I recently watched one of those "hunting shows" on the OD Channel. It featured Scott Haugen, and showed him preparing his six year old son for his first "big game hunt". He used an Encore G2 to work his son up from a 22 LR to a 204 Ruger, then took his son to the TX Panhandle, where the youngster took a pronghorn with the diminutive Ruger. The antelope was in wide open country, and fell within camera range, so there was no problem retrieving the game.

Here is the question: was he irresponsible in using that small a caliber, and would you do the same thing, or would you wait a couple years, to where your son or daughter could use a larger caliber?

Not sure whether it was being irresponsible or just a case of not really thinking about the statement a stunt like that makes to other hunters.

While I don't really support their use on pronghorn or whitetail size animals, I feel that it would have been better for him to have worked with his son and got him used to one of the 224 caliber cartridges, 222, 223, 22-250, IMO would have been a better choice. Also waiting a year or two might have been more prudent.

Other questions that beg to be asked are, "Was It Just A Stunt", and "Were There Other Pronghorns Shot To Finally Get That Piece Of Footage".

Depending on the 6 year old, the ability level might be there, but are the emotional and analytical maturity levels enough, that the child can comprehend all of the aspects of killing an animal. JMO.

A six year old hunting is a stunt IMO regardless of which six year old. If a child can carry his own gun, aim his own gun and hit the mark then it's time to think about hunting.The idea of daddy carrying the gun, aiming the gun and all the kid has to do is pull the trigger is a stunt.As far as emotional maturity etc , there is a huge change in the six year to eight year development. While i can see a 7 or 8 year start for shooting hunting is a bit different.

My son is 6. He gets to go with me, but does not handle any ML, or firearm. He's not ready.

I think a 223 with a muzzlebreak would be more appropriate, but then, why bother when he can wait a couple more years and shoot something like the 223 anyway without a break.

quote:

Originally posted by Doubless:
Here is the question: was he irresponsible in using that small a caliber, and would you do the same thing, or would you wait a couple years, to where your son or daughter could use a larger caliber?

I understand that Doubless is asking a question in this thread, but even suggesting that another hunter's actions or methods are irresponsible or unethical sure comes across as elitist.

Both my sons killed their first deer at 6 with a NEF 223. I had done my "homework" at the range with my boys, and they both made perfect one shot kills. Am I irresponsible?

If the Scott Haugen or I had taken our 6 year olds out having never shot a gun prior to the hunt, YES, that would be very IRRESPONSIBLE, but I don't see anything wrong with a kid using a mild recoiling caliber as long as they are prepared to take a shot at game. I had personally rather see a kid shoot a mild recoiling caliber that they can handle instead of a larger caliber that they are afraid of.

If a kid is "ready" to hunt and has been prepared for the shot, why wait?

I think we can express our own opinions about another hunter's actions without being tagged "elitist". I can think of any number of actions by hunters that are unethical in my opinion, such as wounding game and not attempting to follow up. Or shooting across highways. Or using centerfire ammo in shotgun-only areas.

I think the "elitist" label comes out when someone questions something WE don't think is unethical or irresponsible. In defense, we call the person "elitist". It isn't necessary to call someone names just because they question something we find nothing wrong in doing.

I feel this is not only irresponsible as a hunter but as a parent. It is likely a stunt for the sake of production rather than an experience shared by a father and son. Akin to the parents who live own their unfulfilled atheletic fantasies through their children.

That said I have been a hunter ed instructor for many years. I live in a state without an age restriction and staunchly defend that as A GOOD THING. In today's society too many potential hunters are lost to "other things" by the time they're old enough to hunt in many states. I feel it is the instructor's responsibility to determine if the student is "ready" and his responsibility to deny certification if not. While we do not have an age restriction my team typically sets eight YOA as the minimum - we've had younger kids who passed and much older ones who didn't. Kids like anyone are individuals and exhibit different traits and skills levels.

Six however is quite tender! Few six year-olds could read or even comprehend the required instruction. [I do not know if Texas has a hunter ed requirement] Few six year-olds can comprehend the nuances and responsibilities between taking game and shooting targets. At six they should by all means be accompaning their dad (or mom) hunting if they're interested but very few are ready to kill game. One determining factor is being able to safely handle their own rifle. It sounds like this guy couldn't or at least didn't and that tells me he should have waited a year or two.

Now is the .204 Ruger a big game cartridge? ABSOLUTELY NOT!!! Especially not in the hands of an inexperienced hunter.

I have taught hunter safety for 8 years now in Washington and Idaho-- Idaho has an age limit; Washington, however does not.

A parent can literally bring a 6...5...4 year old and we are not allowed to disqualify them or refuse them based upon "age" (at any point that they refuse to perform an action or exhibit an unsafe action we can fail them-- which is what has happened in the few cases I have dealt with.)

Back to the thread--- I think 6 is TOO YOUNG to kill with a firearm. I realize their may be hundreds of examples of kids this age doing all kinds of wonderful things (at times with firearms) at this age- I also realize parents know their children better than anyone else (including a government agency like the Game Dept.) but at some point I think parental judgement becomes clouded, especially when waiting for Jr. to get to an age they can take them to the field.

JMO.

IV

oupa, Texas is a strange place in regards to our hunting laws. A 6 year old can be issued a license, complete with all the tags, as can be a 4 year old. TP&W only gets actively involved if the youth in question was born on or after Sept. 2, 1971. The catch is, if they are younger than 12, they can not take the Hunter Ed course and be certified. A 9 or 10 year old can sit in on the classes, but they can't take the course and pass the exam until they are 12. They can hold a license and if able to fire the gun, at 4 or 5 years old, they can legally shoot game in Texas. And believe me, some folks have their kids killing game, when they are 4 years old.

To me, it is more a case of the caliber used than the age of the shooter. How many folks that are much older are now going to go out and try to duplicate or even better the shot that was made. How many folks will go out and try to see at what ranges the 204 is effective on Pronghorn or Whitetails?

quote:

Originally posted by Daks:
I think we can express our own opinions about another hunter's actions without being tagged "elitist". I can think of any number of actions by hunters that are unethical in my opinion, such as wounding game and not attempting to follow up. Or shooting across highways. Or using centerfire ammo in shotgun-only areas.

I think the "elitist" label comes out when someone questions something WE don't think is unethical or irresponsible. In defense, we call the person "elitist". It isn't necessary to call someone names just because they question something we find nothing wrong in doing.

Daks
Evidently, you only read one word in my entire post. I did not CALL anyone an elitist, I said suggesting irresponsibility COMES ACROSS that way. If I stepped on yours or Doubless' toes, I sincerely apologize. I personally don't give a damn whether a kids is killing deer at 4 or 14 or if they are using a 204 or a bazooka. If it is legal in their state, let them go for it. It was said in another post but bears repeating. There are too many other activities attracting our young people away from hunting and other shooting sports for us to be arguing over age and caliber selection. I just appreciate seeing kids in the woods.

In my own family, my 15 year old has lost all interest in guns and hunting and has taken up team sports and video games, but my 13 year old is eat up with every aspect of hunting and shooting. He killed 2 deer with his muzzleloader and 3 with his rifle. I also have an 18 month old daughter and, like it or not, I intend to have her in a stand as soon as she can handle a gun safely. I already have her a Marlin 336Y waiting in my safe. God Bless Texas and having no minimum hunting age!!!

Nope, I read your entire post. Differentiating between "comes across as elitist" and "elitist" is a distinction without a difference in my opinion.

My toesies aren't stepped on at all, no worries there. My issue wasn't even so much your post as a general statement about a trend I've seen on this site, where people get their hackles up because they figure someone is making a value judgment about them personally and out come the spears.

My only desire is that we be able to discuss things freely and nobody take things personally that aren't meant that way. To me, that weakens the good exchange of ideas between folks on this site.

I agree with your post above this one, btw. For me, the big thing is to get kids into hunting. What age they start is an individual decision dependent on the child and their circumstances. I can't imagine three year olds going hunting but hey, if Davey Crockett "kilt him b'ar when he was only three", who am I to say?

There is a somewhat disjointed but I think common idea going on here - that the biggest objective is to get and (if possible) keep kids interested in hunting.

Where the differences seem to come in is WHEN a kid should start hunting. That is a question that simply cannot be answered here. Every kid, in fact every person is different. I once had a 12y.o. kid ace the course and his 60+y.o. granfather only squeeked by! Kids of most any age are eger to learn about things they enjoy. The only thing that keeps me teaching is the looks on their faces. Too often in our present society, which tries to rush kids out of childhood as quickly as possible, team sports, girls (or boys) and less desirable activities frequently have already pulled them away by the time they reach the usual minimum age. Even devoted young hunters typically go through a period in their mid to late teens where these activities capture their interest if only temporarily.

I was overjoyed when my oldest son showed more interest at 21 than he ever had. This was after a lull of several years with no hunting at all. Had he not been exposed early though I question if he'd have seen it as something interesting as a grown man.

quote:

Originally posted by Daks:
Nope, I read your entire post. Differentiating between "comes across as elitist" and "elitist" is a distinction without a difference in my opinion.

My toesies aren't stepped on at all, no worries there. My issue wasn't even so much your post as a general statement about a trend I've seen on this site, where people get their hackles up because they figure someone is making a value judgment about them personally and out come the spears.

My only desire is that we be able to discuss things freely and nobody take things personally that aren't meant that way. To me, that weakens the good exchange of ideas between folks on this site.

I agree with your post above this one, btw. For me, the big thing is to get kids into hunting. What age they start is an individual decision dependent on the child and their circumstances. I can't imagine three year olds going hunting but hey, if Davey Crockett "kilt him b'ar when he was only three", who am I to say?

Thanks for clearing that up for me.

I used a 204 to take two deer this season. Both were neck shots at 125 yards and 135 yards. I do believe that it is not intended to be a deer rifle, though.

Just got home from my grandson's 5th birthday party. He is still talking about the doe he shot during the first youth week-end hunt this past season. Don't tell him he's not a hunter!
He used a 223.

This is one of the topics that gets under my skin. I think it is the repsonbility of the parent to allow, introduce, permit, whatever word you wish to hunt with their child so long as it is legal in their state. How someone can blanketly state children are not ready at this age or not is a crock....i know adults that have no business being around firearms, and my kids are much more responsible than them.

With that being said, my oldest was ready at 6 to shoot a big game animal, but we waited so he would be stronger to handle the firearm. My youngest child was no where ready maturity wise at 6 and even at 8 is still not ready. He loves to go with us, but he doesn't have the patience or maturity. Two kids - same family - completely different percpetions.

My opinion, if your kids are ready and they are legally allowed to do it let them, encourage them, and give them every opportunity.

Guys, I guess I should have stated the reason(s) for my questions. Even after all these years I try to learn something as often as I can... And sometimes I don't look at things the same way as most folks.

First, I wondered if a six year-old has the maturity to understand that "something died". I will be 53 in August, and I still have a very real dichotomy of feelings any time I shoot something. It is satisfaction at being successful, but at the same time, nothing lying dead on the ground is as majectic and beautiful as it is walking, breathing and being part of our creation. Again, something died. It is not to be taken lightly. The Indians used to put a sprig of grass into the mouth of the quarry after the kill, out of respect for it.

Secondly, I have to wonder at the performance of that tiny little projectile... Like I said earlier, the pronghorn fell with the camera still on it, and they were in the TX Panhandle, so game retrieval was not an issue, but I still wonder about that small cartridge on an animal that weighs ~100 lbs. I don't think the cartridge was designed for that, and a whole lot can happen when that light a pill contacts muscle tissue.

And I didn't state this either, but during the show, Scott was shown teaching his son where the vitals were, where to hold the crosshairs, even using a two-dimensional drawing with a circle to teach his son where to shoot. Both the student and teacher did all they could to ensure success, and it happened.

Again, not saying right or wrong, but I kind of look at it like this: my own son was nine when he shot his first whitetail. He had gone to the woods with me since the age of seven, and at age nine, he shot a doe. He used my .270 to do it, and he was sitting on my lap. He had shot rifles before, and he was up to the challenge when it came. It didn't require a small caliber for him to do what he did, and I was proud of him. But I was also proud I waited. He is now soon to be 22, and probably has as healthy a respect for the animal kingdom as anyone I know, and more that a lot of us. I really don't think he missed anything by waiting those two years...

IMO it was a stunt.

Doubless: The question that arises in my "non-elitist" mind is WHY YOU would ask your questions in the first place?
It seems the young nimrod was trained and performed well as did his arm and ammunition!
In fact you state the Game being Hunted was cleanly killt (apparently with one shot?) and everyone had a good time - but YOU?
I have Hunted in states both with and without caliber restrictions and both with and without age restrictions for young (or OLD!) Hunters.
I have perceived no problems in either type states.
If you are "IMPLYING" that the 204 Ruger is somehow "inappropriate" OR "inadequate" then AGAIN you answered your own question.
Therefore your answers to your questions are - no and no.
Are they not?
My good friend Paul here in SW Montana has killt three Whitetailed Deer so far, with one shot apiece, using his new 204 Ruger.
Long live the 204 Ruger and young Hunters.
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy

quote:

Even after all these years I try to learn something as often as I can... And sometimes I don't look at things the same way as most folks.

What part of that statement is so hard for you to understand, VG?

Or this statement?

"First, I wondered if a six year-old has the maturity to understand that "something died".

Did it ever occur to you that maybe I am trying to determine if my idea about something is WRONG and needs to CHANGE??? And that maybe a bit more education would be beneficial? Obviously not, or you wouldn't have asked what you did.

And I didn't IMPLY anything. I asked a couple of questions, to find out what others think.

Oh, and how old is your "good friend Paul here in SW Montana". Any possibility at all that he has more experience with a rifle than the six year old?

In case you don't understand it, I felt like just MAYBE, just MAYBE, the youngster would have been better suited with a bit larger caliber, and that if he was too small to shoot something that was designed for a "big game animal", he would be better off waiting...

Now; to completely "bare my soul": I gutted the very first deer I shot, and lost it. It still bothers me... Does that make me less of a man? I sure hope not, because the day I stop caring about clean dispatch of animals is the day I put my firerams away for good.

I put myself in that youngster's position, and wondered if the potential benefit was worth the potential risk; to both the animal and to a young man's psyche. Less than perfect performance on his part, the animal's, or the bullet, and he could very well be one more potential hunter lost for good.

Do you see any correlation now?