A cull with a group of people will get rid of a lot more in a day vs traps. What would be a one day cull could take weeks of setting and checking traps for the same result: dead prairie dogs. It’s almost like the people who actually live in rural areas know what works best for managing their land.
To be honest, a lot of them would rather poison them, as that is the fastest way to kill the largest number. But like I said, eagles (and other birds of prey) do prey on them and you don’t want to poison eagles.
Like I said in the previous thread: You can use other rifles to cull prairie dogs. A lot of people use bolt actions with high powered scopes and much zippier ammo than the .223 because of the distances involved.
If they do use an AR style weapon, they are set up for long range, with longer, heavier barrels and scopes. They are set up to be more accurate than your average rifle, maybe even chambered in something like the .224 Valkyrie which has more range.
But now you have people chiming in that 1) “You really only need a .22lr.” or 2) “There isn’t any reason to shoot prairie dogs.” Both come from someone who has never talked to someone who has too many prairie dogs on their land.
Here is the thing - two things can be true. The AR can be derivative and nearly the same capabilities as a “weapon of war” (which is true of most firearms) - and they can be used for other purposes, such as pest/varmint control/hunting (and shooting sports).
IMO, instead of focusing on opinions that 1) You don’t really need xyz to do something or , 2) you should use abc instead - all of which are opinions and personal preferences - just acknowledge it and then counter it. “Yes, it is true some people use them for these purposes, their potential for use is too great IMO for unrestricted private ownership.”
Conversely, saying they are “only” good for varmint control or the like, isn’t really an honest talking point either.
See, I don’t think focusing on the ammo is especially useful. The .223/5.56mm round is not remarkable in any way. It was a compromise. They were shifting military doctrine away from a .30 cal battle rifle that can engage targets 800+ yards away, with a lighter round that allowed one to carry more ammo for the same weight and hit targets at 400+ yards away. The after action reports in the Middle East had people complaining about its capabilities, especially when trying to engage targets out past 600 yards. This is why the Army just adopted the 6.8mm/.277 Fury which is going to be heavier and about as fast with a lot more muzzle energy.
So in the grand scheme of things, .223 is one of the smaller rifle rounds there are. Like I said .22-250 is popular for varmints because even though it shoots the same size of bullet, it has a lot more powder behind, making it faster and shoot flatter.
You’re absolutely right part of the reason for the popularity is its use and availability makes it both cheaper and plentiful. You could say that about .30-06, .30-30, .308, and other rounds that have stood the test of time and you can find a ton of rifles chambered in them. But any other similar round that would do the job the .223 does isn’t any less lethal. Many of them would be more lethal due to more muzzle energy.
And as I said above, acknowledgement of other uses doesn’t mean ones opinion can’t be that the AR platform and other semi-automatic removable magazine fed rifles have too much potential abuse.
FYI - they stopped selling ARs after I think Sandy Hook.
My dad was hired by a junk yard to shoot rats when he was young. But that was a different time.
Anyway, I’ll let you find a farmer/rancher with prairie dogs and you guys can come up with the best plan to control them.
