Please Sign In

Please enter a valid username and password
  • Log in with Facebook
» Not a member? Take a moment to register
» Forgot Username or Password

Why Register?
Signing up could earn you gear (click here to learn how)! It also keeps offensive content off our site.

Texas May Legalize Silencers for Hunting, Proposes Open Season on Dallas Deer

Recent Comments

Categories

Recent Posts

Archives

Syndicate

Google Reader or Homepage
Add to My Yahoo!
Add to My AOL

Field Notes
in your Inbox

Enter your email address to get our new post everyday.

February 03, 2012

Texas May Legalize Silencers for Hunting, Proposes Open Season on Dallas Deer

By Chad Love

Dallas-area hunters may soon be able to bowhunt in their home county if a Texas Parks and Wildlife proposal gets the nod. And another proposal would make it legal for Texas hunters to use suppressors for most firearms when hunting.
 
From this story on pegasusnews.com:
 
The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department is considering opening deer hunting in three North Texas counties and another on the upper coast this fall as part of recommended changes to the 2012-13 Statewide Hunting Proclamation. TPWD staff recommended an open season for deer in Dallas, Collin, Rockwall, and Galveston counties during a presentation Wednesday to the Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission’s Regulations Committee....

The deer season in Collin and Rockwall counties has been closed since 1976 after agricultural development had virtually eliminated deer habitat. Since that time, agriculture has been gradually displaced by the extensive urban, suburban, and exurban growth of the Dallas-Fort Worth area, which has resulted in highly fragmented habitat and minimal populations of white-tailed deer, mostly in riparian areas surrounding lakes and streams.The department believes that there is no biological reason to prohibit hunting and this is a way to increase hunting opportunity. Opening a season would also provide an additional method for addressing nuisance deer issues.

Regarding the proposed amendment allowing the use of silencers, the department has determined that there is no resource- or enforcement-related reason to prohibit the use of firearm silencers for the take of alligators, game animals or game birds, and therefore proposes to eliminate the current prohibition. The department notes that if the proposal is adopted, it will not relieve any person of the obligation to otherwise comply with any applicable state, federal, or local law governing the possession or use of firearm silencers.

Thoughts? With an increasing numbers of states considering it, are suppressed firearms the wave of the future?

Comments (22)

Top Rated
All Comments
from hunt_fish_sleep wrote 2 years 10 weeks ago

Suppressors are a great idea for hunters. Lowers disturbance to non-hunters, and eliminates hearing damage in the field. I don't wear earplugs in the field because it would harm my ability to hear game and I don't want to be putting them on right before the shot. A suppressor would solve this problem completely. It does not make them silent like the movies portray, there will still be a sonic crack in most cases, the suppressor just suppresses muzzle blast. It is important to educate the non-shooting public that suppressors reduce, not silence, the sound of a shot.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from CL3 wrote 2 years 10 weeks ago

That's right... why do they use "silencer" when they should use "suppressor?"

You would also think that by using the word "suppressor," it would not agitate the non-gun, non-hunting public that doesn't know anything about anything when it comes to these matters.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from CL3 wrote 2 years 10 weeks ago

Oh, and one more thing... would I lug a silencer around in the woods of PA? Nah. Probably can't even put one on my 30-30 anyway...! But if another hunter wants to, I'm OK with it.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from edwatson wrote 2 years 10 weeks ago

I think this is a great thing. Now only if the ATF NFA Branch can hire a few more examiners to process the appropriate forms to purchase/transfer a suppressor. They only have 10 examiners processing the 150,000+ forms right now. The current waiting period is about six months and expected to grow worse. There is a Department of Justice hiring freeze that prevents them from bringing in more folks. The demand for these items has drastically increased in the past few years but the ATF has made no effort to keep up with the demand. Just another example of the federal government hurtin the workin' man! This is really impeding small business growth in this industry.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Walt Smith wrote 2 years 10 weeks ago

Look at those rifles, imagine carrying that through a thicket! Wonder how much a inch of threads cut into the outside of the barrel drops the value of your rifle? I just don't see the need for it except to stroke the ego of a child/man and make hunters look like CIA assassins to the non hunting public. Want silence--use a bow and arrow. Personaly I like to hear the BANG!

-1 Good Comment? | | Report
from iron giant wrote 2 years 10 weeks ago

I think they are awesome. I wish I had one.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from etumil wrote 2 years 10 weeks ago

Suppressors are actually Legal in the state of Washington now. After a lot of research and debate on the subject, The Washington State Governor signed into law the right to use suppressors when hunting. The reports found that in addition to the lower noise level, the reduced muzzle blast cuts down on recoil, and helps to achieve more accurate shots. As we all know, accuracy is one key element to ethical hunting.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Nic Meador wrote 2 years 10 weeks ago

You may like the sound of a gun go off but what would your neighbors think of it if you shot a high power rifle in your back yard. Some people can't shoot a bow or crossbow because of disabilities. I enjoy taking an animal with a bow as much as the next guy but I also don't like my ears ringing for hours after I shoot a deer on a calm day.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Nic Meador wrote 2 years 10 weeks ago

And by the way they do make shorter suppressors.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from JohnR wrote 2 years 10 weeks ago

It was also posted in an earlier thread that in Great Britain they are required for some hunting and are called "moderators". They are also allowed for hunting in New Zealand.
Most of the arguments against them come from the anti-gun establishment and those persons who have watched too many Hollywood thrillers.
I can make the same argument about long range 3X12 riflescopes used for hunting and call them "sniperscopes". The sad thing is I have heard other hunters say just that.
My response is if you want to be a purist concerning hunting tools, then go make a spear and knock youself out. Oh and by the way, for the ultimate primitive experience you can knap your own spearhead. :-)
Kudos to Texas!

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Walt Smith wrote 2 years 10 weeks ago

I shoot my rifles, handguns, shotguns and my bow in my backyard all the time, guess what! My neighbors do the same thing. No whiners in Michigan, especially since Nuget moved to Texas!

-1 Good Comment? | | Report
from davycrockettfv wrote 2 years 10 weeks ago

With this trend, how long is going to be before one of the manufacturers turns out a rifle with a thick barrel that is actually just a barrel-length suppressor? That would so a long way toward helping the aesthetics. Then the 30-06 would look just like a bull barrel varmint rifle. I'd buy that!

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from NorCal Cazadora wrote 2 years 10 weeks ago

I love this! Ever since I saw Steve Rinella's show in Scotland, where they said silencers/suppressors are REQUIRED for hunters, I thought that would be a great way to hunt.

That coupled with tales from Native Americans about how much gunshots changed wildlife behavior makes this seem like a no-brainer. Sadly, it'll probably never happen in California, where gun ignorance is rampant. Sigh.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from NorCal Cazadora wrote 2 years 10 weeks ago

I love this! Ever since I saw Steve Rinella's show in Scotland, where they said silencers/suppressors are REQUIRED for hunters, I thought that would be a great way to hunt.

That coupled with tales from Native Americans about how much gunshots changed wildlife behavior makes this seem like a no-brainer. Sadly, it'll probably never happen in California, where gun ignorance is rampant. Sigh.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from LeVan Goodey wrote 2 years 10 weeks ago

I think that allowing silencers/supressors/ moderators is an excellent idea. Any chance that the price of the federal permit would come down?

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from redfishunter wrote 2 years 9 weeks ago

I think they should let people use them to hunt anything they want. I'm only 26 and my left ear hasn't stopped ringing for the last four months. Hate to see what it'll be like at 50.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Big Country wrote 2 years 9 weeks ago

I love the idea of supressors for hunting. As for the federal fees, I wish they would do away with that mess altogether, at least for supressors. That tax stamp for a supresor is pretty stupid.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from 1uglymutha wrote 2 years 9 weeks ago

the nra has been promoting the use of suppressors for quite some time new. in many countries in the world, suppressors-or sound moderators as they are sometimes called- are mandatory. in many cases they increase accuracy and for certain reduce recoil, which can only help people shoot better. and they help protect against hearing loss. myself and many others believe the time is right for the federal government to remove all restrictions on the use of suppressors. it's a win-win all around.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from 007 wrote 2 years 9 weeks ago

I'm not anti-anything by any stretch, and I know, if somebody's going to hunt illegally they'll find a way to to it, but if suppressors are made legal, what about the spotlighters at night? At least if a shot is heard at night, one knows to call the conservation officer. Has this been addressed?

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from davycrockettfv wrote 2 years 9 weeks ago

Good point 007. You can't just go throwing new innovations out tot he public without thinking it through. Have to strike a good balance between what will be used correctly and incorrectly. I think in this instance the suppressors have a solid chance of being more beneficial than harmful. But you never know for sure...

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from 007 wrote 2 years 9 weeks ago

I'd very much like to hear Sarge's opinion on this one. Hey Sarge, you're up!

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Eastwood11739 wrote 2 years 2 weeks ago

Silencers are not as quiet as the name sounds. They just knock the sound back enough for you not to haft to wear ear plugs. You still have the "sonic boom" when the rifle goes off. I do think they should be legalized, because of the added ease on the ears. plus, they look pretty cool, ya gotta admit.

0 Good Comment? | | Report

Post a Comment

from hunt_fish_sleep wrote 2 years 10 weeks ago

Suppressors are a great idea for hunters. Lowers disturbance to non-hunters, and eliminates hearing damage in the field. I don't wear earplugs in the field because it would harm my ability to hear game and I don't want to be putting them on right before the shot. A suppressor would solve this problem completely. It does not make them silent like the movies portray, there will still be a sonic crack in most cases, the suppressor just suppresses muzzle blast. It is important to educate the non-shooting public that suppressors reduce, not silence, the sound of a shot.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from edwatson wrote 2 years 10 weeks ago

I think this is a great thing. Now only if the ATF NFA Branch can hire a few more examiners to process the appropriate forms to purchase/transfer a suppressor. They only have 10 examiners processing the 150,000+ forms right now. The current waiting period is about six months and expected to grow worse. There is a Department of Justice hiring freeze that prevents them from bringing in more folks. The demand for these items has drastically increased in the past few years but the ATF has made no effort to keep up with the demand. Just another example of the federal government hurtin the workin' man! This is really impeding small business growth in this industry.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from CL3 wrote 2 years 10 weeks ago

That's right... why do they use "silencer" when they should use "suppressor?"

You would also think that by using the word "suppressor," it would not agitate the non-gun, non-hunting public that doesn't know anything about anything when it comes to these matters.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from CL3 wrote 2 years 10 weeks ago

Oh, and one more thing... would I lug a silencer around in the woods of PA? Nah. Probably can't even put one on my 30-30 anyway...! But if another hunter wants to, I'm OK with it.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from iron giant wrote 2 years 10 weeks ago

I think they are awesome. I wish I had one.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from etumil wrote 2 years 10 weeks ago

Suppressors are actually Legal in the state of Washington now. After a lot of research and debate on the subject, The Washington State Governor signed into law the right to use suppressors when hunting. The reports found that in addition to the lower noise level, the reduced muzzle blast cuts down on recoil, and helps to achieve more accurate shots. As we all know, accuracy is one key element to ethical hunting.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Nic Meador wrote 2 years 10 weeks ago

You may like the sound of a gun go off but what would your neighbors think of it if you shot a high power rifle in your back yard. Some people can't shoot a bow or crossbow because of disabilities. I enjoy taking an animal with a bow as much as the next guy but I also don't like my ears ringing for hours after I shoot a deer on a calm day.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Nic Meador wrote 2 years 10 weeks ago

And by the way they do make shorter suppressors.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from JohnR wrote 2 years 10 weeks ago

It was also posted in an earlier thread that in Great Britain they are required for some hunting and are called "moderators". They are also allowed for hunting in New Zealand.
Most of the arguments against them come from the anti-gun establishment and those persons who have watched too many Hollywood thrillers.
I can make the same argument about long range 3X12 riflescopes used for hunting and call them "sniperscopes". The sad thing is I have heard other hunters say just that.
My response is if you want to be a purist concerning hunting tools, then go make a spear and knock youself out. Oh and by the way, for the ultimate primitive experience you can knap your own spearhead. :-)
Kudos to Texas!

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from davycrockettfv wrote 2 years 10 weeks ago

With this trend, how long is going to be before one of the manufacturers turns out a rifle with a thick barrel that is actually just a barrel-length suppressor? That would so a long way toward helping the aesthetics. Then the 30-06 would look just like a bull barrel varmint rifle. I'd buy that!

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from NorCal Cazadora wrote 2 years 10 weeks ago

I love this! Ever since I saw Steve Rinella's show in Scotland, where they said silencers/suppressors are REQUIRED for hunters, I thought that would be a great way to hunt.

That coupled with tales from Native Americans about how much gunshots changed wildlife behavior makes this seem like a no-brainer. Sadly, it'll probably never happen in California, where gun ignorance is rampant. Sigh.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from NorCal Cazadora wrote 2 years 10 weeks ago

I love this! Ever since I saw Steve Rinella's show in Scotland, where they said silencers/suppressors are REQUIRED for hunters, I thought that would be a great way to hunt.

That coupled with tales from Native Americans about how much gunshots changed wildlife behavior makes this seem like a no-brainer. Sadly, it'll probably never happen in California, where gun ignorance is rampant. Sigh.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from LeVan Goodey wrote 2 years 10 weeks ago

I think that allowing silencers/supressors/ moderators is an excellent idea. Any chance that the price of the federal permit would come down?

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from redfishunter wrote 2 years 9 weeks ago

I think they should let people use them to hunt anything they want. I'm only 26 and my left ear hasn't stopped ringing for the last four months. Hate to see what it'll be like at 50.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Big Country wrote 2 years 9 weeks ago

I love the idea of supressors for hunting. As for the federal fees, I wish they would do away with that mess altogether, at least for supressors. That tax stamp for a supresor is pretty stupid.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from 1uglymutha wrote 2 years 9 weeks ago

the nra has been promoting the use of suppressors for quite some time new. in many countries in the world, suppressors-or sound moderators as they are sometimes called- are mandatory. in many cases they increase accuracy and for certain reduce recoil, which can only help people shoot better. and they help protect against hearing loss. myself and many others believe the time is right for the federal government to remove all restrictions on the use of suppressors. it's a win-win all around.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from 007 wrote 2 years 9 weeks ago

I'm not anti-anything by any stretch, and I know, if somebody's going to hunt illegally they'll find a way to to it, but if suppressors are made legal, what about the spotlighters at night? At least if a shot is heard at night, one knows to call the conservation officer. Has this been addressed?

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from davycrockettfv wrote 2 years 9 weeks ago

Good point 007. You can't just go throwing new innovations out tot he public without thinking it through. Have to strike a good balance between what will be used correctly and incorrectly. I think in this instance the suppressors have a solid chance of being more beneficial than harmful. But you never know for sure...

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from 007 wrote 2 years 9 weeks ago

I'd very much like to hear Sarge's opinion on this one. Hey Sarge, you're up!

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Eastwood11739 wrote 2 years 2 weeks ago

Silencers are not as quiet as the name sounds. They just knock the sound back enough for you not to haft to wear ear plugs. You still have the "sonic boom" when the rifle goes off. I do think they should be legalized, because of the added ease on the ears. plus, they look pretty cool, ya gotta admit.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Walt Smith wrote 2 years 10 weeks ago

Look at those rifles, imagine carrying that through a thicket! Wonder how much a inch of threads cut into the outside of the barrel drops the value of your rifle? I just don't see the need for it except to stroke the ego of a child/man and make hunters look like CIA assassins to the non hunting public. Want silence--use a bow and arrow. Personaly I like to hear the BANG!

-1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Walt Smith wrote 2 years 10 weeks ago

I shoot my rifles, handguns, shotguns and my bow in my backyard all the time, guess what! My neighbors do the same thing. No whiners in Michigan, especially since Nuget moved to Texas!

-1 Good Comment? | | Report

Post a Comment

bmxbiz-fs