Bringing Home the Bacon—With an AR-15

Why semi-automatic rifles are the weapon of choice for helicopter hunting.

<a href="http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml%3Fid=94689340&src=3ededc3be46fb9fa0f6074db7bab203e-1-34"> Anthonycz</a>/Shutterstock

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

When President Barack Obama called on Congress to renew the assault rifle ban last week, he had a specific gun in mind. “The type of assault rifle used in Aurora, for example, when paired with high-capacity magazines, has one purpose,” Obama said, referring to the ubiquitous military-style AR-15: “To pump out as many bullets as possible as quickly as possible; to do as much damage using bullets often designed to inflict maximum damage.”

He’s not the only person who views the semi-automatic rifle as little more than an instrument of warfare. “The only civilians who ‘need’ an AR-15 assault rifle are those who want to commit mass murder,” CNN host Piers Morgan tweeted on Sunday. “That’s what they do. #killingmachines.”

Unless, that is, you’re battling bacon.

On Sunday, Bryan Hendricks, an outdoors columnist at the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, offered a counterpoint to the president’s assault weapons proposal: wildlife management. “Recreational hunting is a vital cog in managing feral swine, but it is only effective if you kill a concentration of pigs,” he wrote. “That requires semi-automatic weapons capable of firing a lot of rounds quickly.” In other words, if conservationists are serious about reining in the runaway porcine population, they should welcome high-capacity magazines and rapid-action rifles, not shun them.

Let’s get one thing out of the way: Hogs are serious business. According to Mississippi State University’s feral pig program, a “conservative estimate” of the damage caused by swine each year is $1.5 billion—and the pig population is migrating north and west due to careless catch-and-release practices. That price tag doesn’t include the tens of millions of dollars spent annually ($25 million in Texas alone) to control the population. In 2011, in an effort to combat the razorback revolution, Gov. Rick Perry signed a new law allowing any citizen to hunt hogs from helicopters, provided the pilot has a special permit.

Comedian Roseanne Barr—who, we should note, actually ended up receiving more presidential votes than Perry—cited a wild-pig intrusion on her property as a primary motivation for her own presidential campaign. As she told Jay Leno, “I have feral pigs that overrun my farm and I’d like to shoot them out of a helicopter.”

With that in mind, Hendricks may be on to something. “In situations with high volumes of animals and large social groups, semi-automatic firearms, in the hands of a properly trained individual, are a distinctly better tool than a bolt-action rifle,” said Anthony DeNicola, CEO of White Buffalo Inc., a Connecticut-based firm that has won contracts for, among other things, eradicating feral pig populations on California islands. “This is particularly true when using a helicopter as a shooting platform.” (White Buffalo uses a JP Enterprises AR-15 for its pig hunts.)

Jackson Landers, a Virginia-based hunter who endorses eating local invasive species as a form of wildlife management, says he prefers the classic bolt-action hunting rifle when he’s hogspotting but recognizes the necessity of semi-auto fire in certain cases. Recalling a recent expedition in which he “had to hunt the pigs at night there because they had gone nocturnal in response to hunting pressure,” he attributed the mission’s success to the fact that his colleague had brought an AR-15 equipped with a 40-bullet magazine and night-vision scope. In that case, firepower trumped accuracy. “There are applications for it; most hunters will never need that, but if you are doing controls for larger nuisance animals, it makes sense,” Landers said.

The problem, as Landers explains, is that hogs scatter after the first shot. The semi-automatic allows you to get off shots in very fast succession, as this video from a company called Special Hog Weapons and Tactics demonstrates:

Landers also points to the prairie dog as a case for semi-automatic weapons. Western landowners are required to control the prairie dog populations on their property, but short of pulling a Bill Murray in Caddyshack, that’s quite difficult without a high-capacity clip: “Legally, I have to kill 500 of these prairie dogs. That’s not sport hunting anymore.” (Another contributing factor to the gun’s popularity: For veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the AR-15 just feels more natural than the traditional hunting rifle.)

Semi-automatics aren’t the only way to bag a pig. “In our extension and outreach efforts, we mainly talk about trapping, because that’s gonna be the most efficient way,” says Bill Hamrick, a wildlife extension associate at Mississippi State. “You don’t have to be there on the spot, and you can catch more animals in one trapping than you can in one hunting or shooting event, because usually when you shoot they scatter.” But, Hamrick added, there were some instances where the assault rifle might be the most feasible: “If you wanna do pig control and you’re doing it at night with thermal imaging and night vision, then yeah, you would want to be able to get off as many shots as you could.”

There’s one thing that should help Hendricks et al. breathe a little easier, though. The proposed assault weapons legislation would apply only to new sales; it wouldn’t do anything about the 3.8 million AR-15-type rifles that are already legally owned in the United States, nor would it do much to stop gunmakers from modifying existing weapons ever-so-slightly to meet the new specifications. Wildlife owners might lose their high-capacity clips, but they’ll still be able to use their Bushmaster for their cold, dead hams.

Failing that, they could always try karaoke.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate