunting. It is not. And no one is defending poaching.
So right there, of course I would not kill or eat a tiger or lion. Tigers are one of the most endangered cats in the world, lions are also considered threatened now - neither would appeal to me, as I already said that I don't particularly relish the thought of eating carnivore meat due to parasites. Those who are eating meats like bear and cougar are doing so from meat that has been hunted from sustainable populations with a well-regulated quota of kills.
I wish we could call our current meat-farming systems sustainable. they aren't even close. And how can you suggest that it's okay to eat one kind of animal and not the other? Why is chicken or cow fine to slaughter (after a life of mistreatment, I might add), but hunting is cruel? That makes absolutely no sense.

Your posts are both hypocritical, in that you are failing to acknowledge the impact that factory farming (all this meat from the store that you keep saying is somehow more acceptable for us to eat) has on the survival of the wild animals you are so concerned about hunting, and confusing, in that
you seem to be clinging to this bizarre stereotype of the typical North American hunter that you got off some TV show.

Several of us have tried to explain to you that hunting and fishing here is NOT as you are making it out to be and you keep providing obscure and bizarre examples (from the same show?) and insisting that hunting and poaching are the same thing and that they are cruel.

When you say something like "I know there are limitations - but quite often people do not stick to that", you are implying that the hunting community is accepting of poachers. They are NOT. It is extremely insulting to insinuate that. It is a very serious offense to break hunting or fishing regulations, and it is treated as such. We have hotlines for reporting poachers and they get used.

Maybe you need to make a trip out here to see for yourself, rather than let some biased TV show make up your mind for you?

 

[katrina1987]

I have not let some tv show make up my mind for me. I think it is wrong and you think it right we shall leave it at that. I think thats the best thing. I don't want to argue. This is why I think it is uncalled for:

Although it was a crucial part of humans’ survival 100,000 years ago, hunting is now nothing more than a violent form of recreation that the vast majority of hunters do not need for subsistence.(1) Hunting has contributed to the extinction of animal species all over the world, including the Tasmanian tiger and the great auk.(2,3)

Less than 5 percent of the U.S. population hunts, yet hunting is permitted in many wildlife refuges, national forests, and state parks and on other public lands.(4) Almost 40 percent of hunters slaughter and maim millions of animals on public land every year, and by some estimates, poachers kill just as many animals illegally.(5,6)

Pain and Suffering

Many animals suffer prolonged, painful deaths when they are injured but not killed by hunters. A member of the Maine Bowhunters Alliance estimates that 50 percent of animals who are shot with crossbows are wounded but not killed.(7) A study of 80 radio-collared white-tailed deer found that of the 22 deer who had been shot with “traditional archery equipment,” 11 were wounded but not recovered by hunters.(8) Twenty percent of foxes who have been wounded by hunters are shot again; 10 percent manage to escape, but “starvation is a likely fate” for them, according to one veterinarian.(9) A South Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and Parks biologist estimates that more than 3 million wounded ducks go “unretrieved” every year.(10) A British study of deer hunting found that 11 percent of deer who’d been killed by hunters died only after being shot two or more times and that some wounded deer suffered for more than 15 minutes before dying.(11)

Hunting disrupts migration and hibernation patterns and destroys families. For animals like wolves, who mate for life and live in close-knit family units, hunting can devastate entire communities. The stress that hunted animals suffer—caused by fear and the inescapable loud noises and other commotion that hunters create—also severely compromises their normal eating habits, making it hard for them to store the fat and energy that they need in order to survive the winter.

Blood-Thirsty and Profit-Driven

To attract more hunters (and their money), federal and state agencies implement programs—often called “wildlife management” or “conservation” programs—that are designed to boost the numbers of “game” species. These programs help to ensure that there are plenty of animals for hunters to kill and, consequently, plenty of revenue from the sale of hunting licenses.

Duck hunters in Louisiana persuaded the state wildlife agency to direct $100,000 a year toward “reduced predator impact,” which involved trapping foxes and raccoons so that more duck eggs would hatch, giving hunters more birds to kill.(12) The Ohio Division of Wildlife teamed up with a hunter-organized society to push for clear-cutting (i.e., decimating large tracts of trees) in Wayne National Forest in order to “produce habitat needed by ruffed grouse.”(13)

In Alaska, the Department of Fish and Game is trying to increase the number of moose for hunters by “controlling” the wolf and bear populations. Grizzlies and black bears have been moved hundreds of miles away from their homes; two were shot by hunters within two weeks of their relocation, and others have simply returned to their homes.(14) Wolves have been slaughtered in order to “let the moose population rebound and provide a higher harvest for local hunters.”(15) In the early 1990s, a program designed to reduce the wolf population backfired when snares failed to kill victims quickly, and photos of suffering wolves were viewed by an outraged public.(16)

Also a few pics for people to see what hunters do (not poachers as people keep going on about)

 

[Sarahkka]

Let me guess...
All above points copied and pasted from some PETA-like website?

And yet farming animals for meat is perfectly fine?

As I said before, hypocrisy.

 

[katrina1987]

No you are wrong actually

 

[Nic1107]

ffs. Bears get eaten too, but taking a picture with them automatically makes it cruel and confirms every stereotype of the hunters being spread around, right?

To suggest that breeding livestock for food and keeping them caged up for their entire lives until the day they're electrocuted and packed off to the supermarket is somehow preferable to hunting is mental. You know what I think? If people who choose to eat meat (no offense to vegetarians, but I'm addressing omnivores here ) want to eat meat, it would be better for animals and the environment if they had to hunt them or raise their animals on their own farms, like the old days. Obviously not going to work in this day and age especially as most people are centered in urban areas, and not preferable in the sense that life would be harder and people may not be as well-fed again, but I still can't see how anyone thinks factory-farmed animals have it better. Or that eating a cow (who is, by the way, pretty defenseless compared to a bear!) is okay but eating animals you don't typically find at the market isn't.

 

[cleckner04]

I'm really confused why north america is being completely bashed here. Do they not hunt in the UK? I thought the royal family took great fun in going out for hunts and make a huge party out of it. Or maybe I've watched too many movies... Okay..just googled and a TON of hunting sites came up for the UK. INCLUDING fox hunting. So what's the big issue against north america?

The funny thing is that hunting tigers keeps being brought up. You don't HUNT tigers. You POACH them. Which has been said SEVERAL times and repeatedly ignored.

The typical hunter goes out with the purpose of putting meat on the table for his/her family. Not everyone can afford to put meat on the table.. My SIL raises chickens for the sole purpose of killing them. They live a wonderful free roaming life..and than we kill them. *gasp!* She's also raised a pig and a cow for the exact same purpose.

 

[Nibblenic]

I'll be honest Ive not read the entire thread and can only offer my opinion of hunting in the UK as I have no knowledge of other couties.

I am not against Fox hunting. Foxes are vermin and thier population has to be controlled. As well as many othre animals like rabbits etc. How that happens I dont really mind. Even if it is purely for sport.
My uncle breeds pheasants on his land in the country for the sole puropse of hunting them for sport. Thats okay by me. Sometimes he'll hang them and eat them but whatever

I dont find doing these things anymore crule than some farming techniques used to supply our super markets. At least these animals felt some grass underfoot and knew freedom before thier death.

I think alot of people get caught up in the cute ickle bunnies or the fluffy tailed foxes and dont see these animals as unwanted pests no different from rats. I also think we get too caught up in 'humaine death' Just because we as humans have decided its okay to kill something if we do it in a certain way. However we'll only do it that way if it doesnt affect profit or damaging a paticular part of an animal which aybe of high retail value.

 

[Char.due.jan]

I disagree with hunting for sport completely. I'm talking about UK here.

I'm sure theres a more humane form of pest control than letting a pack of dogs chase and rip the animal apart. Its disgusting and how anyone can find that entertainment is strange to me.

Maybe we should bring back gladiator type sports and watch some of the people that indulge in hunting for pure sport get ripped apart by a lion? Wouldn't that be such great entertainment

And to breed animals just to purely hunt and kill them I find sickening!

 

[Nibblenic]

Out of the entire sport of hunting and poaching though it is only a very small amount of it that use dogs to kill. The animals in main are killed with a bullet from a gun and yes sometimes retrived by a dog but they are already dead and the dog is normally trained not to damage them

I think the when people hear hunting for sport they think of upper class men in red coats on horse back. Which is obvously far less common especially since the hunting ban.

And tbh I dont really see a more humaine way to kill an animal other than with a gun and a shot to the heart

 

[feisty_filly]

Out of the entire sport of hunting and poaching though it is only a very small amount of it that use dogs to kill. The animals in main are killed with a bullet from a gun and yes sometimes retrived by a dog but they are already dead and the dog is normally trained not to damage them

I think the when people hear hunting for sport they think of upper class men in red coats on horse back. Which is obvously far less common especially since the hunting ban.

And tbh I dont really see a more humaine way to kill an animal other than with a gun and a shot to the heart

i totaly agree, and even if it is a fox hunt legaly the fox is killed by a man on a quad that runs ahead of the hunt and shoots it befor the dogs get there. some people that are against hunting realy dont understand the damage these vermin do!

 

[Aidan's Mummy]

I'm not against hunting as long as it Is done in a humane and quick way I.e. Shooting. Not watching a pack of dogs rip it to pieces that Is disgusting.

As for foxes being a nuisance yes they may well be but they have to eat. And they cannot say " ooh there's s farmers sheep I won't touch them because it will be wrong to do that". They can't make that distinction. They hunt to eat and survive. What's are excuse? X

 

[midori1999]

fox hunting is a way to control the fox population. it may be illegal to go fox hunting now but the same amount still die every year as they are killed anyway by farmers to protect there livestock and if anything they die a more painful death now as most are shot but dont die instantly

more painful than being killed by a pack of dogs? i think that's questionable.

It's not that debatable when you know what you're talking about. Dogs are naturally very efficient and quick and killing foxes. On the other hand, most farmers own shotguns, which will likely seriously kill and injure a fox, but not likely kill it outright, you need a rifle for that.

I don't like the idea of 'trophy' hunting, but I don't disagre with hunting if the animal will be used for food.

My husband and I go shooting. In fact, my 14 year old son has shot his first rabbit today. As soon as he can be safe around a shotgun and be sensible about it, my 10 year oild will start shooting too. We would never waste a rabbit (or goruse, phesant or whatever) that is killed, if we don't eat them then we give them to neighbours or the dogs/ferret eat them. Nothing is wasted except what is left of the fur/skin. Yes, it is primarily a sport, but the sport is hitting a target, not killing something and as long as that animal is not wasted or endangered in any way, I see no problem with it.

Personally, I would prefer to eat an animal that has lived a happy life in the wild than an intensicely farmed chicken/cow/pig/sheep. (we do keep our own hens but currently can't keep meat birds as we only have enough room for layers). We do buy meat too but always go for the free range/high welfare standard meats. Once my husband retires from his job we will have a small holding and rear all our own meat.

I don't want to be a vegetarian or vegan but that doesn't mean I am not an animal lover or don't care about the animals I eat.

 

[xemmax]

fox hunting is a way to control the fox population. it may be illegal to go fox hunting now but the same amount still die every year as they are killed anyway by farmers to protect there livestock and if anything they die a more painful death now as most are shot but dont die instantly

more painful than being killed by a pack of dogs? i think that's questionable.

It's not that debatable when you know what you're talking about. Dogs are naturally very efficient and quick and killing foxes. On the other hand, most farmers own shotguns, which will likely seriously kill and injure a fox, but not likely kill it outright, you need a rifle for that.

I don't like the idea of 'trophy' hunting, but I don't disagre with hunting if the animal will be used for food.

My husband and I go shooting. In fact, my 14 year old son has shot his first rabbit today. As soon as he can be safe around a shotgun and be sensible about it, my 10 year oild will start shooting too. We would never waste a rabbit (or goruse, phesant or whatever) that is killed, if we don't eat them then we give them to neighbours or the dogs/ferret eat them. Nothing is wasted except what is left of the fur/skin. Yes, it is primarily a sport, but the sport is hitting a target, not killing something and as long as that animal is not wasted or endangered in any way, I see no problem with it.

Personally, I would prefer to eat an animal that has lived a happy life in the wild than an intensicely farmed chicken/cow/pig/sheep. (we do keep our own hens but currently can't keep meat birds as we only have enough room for layers). We do buy meat too but always go for the free range/high welfare standard meats. Once my husband retires from his job we will have a small holding and rear all our own meat.

I don't want to be a vegetarian or vegan but that doesn't mean I am not an animal lover or don't care about the animals I eat.

if being killed by dogs is quicker and less painful than being killed by a shotgun, and you care so much about the animals you eat as you claim, then why do you use guns?

 

[Nibblenic]

I think efficianty goes

Riffle
Dog
Shotgun

According to the above user. I dont have enough knowledge to comment.
I shoot but pretend animals with arrows

 

[midori1999]

fox hunting is a way to control the fox population. it may be illegal to go fox hunting now but the same amount still die every year as they are killed anyway by farmers to protect there livestock and if anything they die a more painful death now as most are shot but dont die instantly

more painful than being killed by a pack of dogs? i think that's questionable.

It's not that debatable when you know what you're talking about. Dogs are naturally very efficient and quick and killing foxes. On the other hand, most farmers own shotguns, which will likely seriously kill and injure a fox, but not likely kill it outright, you need a rifle for that.

I don't like the idea of 'trophy' hunting, but I don't disagre with hunting if the animal will be used for food.

My husband and I go shooting. In fact, my 14 year old son has shot his first rabbit today. As soon as he can be safe around a shotgun and be sensible about it, my 10 year oild will start shooting too. We would never waste a rabbit (or goruse, phesant or whatever) that is killed, if we don't eat them then we give them to neighbours or the dogs/ferret eat them. Nothing is wasted except what is left of the fur/skin. Yes, it is primarily a sport, but the sport is hitting a target, not killing something and as long as that animal is not wasted or endangered in any way, I see no problem with it.

Personally, I would prefer to eat an animal that has lived a happy life in the wild than an intensicely farmed chicken/cow/pig/sheep. (we do keep our own hens but currently can't keep meat birds as we only have enough room for layers). We do buy meat too but always go for the free range/high welfare standard meats. Once my husband retires from his job we will have a small holding and rear all our own meat.

I don't want to be a vegetarian or vegan but that doesn't mean I am not an animal lover or don't care about the animals I eat.

if being killed by dogs is quicker and less painful than being killed by a shotgun, and you care so much about the animals you eat as you claim, then why do you use guns?

It's illegal to hunt with dogs in the UK for a start.

A shotgun will kill a rabbit/pheasant/grouse outright. It will not usually kill a bigger animal like a fox outright. It certainly wouldn't kill a bigger animal like a deer outright.

 

[xemmax]

fox hunting is a way to control the fox population. it may be illegal to go fox hunting now but the same amount still die every year as they are killed anyway by farmers to protect there livestock and if anything they die a more painful death now as most are shot but dont die instantly

more painful than being killed by a pack of dogs? i think that's questionable.

It's not that debatable when you know what you're talking about. Dogs are naturally very efficient and quick and killing foxes. On the other hand, most farmers own shotguns, which will likely seriously kill and injure a fox, but not likely kill it outright, you need a rifle for that.

I don't like the idea of 'trophy' hunting, but I don't disagre with hunting if the animal will be used for food.

My husband and I go shooting. In fact, my 14 year old son has shot his first rabbit today. As soon as he can be safe around a shotgun and be sensible about it, my 10 year oild will start shooting too. We would never waste a rabbit (or goruse, phesant or whatever) that is killed, if we don't eat them then we give them to neighbours or the dogs/ferret eat them. Nothing is wasted except what is left of the fur/skin. Yes, it is primarily a sport, but the sport is hitting a target, not killing something and as long as that animal is not wasted or endangered in any way, I see no problem with it.

Personally, I would prefer to eat an animal that has lived a happy life in the wild than an intensicely farmed chicken/cow/pig/sheep. (we do keep our own hens but currently can't keep meat birds as we only have enough room for layers). We do buy meat too but always go for the free range/high welfare standard meats. Once my husband retires from his job we will have a small holding and rear all our own meat.

I don't want to be a vegetarian or vegan but that doesn't mean I am not an animal lover or don't care about the animals I eat.

if being killed by dogs is quicker and less painful than being killed by a shotgun, and you care so much about the animals you eat as you claim, then why do you use guns?

It's illegal to hunt with dogs in the UK for a start.

A shotgun will kill a rabbit/pheasant/grouse outright. It will not usually kill a bigger animal like a fox outright. It certainly wouldn't kill a bigger animal like a deer outright.

looking back at my comment it looked as though i was suggesting you should hunt with dogs, that wasn't what i meant.

thanks for clearing that up. so you only hunt smaller animals with a shotgun?