Shooting prairie dogs with a suppressed rifle in OK & KS

[Grendel]

hmmm...hogs don't count as game animals, do they?

 

[twocan]

hmmm...hogs don't count as game animals, do they?

nope, Shoot them whit anything you have.

 

[jhawknokc]

If a tree falls in the forest and nobody is around does it make any noise?

Do you understand my parable?

I was thinking the same thing.

 

[fire65]

Why would you need to. Hunted them all my life in Ok with a .22.

 

[vdub]

I have heard some people getting in contact with the game warden for the area they will be hunting and asking them. Some have even received a letter stating the game warden's opinion in case they run into someone asking what is going on. I believe there are some threads about it over on OK Predator Hunters Association.

 

[Wormydog1724]

hmmm...hogs don't count as game animals, do they?

Its been my understanding that HOGS are game animals because they are stated in the regs. There are regulations on them. Same goes for coyotes. All the regs say is that they can be hunted year round from daylight to dusk and I've heard that even that little bit of a mention is enough to qualify them as a "game animal"

If a tree falls in the forest and nobody is around does it make any noise?

Do you understand my parable?

That's worth about 5 to 10 in the pen. Do you understand that one?

Why would you need to. Hunted them all my life in Ok with a .22.

Because.

 

[dennishoddy]

I just got my latest issue of Shooting Illustrated. There is a short story in there that said the Ks legislature overwhelmingly passed a law allowing supressors for hunting. It did not say if the Gov. signed it or what. I'm sure the mag is a couple of weeks behind real time.
Anybody have any more info?

 

[Wormydog1724]

I'd like to hear more info on this. And some info on why in the hell OK hasn't allowed it. Seriously give me 3 GOOD reasons why they shouldn't be allowed.

 

[vdub]

Wormy,

Some of the reasons I have seen thrown out by some for not allowing suppressors to be used while hunting in OK are:

1. It would be immoral.
2. It runs the sanctity and pureness of the hunt.
3. It is just plain not necessary.
4. It will lead to an increase in poaching.
5. Animals won't hear the report of the shot when you fire at them.
6. Rangers won't be able to hear gun shots when trying to track down poachers.

I am sure there are others I have forgotten to include. As you can see, most of these reasons are more personal thoughts and feelings than something that is backuped with some kind of facts or numbers. As for the report, nothing will really change unless the person is firing subsonic ammo which would not be too smart for hunting animals of a decent size.

The bill Senator Russell did introduce in the Senate that would have given landowners and their guests the ability to use suppressors for hunting was gutted to allow an open carry bill to make it to a vote. However, that bill was killed as well so we actually lost both of them. I have a bad feeling that the suppressor bill won't get reintroduced in either house in the future.

If it does, I hope they fix the wording to something along the lines of:

Section 5-201. A. Except as otherwise provided for in this section, no person may utilize at any time, for the purpose of killing or capturing any game mammal, game bird or nongame bird, the following means:

1. Any trap, net, snare, cage, pitfall, baited hook or similar device;
2. Any drug, poison, narcotic, explosive or similar substance;
3. Any swivel or punt gun of greater calibre than ten (10) gauge;
4. Any device which generates electricity; or
5. Any device which noticeably suppresses noise from a firearm, commonly known as a suppressor.

5.a. Unless the person has followed all requirements and provisions of the National Firearms Act regulations and tax requirements for lawful ownership and use of such weapons.​

​

 

[Wormydog1724]

Wormy,

Some of the reasons I have seen thrown out by some for not allowing suppressors to be used while hunting in OK are:

1. It would be immoral.
2. It runs the sanctity and pureness of the hunt.
3. It is just plain not necessary.
4. It will lead to an increase in poaching.
5. Animals won't hear the report of the shot when you fire at them.
6. Rangers won't be able to hear gun shots when trying to track down poachers.

I am sure there are others I have forgotten to include. As you can see, most of these reasons are more personal thoughts and feelings than something that is backuped with some kind of facts or numbers. As for the report, nothing will really change unless the person is firing subsonic ammo which would not be too smart for hunting animals of a decent size.

The bill Senator Russell did introduce in the Senate that would have given landowners and their guests the ability to use suppressors for hunting was gutted to allow an open carry bill to make it to a vote. However, that bill was killed as well so we actually lost both of them. I have a bad feeling that the suppressor bill won't get reintroduced in either house in the future.

If it does, I hope they fix the wording to something along the lines of:
[/INDENT][/INDENT]

If these are your worries or if you are stating them in general for the people (losers) that are opposed to allowing it, I have this in repsonse.

1. How or what makes it immoral? Is killing an unsuspecting animal not immoral enough already? Using decoys, calls, and baiting not immoral?
2. Again how does making a firearm "quieter" make it unsporting or unpure?
3. I don't want to be deaf. And I sure as hell am not going to be wearing ear muffs/plugs when hunting. I suppose I COULD use plugs or muffs, but really I find that dangerous in case some dumbass is trespassing and comes lumbering past my deer stand. I wanna hear him coming. ie. no muffs.
4. How will it lead to increased poaching? You think Joe Citizen will spend $800, +$200 tax stamp, go through the process with the ATF, pass the background check, wait 60+ days to get the suppressor, then go and run the risk of losing his firearms, right to vote, right to hunt, several thousand dollars in fines and jail time? Maybe dumbass Joe Redneck would, but again he's a dumbass and would be poaching with or without a suppressor anyways.
5. Uh.. So? When I call coyotes, I shoot one, and keep the call running. Probably 50% of the time another one will still come in and investigate and I can easily get a double. I have even gotten a triple and missed the forth coyote because I jumped up excited after shooting the first 3. I really don't think it will make a difference either way to a coyote. Or a hog. Or a prairie dog.
6. Again goes back to #4. Although I can see this as the top if not the only REAL concern.

I just wanna know if I can shoot prairie dogs in Kansas with my suppressed AR.