Printable View
The picture is of a bull with a very odd rack, my concern is that the person taking the picture did not have a bull tag and it taking the picture through their scope with the crosshairs on the moose.
To me this is against the basics of hunting, don't use your scope to scan for things, unless you intend to shoot the animal don't point the gun at it.
Why not use your binoculars to take this photo?
Because he didn't have any? Because that would be really hard to do? I don't have a problem with the picture. It seems he identified it as a moose prior to lining up on it, rather scanning with his scope and spotting it. He didn't pull the trigger. It's no different than me putting a bead on a flushing bird and saying "bang" instead of pulling the trigger, which I have done.
Admitting you have done something... does not make it right.Quote:
Originally Posted by smallgamer
You identify your target (as well as any potential dangers in the fore & background) BEFORE pointing a firearm at it, and only if you intend to kill it.
You do not point a firearm at anyone/thing just to look at them through the scope or down the sights.
Responsible and safe firearm use 101.
Clarification: this post was not aimed at Smallgamer as folks like him will not care or use proper firearm control regardless of who nags them. It was made for any young/beginning hunters reading the forums who may begin to think that unsafe firearm use is "okay".
The guy may have been unloaded, there may have been no risk of the firearm going off, the bolt may have been removed. What I am concerned with is that the OOD Magazine has this as a title picture but this is 100% contradictory to what we are all taught about gun safety and hunting. If that gun was loaded and it went off you now have an illegally shot bull moose laying in the bush somewhere.
If you identify the animal as a moose and then you look for sex, once you discover that the moose is not a shooter you should be moving your gun away from the moose as to not risk a bad thing happening.
When I saw the picture and story, I thought exactly the same thin.
There should have at least been some sort of disclaimer. This does go against safe gun handling and should not have been posted.
For those who think this is pom, how would you feel if it was a picture of another hunter in the scope?
I think this is apples and oranges as for the example of glassing a person the Canadian Criminal Code would probably come into play. I often have to glass a deer using my scope in the bush to identify sex (but I guess my tag is good for either). I did not see the pic in OOD, is it possible the scope was not even on the gun?Quote:
Originally Posted by JMatthews
Go to www.oodmag.com, on the front page there is a pop up with a photo of the week. The scope is on the gun with the crosshairs on the area of the vitals. This was a submitted photo.Quote:
Originally Posted by skeeter1
I also agree this is bit over the top for OOD, as they are supposed to set an example.
They state explicitly in their rules on the submittal page:
"Photos must depict safe hunting and fishing practices (i.e. tags on animals, unloaded firearms, hunter orange, lifejackets on youth in boats and on docks). - See more at: http://www.oodmag.com/memory-bank/memory-bank-submission-form/#sthash.oezU51ga.dpuf"
aside from this it is a neat picture. but the one I submitted was way cooler!! stay tuned and it will be the winner next week ;)
is this thread for real?
I can't imagine going through life wondering what can I be offended by or take issue with today
You read it and and commented, so what's worse a silly thread, or someone that takes the time to read a silly thread then makes a negative comment. I'm going with the latter.Quote:
Originally Posted by browning3812