Poll about allowing suppressors for hunting purposes

[MAS GunWorks]

Please vote once. We are trying to collect information about allowing suppressors to be used while hunting in Oklahoma. Several other States in the US currently allow them for hunting purposes.

European countries have allowed the use of suppressors for hunting purposes for decades.

What would the down side be to allowing this?

What would the advantages be?

Please post your comments.

 

[silenttim]

I'd love to be able to use my suppressed 22 to hunt squirrels with. The one main upside is of course not startling other game in the area or other hunters when your out and about.

 

[gillman7]

I don't see a downside to this. Some will say that it could increase opportunity for poaching, but let's face it, it is not the people that buy a suppressor, pay the tax stamp, that are the poachers.

I would like to see it legalized to cut down on my hearing loss, provide additional shots at multiple varmit targets, such as skitish coyotes. My usage would primarily be varmits, and it would allow a better harvest of animals in the event of misjudging range on an animal.

 

[jmiller45]

I voted yes, but not for hunting deer just for the reason that would make it easier for poachers I think. But I would love to be able to use one for hog extermination!

 

[Spiff]

I've heard that hogs will come back to an area more quickly if a suppressor is used. I'd suspect that this is probably true for most other game too.

 

[imhntn]

I would like them just to protect my hearing. I think deer poachers are going to poach with any means possible whatever the law is. Maybe jack up the charges for poaching with a suppressed weapon. I just like the quiet.

 

[lameduck]

I voted yes and here is why:

1. Avoid hearing loss
2. Increased ability to take multiple hogs, I know they are not a huge problem YET but they will be soon. I am building a rifle to use in Texas that will be suppressed to use for hogs, because they have taken over and ran off the majority of the deer.
3. Poachers are going to poach whether they have a suppressor or not. We now have compound bows that can accurately shoot 80 yrds. and have night sights.
4. Poachers most likely would not be able to obtain a suppressor legally, because most of them have committed crimes in the past.
5. I will think of more reasons and post them up.

 

[dennishoddy]

Poachers are going to poach no matter what. The road hunting maggots don't care.
Supressors would be great for those hunting near urban areas, and preserving our hearing. I'd think the powers that be, would be more interested in the health and well being of the human hunter vs some poacher shooting a deer.
I know this is off topic, but the story leads to the same lame excuses I get when asking about blood trailing with dogs.
I've been beating the drum with every wildlife dept employee about using dogs to blood track a deer. It would be regulated and licensed. A person could call a tracker, paying them a fee to find a deer. The stock answer I get is they don't want to do that because of some poachers that run deer with dogs in SE Okla.

I don't give a crap about what the poachers in SE Okla do. Thats an enforcement problem that is out of my control. It is within the scope of control of the ODW.

All this ties back into the supressor question about should we be allow to use them or not. The same stock answer from the ODW about poachers using supressors, or using dogs, makes no sense to me.

Do not interpret any thing I said as bad mouthing the ODW. Those guys do a heck of a job considering the budgets they have to work under, and the miles they have to cover in the everyday part of their job.
My hat goes off to them.

 

[ignerntbend]

That they would help avoid hearing loss seems like a real advantage to me.
Beyond that, people desperately need all the gizmos they can get.
Let them have their toys. No harm done.
The hearing protection especially for kids is a real positive.

 

[Glocktogo]

I think the reason they're not allowed is the negative "movie type" stygma and a fear that it'll make it easier for poachers. The stygma is wrong and outdated, and the type of person who would poach deer isn't going to pay for a $200 tax stamp and wait months for ATF approval.

Do you know any avid gun hunters over the age of 40 that don't have significant hearing loss? All the ones I know do. It's a health issue and should be viewed as such. I say allow them, and I don't even hunt anymore.