Tom Venesky: Air rifles for big game in Pennsylvania lacks merit – Outdoor News
Some hunters prefer to hunt deer with traditional bows or a muzzleloader because they like the challenge of hunting with a primitive weapon.
But there’s a big difference between a challenge and ethics.
I don’t begrudge anyone who chooses to hunt with a recurve, for example, or even a muzzleloader. They are effective choices when used in the corresponding season.
When it comes to the ethical choice, however, I’ve always believed that you use the tool that is most capable of a quick, clean, one-shot kill.
And there’s no question that a high-powered rifle is unmatched in that regard. The challenge that comes with using a primitive weapon is great, but hunting isn’t a game. Ultimately, we’re taking a life of an animal, and we owe it to our quarry to use the most effective weapon to get the job done in a humane manner.
It’s about respecting the game we pursue. Ethics.
With that sentiment in mind, a proposal by a Pennsylvania legislator to allow the use of air rifles for big game hunting just doesn’t sit right.
State Rep. Gary Day, R-Lehigh County, announced his intent to introduce legislation to allow large caliber air rifles to be used to hunt big game. In his memo from May 7, Day stated that 29 other states already do that, and if legalized, air rifle use in Pennsylvania would modernize our hunting laws.
MORE COVERAGE FROM PENNSYLVANIA OUTDOOR NEWS:
Brood XIV cicadas popping up across Pennsylvania to the benefit of turkeys
Notes off a soiled cuff: Stiffer penalties coming for trail cam vandals in Pennsylvania?
Day also points out that today’s air rifles can achieve the velocity and energy needed for “ethical big game hunting.”
Again, we already have what’s needed for ethical big-game hunting, and that’s the high-powered rifle. Even though Day states today’s air rifles “are not your childhood BB guns,” they’re certainly not a .270 Winchester, either.
Still, I read Day’s case for air rifles with an open mind. I really never gave much thought to the use of higher calibers of air rifles being used for things like deer and other big game, so I wanted to hear Day’s case.
Maybe I could be convinced.
Unfortunately, all I found were vague buzzwords and phrases – “attract new hunters,” “opportunity,” and (this one really didn’t fit the narrative) “supporting hunting traditions.” I’m really not sure what tradition would be supported by allowing air rifles for big game, since they’ve always been prohibited.
Buzzwords aside, Day’s co-sponsorship memo for the legislation (which as of May 23 had yet to be introduced), also contained a glaring contradiction among today’s wildlife management purists. Day wrote… “With proper legislation and oversight, we can responsibly integrate air rifles into Pennsylvania’s wildlife management framework while maintaining public safety and environmental stewardship.”
Wait a minute, I thought the current narrative was supposed to be legislators shouldn’t be involved in wildlife management issues. Those types of things are for the professionals only, or at least that’s the common mantra I’ve been hearing lately. I think there’s a term for it, “ballot box biology,” or something like that.
So what does Day mean when he wrote, “we can responsibly integrate air rifles into Pennsylvania’s wildlife management framework?” Sounds to me like a little bit of ballot box biology, so surely the pro-science crowd will be vocal in their opposition to any legislative attempt to expand the use of air rifles, right?
Silly narratives aside, I still searched for examples of how air rifles for big game could be beneficial, and if it’s something that’s really needed. I suppose air rifles, which can be fitted with noise suppression technology and have an effective range of less than 75 yards, could be useful in the special regulations areas or when hunting near housing developments. It would be similar to archery hunting, albeit remotely.
In the end, I’m still not convinced that air rifles for big game is a necessity for Pennsylvania. I really don’t care how many other states allow them (29), and the “increased opportunity” argument holds no water when we have the longest deer seasons in the state’s history to go along with a record-high antlerless license allocation.
Adding another weapon into the mix of liberal seasons already in place is overkill. Let’s just see how things play out for a while before we start allowing new methods to kill deer.
That’s why, for right now, the idea of allowing air rifles for big game is one that’s full of hot air.
