Went a few rounds with a young lad today who uses all the latest gizmos to increase his odds at bagging his game. I was talking with a friend regarding the release of the 1-shot-1-kill comp system currently being tested by the USMC. In short the device will track, range, compensate for windage and atmospheric conditions and deliver the solution directly to the scope. So in theory all the sniper has to do is wait for a solution lock and fire the weapon. The young man said he would pay top dollar for a device like that to ensure his success in the field. I jumped back and told him that there was already way to much available to aid hunters and that the sport of hunting requires skill in tracking, shooting, planning and most of all using your head. He disagreed and it appeared he wanted to turn hunting into a Nintendo game. Your thoughts..

Question:
Do you think hunting should be protected from devices that give little to no chance to the game and insures hunters success. Or do you think that "hell yes" give me all the toys, bells and whistles to make all my hunting guaranteed.

Choices:
I'll depend on my skills and appreciate the tradition of hunting.
Give me the gizmos, I'm not going home empty handed.

 

I really appreciate my binoculars, quality scope, and my Leica rangefinder....the 2nd best gift my ex-wife ever gave me(the best was the divorce )

Shooting sticks, camo, but I'll do the rest.

I chose the first option, but really, how important is it?

It wasn't that long ago that Scope's were the latest whiz-bang in history. In WWII, what were they? 2 or 4x scopes with lousy, unsealed and uncoated optics? Date it back a few more years and it was the Peep Sight that was the Whiz-bang. A little more and the development of smokeless powder of black powder...

Game Cams, range finders, trajectory modifiers - you can do it all in your head. I seem to remember in BoyScouts being able to estimate distances using the brim of a hat...not that I remember how that works at all.

Constant development and improvement doesn't take away the fact that hunting is still a factor of time and observation. Lack either of them in any great degree and you won't even find a deer to shoot at.

And let's not even consider the amount of skill it actually requires to make a 300 yard shot consistently...from field positions....much less a 600 yard shot made possible with super-electronics.

And no ultimate whiz-bang cartridge / scope combo can fix that.

I hunt to get back to the basics. To remember exactly how food does get to my table. I'd love to say I'm a traditionalist but that's just not the case. I use optics - damn fine scopes and very good gear. Doesn't change the fact that I get out because I like being out "there". I'm quite happy with that.

I Chose the first option.

Findng the game, stalking, getting in close is most of the fun.

As far as I'm concerned he can use whatever he wants.

If he's got time & effort to "deploy" his "equipment"; great.

I know a few of these "Gotta have every Gadget" Kinda Guys, too and their rucksacks feel like the one I used to jump out airplanes with when I was in SF. Only I was deployed for months at a time .....

Most probably never taken a shot at an animal at 300 meters anyway.

Just dropped a Red Deer Stag 2 days ago at 269 meters; no Great Shakes. Wouldn't have need to know the distance 'cept the Forester thought he was doing me a favor by Pinging it while I was getting the rifle up to take the shot.

I voted for the gizmos simply because they will result in less wounded game by marginal to bad shooters. I would use iron sights if my eyes didn't suck so bad. If guys/gals can stalk within 15 yds of animals for bow shots, rifleman should at least make an effort to get within 150 yds IMHO. I understand, though, that some areas of the country/world aren't conducive to this and long range shots are needed.

I wonder where this will all end? Will "hunters" on private lands one day install remote operated rifles and shoot game from the comfort of their study using a PC? There may even be armed ROV's prowling the African bush with a PH and a shooter in New Jersey bagging game on a virtual reality safari!

I didn't anwser the poll I like both last night I ws hunting with a 45-70 and cast bullets.

Some times it with a range finder the best scope rifle ect.

I hunt because hunting is fun no matter how I do it.

quote:

Originally posted by Gerry:


If he's got time & effort to "deploy" his "equipment"; great.

There's the rub.

How long is a mature buck going to "pose" while his gizmo dopes everthing out?

You really skewed the "poll" so I didn't take it. I personally don't want to use that type of technology, but I sure don't want you or especially the government telling anyone what they can or cannot use as long as they are hunting legally.

I am guessing you are using a modern rifle, possibly with a scope, or a tricked out compound bow. Not very "fair"????

Sorry, but this is one of those slippery slopes I don't care to slide down.

quote:

Originally posted by WhatThe:
The young man said he would pay top dollar for a device like that to ensure his success in the field.

If everyone was successful every time out in the field, there wouldn't be any game left to hunt.

And I'm quite sure the Pennsylvania Game Commission would ban such a device just like they deemed the 32 S&W unlawful for the hunting of small game. Use a 22-250 Rem, OK. Use a 10ga magnum, OK. Use a 32 caliber revolver to plink a gray squirrel off a shagbark hickory branch and land in jail, get fined and lose your hunting privileges for 1 year.

The PGC knows what's best.

quote:

Originally posted by Bob in TX:
You really skewed the "poll" so I didn't take it. I personally don't want to use that type of technology, but I sure don't want you or especially the government telling anyone what they can or cannot use as long as they are hunting legally.

I am guessing you are using a modern rifle, possibly with a scope, or a tricked out compound bow. Not very "fair"????

Sorry, but this is one of those slippery slopes I don't care to slide down.

"Skewed"? Not sure of the meaning of that in this poll. However, I do agree with you in that; I don't want the Government involved either. I'm just a regular hunter, scope mounted .308 and a pair of binoculars. I don't hunt "deer farms" or spy on my game with cameras I just hunt the open plains and forests. Each to their own.

quote:

I don't hunt "deer farms"

Neither do I!

quote:

Each to their own.

Exactly my point.

To answer your question, "skewed" in this instance means biased.

I agree with Bob. While I wouldn't want to use something that dopes my shot and locks my scope! Who am I to stop someone else if they feel they need it. IMHO if you need it for hunting -- you shouldnt be hunting.

But I see how many rules and regulatiosnw e have put on us and it really pisses me off. I understand many of them were/are imposed due to the careless actions of one -- and of course some come from the crazies who want to regulate hunting to the point you really cant hunt anymore.

I voted the top (traditional) option.

But...I am not in favor of the Damn government implementing a bunch of Damn regulations either.

Set quotas...and leave each to their own.

I only use electronics for predator hunting.

Absolutely choice number 1! "I'll depend on my skills and appreciate the tradition of hunting."

The only way to hunt is with a flint dagger that you chip out of a rock all by yourself. Anything else constitutes "toys, bells and whistles to make all my hunting guaranteed". We need to pass game laws that forbid any type of firearms, all optics, scent blocker, synthetic clothing and footwear, camouflage not made from foliage, tools made with plastics or alloys or steel, and anything else that insures hunters success.

On the other hand, perhaps one or more intermediate options could have been added to the poll.

Define modern rifle. Most rifles i know of you load the boxmag and cycle the bolt or rack the lever just as you would a pre64 M-70 or M-94 and if you can't shoot an old rifle, Why would they be able to benefit from a modern rifle regardless of the glass you put on top. I don't see alot of benefit other than bragging rights. Even if your thingy compensates for you, you still have to hold steady and squeeze! That said i hunt for the enjoyment of the fair chase and the quiet. I use a modern rifle with alot less scope than alot of people on here, but at times i throw the iron sighted 32 special under the arm and head out because it takes me back to where it all started for me and my grandfather.

I can't agree that the thingies will aid marginal hunters to be successful. Instead I think it will tempt marginal hunters into taking shots they shouldn't. In fact, I think that is already happening.

I didn't vote for a couple of reasons. I prefer the traditional route myself, but I don't want the government getting too involved in saying what can and can't be done in hunting. Give then an inch and they'll take a mile.

At first glance I think such devices are an abomination, but then I think about disabled hunters; those devices could be a godsend for them.

You often hear about folks who make a mess out of a hunt… and game because they are pretty clueless about their rifle and their game.

While I understand that education and practice will fix this issue better than any gizmo… you can’t enforce “education and practice”.

Is it better for the game to be taken humanely by a hunter with a gizmo or to risk a mess of the shot by a poor and inexperienced shooter?

I vote for the gizmo… and none of us have to use them if we don’t want.

My only real concern is that many of the same folks will exceed the capabilities of the “latest and greatest Gizmo” and still make a mess.

Also... why let someone else decide what you need... or decid which devices “hunting” should be protected from?

That will never work out

I'm not a hunter but I voted for skill. I see too many match shooters think that the equipment race will make their scores better.

I see nothing wrong with the video scoped rifles for paralyzed hunters if they need them. That would be my exception to electronic hunting.

Nothing against hunting by the way, I didn't get much opportunity before I enlisted and haven't met too many hunters since I retired. Served with one or two but never got the schedule right.

I voted for the first one. Here in SW Washington I hunt with a blued, wood-stocked rifle with a standard 3-9x40. I don't even carry a range finder. Don't really need it around here.

I don't really have anything against the new electronic gizmos, but it seems like a lot of people rely on them too much. I always carry a GPS when I'm hunting, but I also always carry a topo map and a good compass, and I know how to use them.

There's more to accurate long-range shooting than putting the crosshairs in the right spot.

I think a new fancy scope like that could be useful, but it's not a substitution for practice.

I'm not for more government regulations, and wouldn't want to see them regulated in any way, but I would like to see the guys that are using them at the range occasionally, instead of hanging out at the gun store talking about how they could make a half-mile shot on a running pronghorn in 70mph winds because they have a new toy.

Voted traditional and didnt see anything about stopping someone else from using what he wants. I designed a gamecamera/servo/rifle combo once just for the funof it but would never use it. Was just an exersize in the possible. Dont even own a range findermyself--never have so dont miss it. I am very glad to see that the on constant in response so far is that noone wants the goverment telling us which is permitted.

SSR

As others have stated, I didn't vote because of the wording of the poll questions. However, at first I had an aversion to the "gizmos" route, but then I began to think about some of the things I DO USE: 1) A modern in-line muzzle loader with 209 primers, 3x9 40mm scope, reworked trigger, sabots and clean shooting powder; 2) Very modern/fast/smooth/quiet Elite compound bow, 80% let-off, Hindsight sighting system, super-fancy release, very light--super straight carbon arrows, ultra-modern mechanical broadheads; 3) Laser range-finder; 4) Modern scent reducing synthetic insulated camo; 5) Burris binoculars; and . . . .

Before all these things became common-place, I expect the same question your asking about "gizmos" was asked about them. Yes, I think we can go too far with gadgets, say, infrared scopes, etc, but I don't want the government getting too involved in rule-making in the hunting and shooting sports (or any area of life, for that matter).

I feel, what you feel, but worry about governmental control--they (government) have demonstrated real ineptitude here.

quote:

Originally posted by Red C.:
As others have stated, I didn't vote because of the wording of the poll questions. However, at first I had an aversion to the "gizmos" route, but then I began to think about some of the things I DO USE: 1) A modern in-line muzzle loader with 209 primers, 3x9 40mm scope, reworked trigger, sabots and clean shooting powder; 2) Very modern/fast/smooth/quiet Elite compound bow, 80% let-off, Hindsight sighting system, super-fancy release, very light--super straight carbon arrows, ultra-modern mechanical broadheads; 3) Laser range-finder; 4) Modern scent reducing synthetic insulated camo; 5) Burris binoculars; and . . . .

Before all these things became common-place, I expect the same question your asking about "gizmos" was asked about them. Yes, I think we can go too far with gadgets, say, infrared scopes, etc, but I don't want the government getting too involved in rule-making in the hunting and shooting sports (or any area of life, for that matter).

I feel, what you feel, but worry about governmental control--they (government) have demonstrated real ineptitude here.

The poll was "skewed" just as the point was intended to be biased and once again, I agree 100% in that; I do not wish the Government to be involved in any way or form. However, with that said and if I/we allow history to provide a conclusion it may also be fair to say that: It won't take the Government long to realize the inherent advantage hunters gain with electronic and even organic aids in an effort to increase their odds of success. The game of advantage and disadvantage has always been a game between the people and the Government. i.e. A radar gun to catch speeders, the counter: a radar detector, the Government in its quest to stay on top either outlaws radar detectors and/or uses technology on newer equipment that is out of the financial range to counter. Police and military are allowed full auto weapons with large capacity magazines, tassers, smoke grenades, flash bombs, armored clothing, night scopes. What are you allowed under law? Where and when ever "the people" gain an advantage, the Government isn't far behind making sure to "suppress" that advantage to maintain its own advantage that expands just as well into other departments of the Government i.e., Fish & Game, The EPA etc.,.