quote:

I don't think a members only room is going to keep the antis away unless it's a members recommended by members as known hunters thing, and even then there may well be leaks.

Okay, is this "Members Only Room" going to be limited to only those that have hunted Africa???????

Many may not feel this way, but some do. This is an issue affecting ALL hunters, World Wide. For ALL of us to stand together, we ALL have to realize that we are ALL affected, not just those that have hunted Elephant or Lion, but even those that have hunted Whitetail and Cottontail!

Here is the American solution to the problem.

quote:
Originally posted by Navaluk:
I do not support all "legal" forms of killing animals. Not going to lie and say I do.
I am concerned with the appearance of wounding animals at ANY range. I am particularly concerned with not allowing the general public to find out:



1. Most big game is shot at, at less than 200 yards. and
2. That's where the lions share of the wounding, occurs. and
3. At least 40% of American hunters could not consistently hit an SUV at 300 yards under field conditions, with any rifle you care to hand them.

Then again, if hunters in the US were required to pass a serious field shooting test before getting a tag, it sure would eliminate the competition of hunting on federal land, so I can see that may be worth thinking about. And fewer wounded animals is something 60% of us could agree on, probably.

I agree with 90% of what you said.
I do support all legal methods of take, if it's legal it's allowed and if you or I don't like it then that is our preference but I'll not tell someone that they can't do it that way if it's legal.
I agree wholeheartedly about the general populace being poor shots. I feel lucky to have around me friends and family who practice their art and are more than likely in the top 10% of hunters out there.

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:

quote:

I don't think a members only room is going to keep the antis away unless it's a members recommended by members as known hunters thing, and even then there may well be leaks.

Okay, is this "Members Only Room" going to be limited to only those that have hunted Africa???????

Many may not feel this way, but some do. This is an issue affecting ALL hunters, World Wide. For ALL of us to stand together, we ALL have to realize that we are ALL affected, not just those that have hunted Elephant or Lion, but even those that have hunted Whitetail and Cottontail!

Exactly Randall...all hunters must form alliance. We are a small group and can afford to alienate no one.
Ethical discussions are GREAT among hunters as long as united we stand when in public.

All forms may not be everyone's cup of tea...but that will never be possible.

Example given: I have a good friend who is a bean field deer hunter. Not interested in shooting one if not over 500 yards. He shakes his head in disdain when I talk about shooting a tuskless cow elephant or even a bull. Now granted...he has never tried it...but he would not go if you paid for trip.

He is a very good long range shot.

I feel the hardest part in getting everyone on the same page is or will be the concept that ALL of us that enjoy hunting will be affected. It is not going to be a pick and choose.

The folks that are working to get hunting stopped are not negotiating or giving passes to anyone that hunts, whether it is tuskless elephants or grey squirrels.

We all have to be involved, we all have to be represented, and we ALL have to realize that EACH of us view the issues from a different standpoint.

There is also the part of the equation that may be the hardest to get around, that being those of us who have hunted longer, possibly by a decade or two, than those that are coming along behind us.

We have/will leave this world to them in a bad enough shape, I do not like thinking about those following us not being able to hunt a cottontail or standing on a snowy ridge listening to an elk bugle, hoping to get a shot or tracking a cape buffalo thru the brush trying to find out if it is a shooter or not.

This fight is not for us in our 50's-60's-70's and older, it is to try and preserve something for your son and the sons and grandsons/daughters and grand daughters that will be left behind when we move on to that camp over the ridge, where those that taught us are waiting for us to join them for the next opening day.

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:
I feel the hardest part in getting everyone on the same page is or will be the concept that ALL of us that enjoy hunting will be affected. It is not going to be a pick and choose.

The folks that are working to get hunting stopped are not negotiating or giving passes to anyone that hunts, whether it is tuskless elephants or grey squirrels.

We all have to be involved, we all have to be represented, and we ALL have to realize that EACH of us view the issues from a different standpoint.

There is also the part of the equation that may be the hardest to get around, that being those of us who have hunted longer, possibly by a decade or two, than those that are coming along behind us.

We have/will leave this world to them in a bad enough shape, I do not like thinking about those following us not being able to hunt a cottontail or standing on a snowy ridge listening to an elk bugle, hoping to get a shot or tracking a cape buffalo thru the brush trying to find out if it is a shooter or not.

This fight is not for us in our 50's-60's-70's and older, it is to try and preserve something for your son and the sons and grandsons/daughters and grand daughters that will be left behind when we move on to that camp over the ridge, where those that taught us are waiting for us to join them for the next opening day.

Very good post Randall!

Long range target shooting at live targets ! no more no less, do not confuse this with hunting !

The problem with the concept lies in ethics and optics.

I can state without reserve that society as a whole will not accept or tolerate this and whether we as hunters like it or not we are at the mercy of what society will tolerate!

Unless you are deemed an "aboriginal" or so called "indigenous" person hunting is seen as a societal privilege and not a right and this is our achilles heel.

At this point we are still allowed to hunt by society but that may change over time ! Fact is it is changing and we can argue as we may the millennials likely hold the trump card, not only with hunting but a lot we hold dear.

Unfortunately Sir, I believe you have hit the nail on the head, I just wonder how long it will take everyone to realize it.

So because we hunt and kill animals, we are not allowed to use the benefit of modern technology?

Like using very accurate, very fast rifles with high power scopes to effectively reduce the distances we hunt?

Why do we use jet plains then, instead a sail boat to cross the oceans?

Why do we use motor cars instead of donkeys and horses?

Technology HAS made many things easier for us, and I am for one is extremely thankful for it.

So Saeed would you consider arming drone and shooting a animal 5 or 10 km away still hunting ?

When you say "killing animals" you likely nailed the concept down pat.

Though the "killing of an animal" is the logical conclusion of the hunt it is not necessarily a essential ingredient to a successful hunt!

Hunting has nothing to do with planes or donkey carts or whether we use modern technology, fast cartridges or scopes.

It has everything to do with a activity founded in a very definite ethical code of conduct,it has to do with honour and with honesty, we plan for the hunt, we live it and after the fact we talk about it, we are allowed to brag sometimes. this is something I was taught by my father and like minded peers in the hunting world.... without that it is simply the killing of animals, and that I can do without.

as the script writer in American Sniper put it when Kyle takes his son for his first deer hunt:
" stopping a beating heart is not trivial matter"

ALF, do you believe that antis care either way?

Were not running for homecoming queen here. This is not a popularity contest or winning hearts and minds of the masses. The masses don't care either way so it is folly to sit here and conjure up meaningless rules based on someone's version of ethics.

But if it makes everyone feel better to conduct a focus group on hunting ethics while the ship sinks, go for it. Personally I believe to do so diverts attention away from a sinking ship.

Opus 1:

Off course they do not, but many of our counter arguments to their accusations in our endeavour to swing favour to those who are sitting on the fence in this fight are blown out of the water when we condone and promote questionable activity as "hunting" as opposed to simply "killing" of animals.

At some point we have to take a stand and we will be forced or are forced to define what is deemed hunting vs simply killing and more so how we can morally justify it in the face of mounting opposition.

The issue for me is not that I hunt, but that hunting is part of a culture and outlook on life that is very particular..... it is for one thing "anti liberal" ! The ethic that gets taught with this is something I hold very dear.

Our problem is that our numbers are in decline, serious decline ! There is a new world order waiting in the wings.

Your recent election cycle in the USA has uncovered a very very troubling trend...... you and everyone else are sitting with a very large cohort of youth who are about to turn our world order on its head ! it's scary !

ALF - If this was about nuance or even more clearly defined rules of engagement, then I would certainly go along with that. But this is an all or nothing fight. I totally agree we are outnumbered, out financed, out represented, and the other side is winning where it counts. And that has nothing to do with winning over the masses or a dinner party debate, but winning over the decision makers. A new Mercedes buys a lot of cooperation.

So while we spin our wheels argueing over ethics and winning hearts and minds, the antis are focused on where it actually matters. They are getting it right and we are missing the point.

quote:

Originally posted by ALF:
Long range target shooting at live targets ! no more no less, do not confuse this with hunting !

The problem with the concept lies in ethics and optics.

I can state without reserve that society as a whole will not accept or tolerate this and whether we as hunters like it or not we are at the mercy of what society will tolerate!

Unless you are deemed an "aboriginal" or so called "indigenous" person hunting is seen as a societal privilege and not a right and this is our achilles heel.

At this point we are still allowed to hunt by society but that may change over time ! Fact is it is changing and we can argue as we may the millennials likely hold the trump card, not only with hunting but a lot we hold dear.

Spot on!

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by ALF:
Long range target shooting at live targets ! no more no less, do not confuse this with hunting !

The problem with the concept lies in ethics and optics.

I can state without reserve that society as a whole will not accept or tolerate this and whether we as hunters like it or not we are at the mercy of what society will tolerate!

Unless you are deemed an "aboriginal" or so called "indigenous" person hunting is seen as a societal privilege and not a right and this is our achilles heel.

At this point we are still allowed to hunt by society but that may change over time ! Fact is it is changing and we can argue as we may the millennials likely hold the trump card, not only with hunting but a lot we hold dear.

Spot on!

No we are at the mercury of nothing if we fight for are rights to do what we enjoy. Roll over play dead and not fight along side of the ones who share hunting with you is how we lose. Get pass the I don't like it or what if others don't like it already. Those same people your worried about if they will like it or not don't give a shit one way or another. We make everything a problem and give them things to go after us with as we fight over stuff because some may not like it.

Some of you act just like Obama has for the last 8 years. Maybe if were nice and say sorry enough everyone will like us. That has work so well so lets try that so we can get run over and lose more rights for hunting and shooting.

quote:

Originally posted by Opus1:
ALF - If this was about nuance or even more clearly defined rules of engagement, then I would certainly go along with that. But this is an all or nothing fight. I totally agree we are outnumbered, out financed, out represented, and the other side is winning where it counts. And that has nothing to do with winning over the masses or a dinner party debate, but winning over the decision makers. A new Mercedes buys a lot of cooperation.

So while we spin our wheels argueing over ethics and winning hearts and minds, the antis are focused on where it actually matters. They are getting it right and we are missing the point.

(I don't have time to read for edits right now...so please forgive my typos...I will read and edit later.)

I have told this scenario before...but will write it again. You can take this from someone who has been to Congress twice fighting animal rights orgs...once over horses...and another with lion.

Traditionally in the USA...horses were considered farm animals...livestock. That is how they were classified in all walks of governmental agencies...including the IRS.

In the late 90's...many of the same orgs we face as hunters (HSUS for one) began a campaign to end horse slaughter.

As livestock...there were USDA certified horse slaughter plants throughout the USA with 2 in Texas. Old, unwanted, infertile, non-useful, etc etc horses were sent to slaughter plants just like cattle. They were turned into leather, glue, pet-food, human food, fertilizer, and a myriad of other needed products...AND...it gave these animals value. Sometimes this value was little...sometimes it was substantial as it was regulated by supply and demand...but none-the-less...it gave these animals monetary worth. But, it also served as a needed tool for the industry...an end place to dispose of these unwanted animals.

These plants were well regulated and conformed to humane means set forth by veterinarians.

Now enter the animal rights orgs and there money. First they played on the hearts and minds of the public. This act filled there coffers. Then they used that money in Congress to BUY legislation.

Now...we don't have horse slaughter in the USA. And yep...like prohibition...it created a black market where horses are shipped to Mexico and submitted to less humane methods. But, it created a lot more unwanted consequences.

1) Now that horses aren't slaughtered...they are not livestock...huge tax implications for ranches.
2) Since we can't slaughter...what do we do with the unwanted horse??? Well like usual...the government just throws money at it and yep...now there are ex-cattle ranches allover the USA living off of tax dollars feeding huge herds of unwanted horses.
3) The BLM used to regulate the wild horse herds by culling them by rounding up and sending to slaughter periodically...now there is over-population.
4) Ranches that used to depend on a little money from these horse and a place to at least dispose of them are left without a market. It has had a huge negative effect on the industry.

Equine Veterinarians (at least those 40 or older) being a very pragmatic bunch...tried to get ahead of this problem. The professional vet orgs put together delegations of the best and the brightest and we set off to Washington.

We gave presentations, we presented science, we presented economics, we addressed the humane issues...etc etc.

I will sum up my argument with this story.

I was in the office of a very nice and conservative congressman. He sent everyone else away and closed the door. He then came over to my side of the office and pulled up a chair next to me. He said: "Dr. Easter you all have represented yourselves very well. The presentations on the science and the economic implications are unprecedented in professionalism in my tenure as a congressman. The science and the economics are definitely on your side. (he then paused for a minute, sighed, then began again) But...for every dollar you guys bring to the table...the other side bring $100,000.00. The legislation is going to go through but you guys have done an outstanding job and I commend you." He shook my hand and we parted ways.

We are now an anti-slaughter country throwing millions of dollars at a problem that historically did not even exist.

Now tell me that y'all are going to use logic and ethics to sway minds of legislators and the public...it ain't gonna happen.

The only thing that matters is who shows up with the most money...the reason this group (hunters) had better not alienate ANY of its members. Elephant, lion, and leopard hunters definitely NEED those bean-field deer hunters to be on their side.

quote:

So because we hunt and kill animals, we are not allowed to use the benefit of modern technology?

Like using very accurate, very fast rifles with high power scopes to effectively reduce the distances we hunt?

Why do we use jet plains then, instead a sail boat to cross the oceans?

Why do we use motor cars instead of donkeys and horses?

Technology HAS made many things easier for us, and I am for one is extremely thankful for it.

Saeed, if it had not been for "technology", humans would not have became the dominant species on the planet.

Human beings as a species is actually pretty pathetic when it comes to being a predator. Without a stick or a rock, we are pretty well reduced to insects or stealing kills from more efficient predators if we get the chance.

As we evolved we became more efficient and using technology created and built equipment that helped us obtain meat for the table or defend ourselves from larger predators.

Do you believe society will simply accept such concepts as remote control hunting, where the "Hunter" is not even in the general vicinity of the animal that was killed?

As I have stated before, I am a proponent of "If It Is LEGAL", that is all that matters. Point is, are there some "practices" that should not be legal, where is that line drawn and who determines it.

As a group hunters cannot make or enforce laws and "Ethics/Ethical Behavior" has been beaten to death because they amount to nothing more than Personal Choices, and each of us make those daily, good or bad.

To many people, hunters and non-hunters, anti's are not part of the equation because their minds are made up, hunting is supposed to be about the chase, respect for the animal being hunted and quick/clean kills. Is publicizing long range hunting going to push those that aren't hunters but have no problem with those that do hunt, over the edge and into the anti camp?

Again the main problem I see deals with Billy Fred Bubba Jones and his buddies trying such shots with Grandpappy's old Model 99 Savage in .300 Savage topped with a 4x Tasco scope.

I mean hunters/non-hunters and anti-hunters all jumped on the proposed remote control hunting issue pretty fast and got it shot down.

This is an issue that is not going to be easy to get around. JMO.

quote:

Originally posted by BaxterB:

quote:

Originally posted by Emory:
Wonder how many they missed, or hit poorly, before getting the public version...

Often they will range a rock or something at the same distance then verify their drop on it, then take a shot at the animal. The former never is filmed or at least shown.

Rocks don’t move while the bullet is traveling down range!

quote:

Originally posted by Gracedog:
Shooting at long range at live animals is a stunt, not an exhibition of skill. These dopes are using a ballistic computer to substitute for talent. At that range, it is too easy for the "target" to take a step during the shot sequence, turning a lung shot into an ass shot. What is the point of it all?

A 10 inch target klippy that has legs can and often does move several times before a shot is taken, and if that movement is made just as the rifle is fired the BEST outcome will be a total miss. As stated above a hind leg may be shot off, leaving the animal a long painful death, or making it a target for a jackal. IMO the shooting at live animals at such ranges is not the most ethical idea anyone ever had!

'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

Public perceptions and attitudes unquestionably play a role in shaping public policy. Engage in conduct that a significant portion of the public finds reprehensible . . . that conduct will eventually be shut down . . . regardless of how much money you try to throw at the problem. That is just one reason why ethical behavior is important.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Public perceptions and attitudes unquestionably play a role in shaping public policy. Engage in conduct that a significant portion of the public finds reprehensible . . . that conduct will eventually be shut down . . . regardless of how much money you try to throw at the problem. That is just one reason why ethical behavior is important.

Yes and if you ask the general public if they want lions or zebra hunted and dare I say killed as that what hunting ends up being most would say no that is horrible. So who most we take out so the general public does not hear of are so called evil ways of killing animals. That would be the anti crowd who spreads the lies and makes us look like terrible people.

So if you think by fighting with other hunters helps us because you don't like it your kidding your self. Did you ever wonder how for years no one much cared about what hunters did. What changed that? That was the antis throwing lies and bs out for all to see. Sometimes it is better to lay low fight those that you most and go about your business. The world has changed and fighting others on the same side does nothing for the rights we all want to keep hunting and shooting. Take your ethics and morals on your hunts stay out of mine.

quote:

Originally posted by bcap:

So who most we take out so the general public does not hear of are so called evil ways of killing animals. That would be the anti crowd who spreads the lies and makes us look like terrible people.

So are hunters serving the long-term interests of hunting by delivering to the anti-hunting community examples that they can then use as the case in point to paint all hunting negatively with a broad brush . . . examples like Cecil, canned lion hunts, live pigeon shoots, extreme long-range hunting? The best examples the anti-hunting community has to use against hunters are examples that have been gifted to the anti-community on a silver platter by hunters. We need to ensure our own house is in order.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Public perceptions and attitudes unquestionably play a role in shaping public policy. Engage in conduct that a significant portion of the public finds reprehensible . . . that conduct will eventually be shut down . . . regardless of how much money you try to throw at the problem. That is just one reason why ethical behavior is important.

The money...100% of the time...always wins. I challenge you to show me one single example where it did not.

Historically...the group that shows up in DC the best funded...always wins. It did with horses...it did with lions.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by bcap:

So who most we take out so the general public does not hear of are so called evil ways of killing animals. That would be the anti crowd who spreads the lies and makes us look like terrible people.

So are hunters serving the long-term interests of hunting by delivering to the anti-hunting community examples that they can then use as the case in point to paint all hunting negatively with a broad brush . . . examples like Cecil, canned lion hunts, live pigeon shoots, extreme long-range hunting? The best examples the anti-hunting community has to use against hunters are examples that have been gifted to the anti-community on a silver platter by hunters. We need to ensure our own house is in order.

Again get pass the stuff you don't like and get over it. Some are ok with it some are not but we are on the same team. Hate to keep bringing it up but you think the antis could not use the taking of pregnant elephants as ammo to hurt us. You think the general public would be ok with that even when we tell them it is needed and does not hurt elephants overall from what we know.

We kill the anti's voice then we win as that who is after us not the general public. Giving in on what other hunters may be ok with because you don't like it helps no one who is a hunter. The goal must be to make the antis voice go away and that will not happen because we give in on anything at all.

I believe if you ask the "general public" about the practices of clubbing penguins in Canada for the dog food industry, 100% will vote to end the practice and will probably contribute a few bucks for the cause. Of course the little fact that there are no wild Penguins in the Northern Hemisphere and they are most certainly not used for dog food is immaterial. Their perception or in this case misperception is reality and no amount of discussion is going to change that.

Bottom line, the public's opinion is not what's eating away at our rights. So convincing ourselves this is the beachhead we should shoot for is a very misguided and diverts attention away from the real fight. And that's exactly what the antis want and from the looks of it, many of us are willing participants in our own demise.

I am going to go out on a limb here for a minute and be a realist. I am also more qualified than anyone else on here to comment on animal suffering.

Hunters in the beginning of time were just predators no different than any other predator. Hunters killed to eat and used any and all means to kill their pray as they either ate or they died.

Besides humans...the same holds true for all other predators today.

In true wild land...predators kill way more prey animals than hunters. I ask anyone on here to chime in if they have seen predators kill and eat game...especially wild dog, hyena, and coyotes...but any predator.

When wild dog and hyena kill prey...they usually begin to feast on it way before the animal is dead. It can be a gruesome sight for even the hardest of outdoorsman to watch...yet it is the way of nature. They way the creator of all things set it up to be.

Now fast forward to long-range hunting. Yes the error factor is great and thus the chance of wounding goes up. It definitely may not conform to everyone's 'personal' standards of ethics. Nothing wrong with that.

That said though...to argue from a cruelty point of view that it (long-range hunting) is inhumane...for me does not past the test of science...for I compare it to the animals other options of dying...which 100% will die. Left alone...all animals are going to age and at some point before their heart quits pumping from old age...a predator is going to eat them.

Go put up a film of a pack of wild dog running down an impala and eating it. Then play the uncut version of an impala getting shot from 800 yards with a .30 Hart and getting its front leg shot off then being tracked down by the trackers and dispatched. Tell me which is more humane...the human or the wild dog.

Then for completeness sake...say it is unrecovered. Think what is going to happen. A predator is going to come across the blood trail and kill it and eat it...no different than the old zebra stallion that gets kicked in the front leg defending his harem and gets a fracture...the hyena come along and eat him.

For wild animals...death is always brutal unless a hunter puts a bullet through its heart, its lungs, or its CNS.

While not really my cup-of-tea...to fool yourself into believing that repercussions of a botched long-range shot are worse than natural life without human hunters for animals...is playing right into the anti-hunters hand. By playing those cards...they fund their lobbyists.

My recommendation is...DON'T fall for it.

The moneys paid by long-range hunters fund game management and hunting org lobbyist as well as the dollars from those who prefer to stalk up close.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Public perceptions and attitudes unquestionably play a role in shaping public policy. Engage in conduct that a significant portion of the public finds reprehensible . . . that conduct will eventually be shut down . . . regardless of how much money you try to throw at the problem. That is just one reason why ethical behavior is important.

The money...100% of the time...always wins. I challenge you to show me one single example where it did not.

Historically...the group that shows up in DC the best funded...always wins. It did with horses...it did with lions.

Plenty of examples . . . Sarbanes-Oxley would be one. Keystone Pipeline comes to mind. Lots of legislation is passed that is antithetical to the interests of well funded business lobby's. Why? Public sentiment. Money can keep public sentiment in check up to a point, but it cannot override public sentiment.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Public perceptions and attitudes unquestionably play a role in shaping public policy. Engage in conduct that a significant portion of the public finds reprehensible . . . that conduct will eventually be shut down . . . regardless of how much money you try to throw at the problem. That is just one reason why ethical behavior is important.

The money...100% of the time...always wins. I challenge you to show me one single example where it did not.

Historically...the group that shows up in DC the best funded...always wins. It did with horses...it did with lions.

Plenty of examples . . . Sarbanes-Oxley would be one. Keystone Pipeline comes to mind. Lots of legislation is passed that is antithetical to the interests of well funded business lobby's. Why? Public sentiment. Money can keep public sentiment in check up to a point, but it cannot override public sentiment.

You are fooling yourself if you don't think the Keystone Pipeline fate was not set by the ones with the most lobbying money.

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
So because we hunt and kill animals, we are not allowed to use the benefit of modern technology?

Like using very accurate, very fast rifles with high power scopes to effectively reduce the distances we hunt?

Technology HAS made many things easier for us, and I am for one is extremely thankful for it.

Modern equipment does not make one a LR shooter, and most definitely not a LR hunter. To think so is ridiculous. There's this thing called doping the wind, of which few can master 100% of the time, not even David Tubb who has multiple wins at Camp Perry. I've had over 150 hunters in camp over the past 13-14 yrs now, and only a couple had a clue what they were doing at longer range, 500yds+. Many had no clue what they were doing at 300 yds, and the majority of these guys have hunted all over the world.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Public perceptions and attitudes unquestionably play a role in shaping public policy. Engage in conduct that a significant portion of the public finds reprehensible . . . that conduct will eventually be shut down . . . regardless of how much money you try to throw at the problem. That is just one reason why ethical behavior is important.

The money...100% of the time...always wins. I challenge you to show me one single example where it did not.

Historically...the group that shows up in DC the best funded...always wins. It did with horses...it did with lions.

Plenty of examples . . . Sarbanes-Oxley would be one. Keystone Pipeline comes to mind. Lots of legislation is passed that is antithetical to the interests of well funded business lobby's. Why? Public sentiment. Money can keep public sentiment in check up to a point, but it cannot override public sentiment.

Your kidding yourself if you think the general public wakes up and thinks I wonder if any hunter is taking a long range shot at some animal today. They don't think like I wonder if they raise animals to hunt and how can I stop them. They get feed a line of bull shit from the antis and may or may not give a shit even then. The antis stay strong because we feel the need to try and tell other hunters there wrong because some don't like it. So instead of fighting the people we need to we decide to try and stop other hunters from doing things because of ethics or morals. Then the few try and say it is others that are to blame because they do things some don't like.

If we don't start fighting as a group and get all hunters no matter if it is bow,gun, muzzlerloader chasing with a dog or over bait or raised or wild we will lose. If you cant see they don't care how or why we hunt they just want it stopped I have no idea what you are seeing.

I am sure that companies like Exxon/Mobil, J.P. Morgan Chase, Ford, etc. would love a system where those with the most money always win. But that is not the case. The reason legislation adverse to the interests of those companies gets passed is due to public sentiment. Legislators love money . . . . but they also love votes. A legislator faced with taking an action that will screw a large contributor but will avoid alienating voters, will throw the contributor under the bus virtually every time. Happens day in and day out. Hunters cannot win the fight for hunting without those that are agnostic or indifferent to hunting staying that way. When we engage in unreasonable practices we damage our ability to achieve that result. Look no further than Cecil.

quote:

Originally posted by JGRaider:

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
So because we hunt and kill animals, we are not allowed to use the benefit of modern technology?

Like using very accurate, very fast rifles with high power scopes to effectively reduce the distances we hunt?

Technology HAS made many things easier for us, and I am for one is extremely thankful for it.

Modern equipment does not make one a LR shooter, and most definitely not a LR hunter. To think so is ridiculous. There's this thing called doping the wind, of which few can master 100% of the time, not even David Tubb who has multiple wins at Camp Perry. I've had over 150 hunters in camp over the past 13-14 yrs now, and only a couple had a clue what they were doing at longer range, 500yds+. Many had no clue what they were doing at 300 yds, and the majority of these guys have hunted all over the world.

Having shot NRA Highpower XTC, Mid-Range, Long Range, and Palma matches including three trips to Camp Perry I understand a little about long range shooting, but not long range hunting. 600 yards is not too bad, but past that with a 308 Winchester class rifle things become really interesting. Doping wind is hard enough with range flags, it has to be damn near impossible in the wild. Anyway I would not feel good about hunting long range, just too many variables.

To your point Mr. Raider several years ago I was at the DSC show when it was still held at Market Street (or Garden). I do not remember the vendor but his sales pitch was buy his rifle with his modified scope, range the animal, dial up the elevation and shoot. It is that simple. I walked away.

Ethically each to his own, I just hope those doing it are competent and not Chris Kyle wannabees.

BTW the hardest/best shot I ever made was 70 yards offhand with a double on a buffalo. Anchored it with one shot.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
I am sure that companies like Exxon/Mobil, J.P. Morgan Chase, Ford, etc. would love a system where those with the most money always win. But that is not the case. The reason legislation adverse to the interests of those companies gets passed is due to public sentiment. Legislators love money . . . . but they also love votes. A legislator faced with taking an action that will screw a large contributor but will avoid alienating voters, will throw the contributor under the bus virtually every time. Happens day in and day out. Hunters cannot win the fight for hunting without those that are agnostic or indifferent to hunting staying that way. When we engage in unreasonable practices we damage our ability to achieve that result. Look no further than Cecil.

What you mean cecil the wild lion that was over blown with half truths told and so much shit made up no one knows all the true facts. Then I guess you mean the few and I mean few voices that got to the right people to start the ban on bringing lions back. Anti groups did that no general public did that at all.The general public got bored of that story in a week and the antis kept it going after that. Oh lets not forget the blood lion bs that was around for what all of a day and was gone. The darn raised lion movie that was going to wake up the public though it was around even less time then people wipe there ass in a day.

Hell there is more hunters bringing up the past about all that stuff then the antis or general public now trying to prove there sad point we must fight the hunters that are for such things or we will lose the fight. They have already moved on to leopard and giraffe as we still fight over lions and elephants on what is ok and what is not based on ethics and morals

quote:

Originally posted by MikeBurke:

Having shot NRA Highpower XTC, Mid-Range, Long Range, and Palma matches including three trips to Camp Perry I understand a little about long range shooting, but not long range hunting. 600 yards is not too bad, but past that with a 308 Winchester class rifle things become really interesting. Doping wind is hard enough with range flags, it has to be damn near impossible in the wild. Anyway I would not feel good about hunting long range, just too many variables.

To your point Mr. Raider several years ago I was at the DSC show when it was still held at Market Street (or Garden). I do not remember the vendor but his sales pitch was buy his rifle with his modified scope, range the animal, dial up the elevation and shoot. It is that simple. I walked away.

Ethically each to his own, I just hope those doing it are competent and not Chris Kyle wannabees.

BTW the hardest/best shot I ever made was 70 yards offhand with a double on a buffalo. Anchored it with one shot.

Couldn't agree more Mike, and that is the point I am making. As previously mentioned, but worth repeating again.....I've watched numerous times Todd Hodnett's "guys" shoot, in wind, in the wild. They cannot dope wind every time either with the first shot. Therefore, nobody else can either, period, regardless of what equipment they can buy. A consistent wind (or zero value) is one thing. Gusting and swirling, as in mountains, valleys, undulating ground, etc? Forgetttaboutittt!


If you are at DSC again, and want a real good laugh, go by the booth of Extreme Outer Limits, the clown with the TV show. You'll get more of that nonsense out of him than you can stand.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
I am sure that companies like Exxon/Mobil, J.P. Morgan Chase, Ford, etc. would love a system where those with the most money always win. But that is not the case. The reason legislation adverse to the interests of those companies gets passed is due to public sentiment. Legislators love money . . . . but they also love votes. A legislator faced with taking an action that will screw a large contributor but will avoid alienating voters, will throw the contributor under the bus virtually every time. Happens day in and day out. Hunters cannot win the fight for hunting without those that are agnostic or indifferent to hunting staying that way. When we engage in unreasonable practices we damage our ability to achieve that result. Look no further than Cecil.

And it is more than just politicians. Prior to Cecil we had Delta Airlines in our corner when they stood up to the anti-hunters. After Cecil, general public sentiment turned and Delta folded.


I like ethical discussions. The problem is most people cannot have a rational discussion. I can speak to anything I support, I also would like to speak to things I never plan to do. There are positive attributes to just about anything, but most supporters of some of these activities refuse to try to make a case other than it is legal and stay out of their business.

We spend a lot of time worrying about what anti-hunters think, or read on AR, or that we do not seem united. Screw what they think. Ethical discussions in the open are good. Over the years I have changed some of my views just by listening to what others have to say in support of what they do.

Deal. Drop me an email with your plans. Maybe we can grab dinner one evening.

Good post Lane, but I think a lot of us are pretty well versed on animal suffering.

The problem with your whole analogy, and having spent a fair amount of time in the Zoo field, I have heard the rebuttal, predators HAVE NO CHOICE, they have to kill to live.

Humans are No Longer bound by that stricture, and that Sir is and will be the response from the Anti's, because I have heard it before.

We humans are the ONLY predator that has the choice of killing or not. Lane your post and comments are good and honestly I am not picking on you, but from experience in dealing with both anti's and non hunters that really had no stance either way, when asked WHY I feel the need to kill something, saying I like to or I enjoy it, or even it is part of Who I Am, does not really register with those people.

In modern day, Real World terms, what actual justification do any of us have for hunting, other than we enjoy it?

Antis and non hunters do not care what happens in the interactions between prey and predator species, because that is the Natural Order of things and except for the aboriginal/native people that live off the land, modern humans are not dependent upon wildlife to survive.

The whole issue is not cut and dried/back and white. Yes the confirmed anti's have their own agenda, but there are lots of folks that do not hunt and don't really have that much of a problem with those that hunt and utilize the meat, but they do have reservations concerning all of the hype concerning the concept of Trophy hunting.

Just to play the devil's advocate...we 'do' have to "kill" to live. People don't thrive on total non-animal protein diets. We must "kill" fish, chickens, swine, cattle, sheep, goats, etc etc.

The problem is that people are sterilized from it...as the old joke goes..."why would anyone kill an animal for meat when today you can just buy meat at the store."

Killing is as much a part of life...as life itself. We just hide it from ourselves today...trying to fool ourselves into thinking we are more civilized. This same type of sterilization of hunting is what is driving this narrative that long-range hunting is somehow inhumane.

How much time has anyone here spent on an industrial kill plant floor?

I will say these things again:

1) killing is as much a part of life...as life itself.
2) if you are a herbavore...a common natural life ending is being eaten alive
3) if you are a carnivore...the natural life ending is starvation
4) natural life deaths of animals are way less humane (by our definition) than the worst fates inflicted by hunters
5) long-range hunter's dollars pay for conservation as well as close range hunter's dollars.

LEDVM:

Lane, I would probably take some mild exception to #5.

There may be some good LR hunters, but after hunting an area after a "Best of the West" film session and finding a bunch of wounded animals dead and hearing from some guides I suspect while total wounded may well be from shorter ranged folks by sheer numbers, I feel pretty confident that the extreme range guys wound substantially more per capita.

The ethics are not is it suffering more than it would, but rather is it the cleanest kill one can make. Again, if you can get 80% kill area hits at 800, you are darn near 100% at 400. I don't have an issue with taking a longer shot if you are confident you can make it AND you have tried to get as close as possible.

Look at most of the guys here who shoot longer shots... like AAZW. They admit first shot cold bore probability is quite low at extreme range. Time of flight and wind make it not a guarantee regardless of shooting ability. Look at the responses I have gotten when I suggest if you shoot at game over 600, that is your tag, you either collect that animal or you are done... given some of the LR guys responses to that, sounds like there ain't no 80+% confidence in that shot...

If they were willing to call it their tag after 600, I have no issues with their lack of wasting game.

I have done enough long range shooting and seen some really good shots shoot to feel pretty confident that in field normal conditions (i.e. Not a dead calm, with a feeding animal, no wind flags, etc.) that no one will guarantee over 80% hits on 1-2MOA target zone with a first shot cold bore on something over 600 yards out. I know a couple who could claim 4 MOA at extreme range with 80% probability.

I will also go out on a limb and say it may be possible that at some point with development of current military technology we will be able to hit and kill a 1200 yard sheep sized animal with 99% accuracy with a shoulder fired easily portable weapon. That will not be hunting, and questionably it will not be shooting either as there will be no skill involved.

Quote:And it is more than just politicians. Prior to Cecil we had Delta Airlines in our corner when they stood up to the anti-hunters. After Cecil, general public sentiment turned and Delta folded.Quote:

This by MikeBurke speaks volumes after reams of print and misinformation.

While it may be legal,if a little self indulgent,to participate in LONG RANGE hunting, et al and then post it on social network The more we loose the tacit support of the non hunting majority the quicker we will become an isolated minority.

Millions of sensible people know that meat does not grow in supermarket freezers and we alienate them at our peril. Nothing at all to do with pacifying anti hunters.

quote:

Originally posted by John Chalmers:

The more we loose the tacit support of the non hunting majority the quicker we will become an isolated minority.

Millions of sensible people know that meat does not grow in supermarket freezers and we alienate them at our peril. Nothing at all to do with pacifying anti hunters.

That is precisely the point. And the more we conduct ourselves as true sportsman and exercise our hunting rights in an ethical and responsible way, the less likely it will be we will alienate that non-hunting majority.