quote:

"Live target practice" is somewhat repugnant to me. If you want to shoot prairie dogs, fine. Stay within your range limitations.

Ok, so is having ranchers and farmers dump poison down the gopher holes ok then? Maybe you need to be on the PETA website rather than here. You obviously know zip about this. Sometimes hunting/shooting is about wildlife management not what you "imagine" it is.

quote:

quote:Soooo, you feel that a group of people driving their vehicles to a location, piling out with all sorts of gear, dressed in everyday street clothes and shooting something at 800 to 1000 yards is ethical hunting?

Hell no. Not now, not ever if you are refering to big game.

Years ago I had friends who were traditional bow hunters that argued that compound bows were pure EVIL, totally unethical and should not be allowed in archery season. Obviously their opinion did not prevail. How is some ass taking an 80 yard shot at an antelope with the latest wonder bow any different than his idot cousin taking a 1000 yard shot at an antelope?

Lets say someone is going to take a shot at a deer etc at say 600 yds. In order to do that the equipment has to be capable of some decent groups at 1000 yds. The same type of comparison can be made about the techno bow hunter.

The thing here is that this type of equipment is argueably more ethical for a 300 or 400 yard shot. Ref: Applied Ballistics for Long Range Shooting by Bryan Litz Chapter 15 Hit Probability for Hunting. IF IF IF the user actually knows what the hell he is doing!

What to do about this crap:
I don't get to see "hunting TV" here since I have to buy the "everything package" from the cable company to get that type of programing. From what I've seen it isn't something I'd watch. Whilst traveling in another state I did see a film a while back of a group of yahoos shooting an antelope at 1000 yds plus.The program had sponcers. Those are the people you need to hit with the ethical arguements.

quote:

That happens at normal ranges with once a year hunters.

Yes, exactly.

Since we can not regulate stupidity, why give these folks more opportunities to give those of us that do try and be ethical sportsmen a blakc eye.

If these idiots don't know about this equipment and it's not presented as an "easy" solution to their incompendence that would help. See "sponcers of jackass TV".

As some one else mentioned, do you force hunters to take proficiency tests? They do in European countries. How well do you think that idea would go over here in America?

Cut the numbers of hunters in half at least, maybe as much as 75 to 80% loss.

Who will be given the authority to go around and check individual hunters ability to hit a target at "X" yards?

See previous answer and then answer, Brady Bunch, PETA. You get the idea.

How is shooting at game at extended ranges any different than the computer hunting idea?

Well, it is a matter of degree to some extent. Both are way-stations on the road to hell. Just because you can doesn't mean you should. These are symtoms of societal degeneration, moral, ethical decay. To the serious long range shooter it is sport, a challenge, to many however it is simply a quick fix for their sloth, a side alter in the "Church of ME".

Most of our present game laws came about because people decided that some forms of accepted hunting practices were ethically wrong.

Jack Lighting(Spot Lighting Deer), in some locals running deer with dogs or artificial feeding of deer, shooting deer with 22 RF firearms.

If a person is willing to take the time and effort and spend the money for the equipment to actually do long range shots, even though I do not feel that it is hunting, I can accept that they have the right to hunt/shoot that way.

The problem I am seeing and hearing is that people that are not going to go thru all the disciplines related to that type of shooting are trying to take the normal shortcuts many humans seem to buy into and are planning on being in the woods this Fall blazing away at elk and deer at 1000 yards.

It has been proven time and time again, that hunters, just like any other group of people have a real hard time policing themselves.

quote:

Originally posted by M16:

quote:

Originally posted by nube:
I'd rather kill my critter after a lot of long range practice and getting to know my gun than shoot a fenced animal any day. I don't care how big of a fenced area it is!

In that case you shouldn't hunt at all. There are oceans surrounding the continent on which you hunt. Might as well be a fence.

I was answering the question at hand and gave my honest opinion. I will also state it again. Where I hunt half of the land is public land and every hunter in Alberta can hunt it. There are no high fences. Most of the public land allows hunting as well. If there is a big buck in the area anyone has the right to hunt it. I would rather have it like that than to have some high fenced, steroid filled deer where only a handfull of people are allowed to hunt because they paid the right fee to enter.
If I see a big deer in a season of hunting the chances are I could hunt that same deer for a whole season and not see him again. Seems to me that is a lot more like hunting than to feed the things like cattle and take there picture every night and kill it when I feel it has reached it's potential. I call that going to the slaughter house.
If you take offence to that then that is your problem not mine. I was asked my take on it and that is how I feel. If you want to do things like that then have at it. I know when I hang a deer on the wall I know it is not pen raised.

quote:

I was answering the question at hand and gave my honest opinion. I will also state it again. Where I hunt half of the land is public land and every hunter in Alberta can hunt it. There are no high fences. Most of the public land allows hunting as well. If there is a big buck in the area anyone has the right to hunt it. I would rather have it like that than to have some high fenced, steroid filled deer where only a handfull of people are allowed to hunt because they paid the right fee to enter.
If I see a big deer in a season of hunting the chances are I could hunt that same deer for a whole season and not see him again. Seems to me that is a lot more like hunting than to feed the things like cattle and take there picture every night and kill it when I feel it has reached it's potential. I call that going to the slaughter house.

I see nothing wrong with that explanation, and in my opinion I wished that people had the chance to hunt that way in more areas than they do.

How willing would you be to shoot that same buck at 800 to 1000 yards away?

No problem at all because like I said if I see a big deer over 170 here where I hunt most likely that deer will not be seen by me again. I have hunted certain deer I have found on camera or seen during hunting season and never seen them again. Sometimes putting 3 weeks at a go on finding them and if I am lucky I will get a second chance at them. Only once have I ever seen the same big deer 3 times after consitantly hunting him and that took 3 weeks of hunting hard with clients I guided between the 2 of us. We never did kill that deer in the end.
If I ended up killing him at 100 yards or 600 it makes no difference to me because the hard part in my books is finding him and then the next toughest part is sticking a hole in him.

That is what I consider hunting.
Again, My 2 cents and my thoughts.

quote:

Originally posted by nube
I would rather have it like that than to have some high fenced, steroid filled deer where only a handfull of people are allowed to hunt because they paid the right fee to enter.

Tell me more about these steroid filled deer. What steriods are used? How are they given?

quote:

Originally posted by Cane Rat:

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:
I am merely asking where, long range 600 yards and over, shooting at game animals falls in the concept of Fair Chase hunting.

It doesn't. I can understand the need for the occasional long shot if one can't get closer but these long range guys seem to make no attempt to get close instead purposely trying to make the shots as long as possible. Seems everyone is a wannabee special forces sniper these days.

+1

We owe it to the critters to make the effort not only to be good shots, but to get as close as reasonably possible. That conceivably might be 600 yds in the Pamirs for Marco Polo, but it's not a reasonable distance for game we can hunt for weeks or months every year. Paper targets don't suffer if we hit them in the leg, gut, or jaw.

Most of us know the difference between hunting, shooting & killing- and what constitutes
"ethical" hunting. Others don't care, so long as they get their critter. How many are disappointed if they did not get the best buck, or bull, or ram- or @ least trophy type critter? As opposed to just getting something & enjoying the experience. Or, heaven forbid going home empty handed.

Problem is, over the last 40-50 yrs, there has been a huge decline in American morals, integrity AND ethics in just about all endeavors- and I figure it will continue. And this can be applied to hunting as well. There are plenty out there who do not think ethics matter.

Long range hunting, shooting, killing- whatever you want to call it, will perhaps take care of itself. As those wannabees invest in all that equipment learn that an investment of time, etc. is also required; that they simply cannot go out & shoot something at long range because they have the euipment that is capable of doing
so- they will gine up the notion.

I recall when the movie, Dirty Harry, came out- everyone had to have a S&W .44 Mag. Then, just as suddenly, a lot of used S&W .44 Mags went on the market. The gun was more than many could or wanted to handle and they did not want to put forth the effort to become proficient with it.

SGraves: Apparently, the Dems are heeding Stalin's quote about the vote counters.

quote:

Originally posted by HunterMontana:

quote:

"Live target practice" is somewhat repugnant to me. If you want to shoot prairie dogs, fine. Stay within your range limitations.

Ok, so is having ranchers and farmers dump poison down the gopher holes ok then? Maybe you need to be on the PETA website rather than here. You obviously know zip about this. Sometimes hunting/shooting is about wildlife management not what you "imagine" it is.

quote:

quote:Soooo, you feel that a group of people driving their vehicles to a location, piling out with all sorts of gear, dressed in everyday street clothes and shooting something at 800 to 1000 yards is ethical hunting?

Hell no. Not now, not ever if you are refering to big game.

Years ago I had friends who were traditional bow hunters that argued that compound bows were pure EVIL, totally unethical and should not be allowed in archery season. Obviously their opinion did not prevail. How is some ass taking an 80 yard shot at an antelope with the latest wonder bow any different than his idot cousin taking a 1000 yard shot at an antelope?

Lets say someone is going to take a shot at a deer etc at say 600 yds. In order to do that the equipment has to be capable of some decent groups at 1000 yds. The same type of comparison can be made about the techno bow hunter.

The thing here is that this type of equipment is argueably more ethical for a 300 or 400 yard shot. Ref: Applied Ballistics for Long Range Shooting by Bryan Litz Chapter 15 Hit Probability for Hunting. IF IF IF the user actually knows what the hell he is doing!

What to do about this crap:
I don't get to see "hunting TV" here since I have to buy the "everything package" from the cable company to get that type of programing. From what I've seen it isn't something I'd watch. Whilst traveling in another state I did see a film a while back of a group of yahoos shooting an antelope at 1000 yds plus.The program had sponcers. Those are the people you need to hit with the ethical arguements.

quote:

That happens at normal ranges with once a year hunters.

Yes, exactly.

Since we can not regulate stupidity, why give these folks more opportunities to give those of us that do try and be ethical sportsmen a blakc eye.

If these idiots don't know about this equipment and it's not presented as an "easy" solution to their incompendence that would help. See "sponcers of jackass TV".

As some one else mentioned, do you force hunters to take proficiency tests? They do in European countries. How well do you think that idea would go over here in America?

Cut the numbers of hunters in half at least, maybe as much as 75 to 80% loss.

Who will be given the authority to go around and check individual hunters ability to hit a target at "X" yards?

See previous answer and then answer, Brady Bunch, PETA. You get the idea.

How is shooting at game at extended ranges any different than the computer hunting idea?

Well, it is a matter of degree to some extent. Both are way-stations on the road to hell. Just because you can doesn't mean you should. These are symtoms of societal degeneration, moral, ethical decay. To the serious long range shooter it is sport, a challenge, to many however it is simply a quick fix for their sloth, a side alter in the "Church of ME".

Actually, read what I said.

Stay within your paper determined max range. Blowing the hind leg off some Prairie rat because you wanted to see if you could hit him way out past fort mudge is irresponsible.

I have shot Prairie dogs before, will again.

I just won't shoot them at 800 yards, at least until I can hit a Coke can reliably at that range. If its a wing and a prayer, your out to lunch.

quote:

I would rather have it like that than to have some high fenced, steroid filled deer where only a handfull of people are allowed to hunt because they paid the right fee to enter.

I'm still waiting for an answer on the steriod filled deer. Otherwise I am going to have to think you are full of shit and have no idea what you are talking about.

A most interesting topic crazyhorse. I have read the whole thing and have noted, with some interest, a number of posters have indicated their opinion that ethics is a personally relevant stance only.

What is most interesting about that is ethics is generally accepted by definition to be a code of conduct governing a group and its activities. However, in the last span of 30(+?) years or so, we have, in this nation, seen the rise of a more me-centered notion of personal "ethics" which may or may not fit within the larger group ethics. In fact, it has become downright unfashionable to even suggest foisting a group's ethics upon the individual. This is merely PC in disguise, gentlemen.

Too much oneness and chaos arises. Too much sameness and homogeny arises. The way is the understanding of the middle path.

quote:

Originally posted by M16:

quote:

I would rather have it like that than to have some high fenced, steroid filled deer where only a handfull of people are allowed to hunt because they paid the right fee to enter.

I'm still waiting for an answer on the steriod filled deer. Otherwise I am going to have to
think you are full of shit and have no idea what you are talking about.

I think maybe you are not paying attention to what is the latest thing for the past few years. The latest things are food plots with plants that are the highest mineral and protein available. There are tons of new kinds of bags and buckets of specialized feed. Mineral blocks with added nutrients. On and On and non stop formulas and ways to grow big horns on deer. Yes you may be right that it isn't actually injecting a deer with a needle and filling him full of a steroid but to me I call them steroid grown deer. I call them FAKES like they are. A pile of guys like you will get all excited over a 300" deer that is artificial and for what reason? They are fake. A wild deer trumps an artificially grown one any day. Artificial by my standards is anything that is fenced, fed supplements or grown on some deer farm and then released to some "wild" habitat as some call it.

We have a bunch of deer farms here in Alberta. Thank goodness they do not allow us to hunt on fenced farms. All our deer go to Saskatchewan where they allow fenced deer hunting. The amount paid is done by the number of inches and you can bet that they will try and get a deer to grow every inch possible. They will get every $$ they can out of the guy that wants to go into a hunt farm where he can see a 200" deer every day of his hunt and shoot one. Kind of seems silly to me to be paying for something like that. Kind of like the guys that come up to do the fenced Bighorn sheep hunts on the bald assed prairies! That is a whole other topic.

If that is your style then have at it. It just is not for me M16. Obviously it has hit a nerve with you. Being from Texas I could probably understand why. If that style is the way you do it and you are happy then don't worry about what I have to say.

quote:

If that is your style then have at it. It just is not for me M16. Obviously it has hit a nerve with you. Being from Texas I could probably understand why. If that style is the way you do it and you are happy then don't worry about what I have to say.

I disagree with you on the high fence. Other than that we pretty well agree. Just because there is a high fence doesn't mean the deer are injected with steriods. You can argue on the merits without introducing falsehoods to support your stance. I just called you on it.

quote:

Originally posted by jsl3170:
What is most interesting about that is ethics is generally accepted by definition to be a code of conduct governing a group and its activities. However, in the last span of 30(+?) years or so, we have, in this nation, seen the rise of a more me-centered notion of personal "ethics" which may or may not fit within the larger group ethics. In fact, it has become downright unfashionable to even suggest foisting a group's ethics upon the individual. This is merely PC in disguise, gentlemen.

Too much oneness and chaos arises. Too much sameness and homogeny arises. The way is the understanding of the middle path.

Well said!

The individual self always resents being told "no." It is our human rebellion (some would say, "expression").

"Ethics" (and the game laws which result) is first an act of the collective group, and only (but not always) afterwards an individual submission to the given topic.

Of course, as with individuals, the collective group can also be misguided.

The greatest error, in my mind anyway, is this perhaps modern notion that "only I can/should/will determine what is right for me."

Don't we call that "narcissism"?

friar

quote:

Originally posted by M16:

quote:

If that is your style then have at it. It just is not for me M16. Obviously it has hit a nerve with you. Being from Texas I could probably understand why. If that style is the way you do it and you are happy then don't worry about what I have to say.

I disagree with you on the high fence. Other than that we pretty well agree. Just because there is a high fence doesn't mean the deer are injected with steriods. You can argue on the merits without introducing falsehoods to support your stance. I just called you on it.

You ever been to a national park? What's the difference other than you can hunt one and the other you can't? Give me a fenced off area and controll the feed (steroids I call it), who and how many that can hunt it I can garantee you I will be shooting a 200" buck every year!!
I don't expect you to aggree with me M16 but next time your sitting at your corn feeder on your fenced ranch after spending the summer taking pictures of the big deer all summer and ringing the dinner bell I hope your proud of him when you hang him on the wall!

quote:

Originally posted by nube:
You ever been to a national park? What's the difference other than you can hunt one and the other you can't? Give me a fenced off area and controll the feed (steroids I call it), who and how many that can hunt it I can garantee you I will be shooting a 200" buck every year!!
I don't expect you to aggree with me M16 but next time your sitting at your corn feeder on your fenced ranch after spending the summer taking pictures of the big deer all summer and ringing the dinner bell I hope your proud of him when you hang him on the wall!

This is a BS statement. I dont like hunting behind fences either but you cannot make an educated opinion if you havent done it.

My family has a ranch in TX with a fence around it and I havent shot a buck there since it was fenced in 1988. I can tell you, for a fact, that some of the big mule deer I have guided on over the years were much easier to kill than some of the deer that reside on my Grandfathers place.

quote:

I will be shooting a 200" buck every year!!

a rediculous statement, saved for posterity.

quote:

Originally posted by friarmeier:

quote:

Originally posted by jsl3170:
What is most interesting about that is ethics is generally accepted by definition to be a code of conduct governing a group and its activities. However, in the last span of 30(+?) years or so, we have, in this nation, seen the rise of a more me-centered notion of personal "ethics" which may or may not fit within the larger group ethics. In fact, it has become downright unfashionable to even suggest foisting a group's ethics upon the individual. This is merely PC in disguise, gentlemen.

Too much oneness and chaos arises. Too much sameness and homogeny arises. The way is the understanding of the middle path.

Well said!

The individual self always resents being told "no." It is our human rebellion (some would say, "expression").

"Ethics" (and the game laws which result) is first an act of the collective group, and only (but not always) afterwards an individual submission to the given topic.

Of course, as with individuals, the collective group can also be misguided.

The greatest error, in my mind anyway, is this perhaps modern notion that "only I can/should/will determine what is right for me."

Don't we call that "narcissism"?

friar

while this discussion is all well and good, if we banded together and had the game laws changed (everywhere? national hunting laws?) so that shots over XX yards were illegal, how do you enforce that?

here's the thing, hunting is often a solitary activity. how you hunt is a highly personalized thing. personally, i don't take shots over 300 yards because that's the range i feel comfortable shooting at. that may not be true of the next guy and he might be good out to 600 yards. or a 1000. this discussion is really no different than one about a guy that is a poor shot at 100 yards. it's all about personal limits and what you do after the shot, something they talk about in hunters safety, at least in this state. it doesn't matter if it's 30 yards or 900, you need to see if you've hit the animal. they dont always react the way a person might expect when shot, and it's possible you missed clean at 30 yards.

and jsl3170, it's not just the rise of a more me-centered notion of personal "ethics," it's also that hunting has become a game of inches... the notion a person MUST harvest a "trophy" every time out. again, personally i like to eat deer, so i'll shoot the first legal animal i see if given the opportunity. are "trophies" nice? yeah, but you can't eat the horns (at least not without A LOT of boiling and seasoning! ) I kinda look at any successful, 'clean' kill a trophy. I've made poor shots and while those animals might taste just as good as another, i'm definately not as proud of the kill.

so what do you fellas propose be done about the scourge of long range shooters? and i realize this is all supposition, but we should try and be realistic when proposing laws, regulations and such. nationalized proficiency tests would VERY likely never happen. can you imagine the backlash?

heath

Lots of interesting comments and it is staying fairly civil.

Hopefully the curve ball I am fixing to throw in here won't stir things up too much, but, here goes.

Let us push ethics out of the way just a little even though they are part of the equation.

Let's look at hunting behind fences, and this does not apply to all high fenced properties, as some places are low fenced but because of their size and management techniques they do have good numbers of quality game, long range shooting/hunting, even hunting with a guide/outfitter/PH.

Let us take it from the realm of Fair Chase and Ethics and place it in the real world concept of time and the amount of same any individual can commit to the activity.

Many folks enjoy hunting and the outdoors, many of them would like to be able to afford both the time and money to take off for an extended period of time and really enjoy the whole experience.

Step into the real world, many people can not just drop everything they are involved in and check out of reality for 2 or 3 weeks at a shot, without major consequences.

I can spend the time because I am retired, semi-retired and my job allows me to be in the field with the opportunity to hunt and fish everyday of the year.

The majority can not do that. They have to squeeze a week, maybe 10 days out of the year to go out and enjoy the sport. While I do not agree with the long range hunting concept, I can see why some folks would be drawn to it, apart from the quasi-military aspect.

You drive out to some place where you have permission to hunt, you know what time of day the animals will be moving around feeding, you get your support staff and gear co-ordinated, when the animals come out to feed, you pick out the one you want make sure everything is a go, squeeze the trigger and your game is down.

Don't have to worry about camoflage clothing or scent block or making noise. I am not trying to be flippant about it, because basically, especially concerning white tail deer, that is the way a lot of the guided "trophy" hunts work. The client shows up, is driven to a possibly heated blind, the feeder goes off and depending on how deep the clients pocketbook is an animal walks out, is shot, picked up and takeb back to the lodge and the sport can set around the lodge the rest of his hunting period and just relax.

I prefer not to hunt that way myself, and I wish that I could guide hunters on actual spot and stalk hunts, but because so many of them do not have the luxury of time to get in shape, learn how to properly use their equiment, and for a large number of folks, know how to accept failure.

I see and hear too many folks bragging about how big whatever they are going to kill will be, how far away and how dead iot is at the shot, and then watching all that slowly crumble as each day slips away and they end up in camp with one hour of hunting time left and facing going home defeated.

Maybe in the overall scheme of things it has nothing to do with ethics as much as wanting to always be successful at everything we do, but not be commited enough to spend the time or gain the skills neccessary.

well, that wouldn't really be successful then would it?

quote:

Originally posted by 505 gibbs:

quote:

I will be shooting a 200" buck every year!!

a rediculous statement, saved for posterity.

Considering I am killing a 170+ for myself almost every year for quite a while now I would suspect if I had my own little private ranch and fed them and babied them I do not think it would be too hard to grow a pile of bucks that would score over 200". The game farms can do it so why can't I?

Some of you guys think this is a bold statement. I think many of you have not hunted deer up here. If I was to try to do this in Texas it would be a little harder as the deer don't have as good of genetics.

Here are a few pics or some deer for you guys if you like to see big WILD deer.



Believe it or not but the one in the middle scored 213! I didn't think it would until I got a tape on it.

Nube,

Awesome deer. I can't even fathom seeing something like that live.

CH,

In regards to high fences, people pay big bucks to hunt in a similar fashion is South Texas. Some places have 20,000+ acres..all low fenced but the deer don't even know to be afraid of people because the hunting is so controlled. You sit out on food plots with your guide and watch big deer until he tells you which one to shoot. The difference is you get to say it was shot "fair chase" and on a low fenced ranch. Is it any harder than high fenced properties, probably not.

Good statement Scott.

quote:

Originally posted by scottfromdallas:
Nube,

Awesome deer. I can't even fathom seeing something like that live.

CH,

In regards to high fences, people pay big bucks to hunt in a similar fashion is South Texas. Some places have 20,000+ acres..all low fenced but the deer don't even know to be afraid of people because the hunting is so controlled. You sit out on food plots with your guide and watch big deer until he tells you which one to shoot. The difference is you get to say it was shot "fair chase" and on a low fenced ranch. Is it any harder than high fenced properties, probably not.

Great post Scottfrom Dallas. I really could care less if someone hunts like that. I don't like it when people want to brag about the animal they shot in that manner though.

I do also understand that things are different in the U.S versus Canada. I am lucky that I can hunt on private land and be lucky to not run into another hunter in a days worth of hunting in prime deer locations. It must not be fun when you have to worry about leasing a spot so you can go kill a deer or know that the big 2 year old deer on your 40 acre parcel is most likely going to get shot by your neighbor and does not have a chance to get to a decent age.

Glad you liked the pictures. Here are a few of my own that I posted before if you care to look at a few more. http://forums.accuratereloadin...591049451#8591049451
I hunt hard every year. I don't like to shoot them unless they are 170 or better anymore. Most seasons I see 2-4 of them in a couple weeks of hunting and just have to be on the ball to put a hole in them as you don't usually see them again. I wish I had pictures of some of the high fenced grown deer here in ALberta that are being shipped out to hunt farms. They are all monsters. Good genetics and feed and there are a pile of young 4 year old 200+ deer. Amazing they can put bone on like that. Amazing to see them in the wild as well. It has only happened 3 or 4 times for me and I will remember them forever.

Here are a few more that I missed from the last couple years as well.

impressive whitetail Nube.

Nube,

More awesome pics. Thanks for sharing. Maybe with the new Antler Restrictions we have in place I'll be able to see some big deer in the next few years. Of course, I have a better chance of being struck by lightning than seeing a buck like you posted were I hunt.

Thanks guys. A lot has to do with the type of deer you hunt. If a big deer in your area is a 150" deer and you kill one you should be very happy with it. Don't worry what is going on in other parts of the world

quote:

Thanks guys. A lot has to do with the type of deer you hunt. If a big deer in your area is a 150" deer and you kill one you should be very happy with it. Don't worry what is going on in other parts of the world

Damn good statement.

Being from SA I don't get to this part of the forum often, I followed it when it was transferred.

I've hunted various ways, with handgun and rifles, long shots (for me), close ones and most in between.

I think the answer is that long range is not about hunting when you start turning down the opportunities because you are looking for something further away. I've had a friend do that and I felt he could shoot paper long to prove he could shoot.

That said I don't like to have to pass up an opportunity because my skill or equipment is not up to it. There have been times when I could have stalked 30 or 50m closer but didn't consider it necessary and there is always risk of alerting the quarry. THere are times when I felt I could not get close enough to fire a shot. You need to be confident of a killing shot either way, not some Hail Mary lead slinging.


How I hunt will be determined by the game, topography etc. It's all relative. I adjust my shots to the conditions. I believe I'm always hunting nonetheless.


The negativity towards longer range shooting as a general principle is unfounded. Each shot fired at a game animal is an event which should be considered in isolation and considering all the circumstances. In my experience the long range shooters are better shots and practice far more than the once or twice a year hunter who doesn't zero his rifle or practice enough and who wounds and loses more game! That is irresponsible and should not be called hunting.

But to purposely go out and set up in an almost military fashion, with spotters and other support staff and take shots, that do not have to bve taken, still fall under the category of "Hunting"?

It is one thing to Have to take a shot, i.e. an animal that has been alerted to the hunters presense, a wounded animal, an animal in a location where closer stalking is impossible because of topography.

Why do elephant hunters try and get as close as they can before taking a shot, or a cape buffalo. Why not stand back 200 yards out and blast away?

Why not leave the long range stuff to shooting at paper, not flesh/blood/bone? My concerns are not so much with the folks that Have spent the time/effort/energy to become proficient at long range shooting, but the message it sends forth and all of the folks unwilling or unable to commit to the discipline required to master long range shooting that will simply decide that if someone else can do it, they can do it.

Why not let the people who want to hunt their way, hunt their way instead of bitching that it isn't hunting?

If someone is hunting with anything but their hands and, possibly, a rock or sharpened stick, then they're using technology to make their killing easier. If someone wants to use technology and skill to do their killing from longer range and thereby increasing the skill level required, that is their choice of how they want to hunt. Again, if someone is using anything but rocks, then they are being extremely hypocritical to criticize anyone else's choices because they don't fit their definition of "hunting" or "fair chase".

quote:

Why not let the people who want to hunt their way, hunt their way instead of bitching that it isn't hunting?

Why not let women have all the abortions they want with out bitching about it? Why not allow homosexuals marry and have the same rights as heterosexuals without bitching about it? In both cases laws have been enacted to permit or prevent either of these practices.

I do not feel that long range shooting is actual hunting. If people that have made the effort and commited to do such, then that is their thing, I just don't agree with it as it being hunting.

My concern lies more with the non-commital, non-disciplined once or twice a year hunter attempting to duplicate these folks efforts, without the experience/equipment/ability.

This is one of three subjects going on right now on AR that have the potential of being construed as giving the Anti's ammunition against the hunting community, however the one about an individuals sexual exploits while on safari seems to be a stretch for anti's to use against hunters.

Something that can or does appear to be just a stunt or an issue where the validity or neccessity of game laws comes in question can bite us.

I have no problem with folks using space rifles/assault rifles/AR's/black rifles to hunt with, just atn't my thing.

T have no problem with hunting behind a high fence, again ain't my thing.

I have no problem with lots of forms of hunting, and have no problem with a person taking a long range shot, If, it is absolutely neccessary and the shooter has the expertise and equipment to get the job done.

When the whole affair resembles a military operation that looks more like a sniper setting up to take out a terrorist, then I have reservations, and the last time I checked Accurate Reloading is just the place to discuss these type issues.

I reckon it ceases to be hunting when you are more concerned about what the other person is doing then what you are dong.

Quit trying to impose your ideas upon others.

Let's see, how to "make sure" hunting doesn't turn into "some sort of military sniper operation"

No particular order:

No two persons can hunt together, assures no spoting shots for someone.

No scopes over 1x and no reticles other than just cross wires.

No range finders, or binos with reticles, or spotting scopes with reticles. Maybe it's just better to not allow any optics at all!

No rifle may shoot a bullet over 2350 fps. Even this is suspect as buffalo runners often took "long range" shots with weapons shooting projectiles at 1200 fps.

No bi-pods, shooting sticks or other aids to "long-range" shooting.

No slings on rifles as they may be used as an aid to "long range" shooting.

Obviously, there are many more "un-fair" examples. The big question is how to enforce these "fair" regulations.

I suggest that Homeland Security simply expand their "services" to the public in this regard. After all, no one has any objections to their very necessary and totally sencible search proceedures at the airport... Imagine how much more "safe" and "fair" it will be when they come to your home! Wow, don't know about you but I can hardly wait!

The balance between your sense of ethical behavior and your demands for law (regulations?) to enforce those ethics is a fine one. Where is the balance in this situation? No law, no ethics, not judgements and you swing the door wide open and in steps the Devil. Shut the door too tight, and you'll find the Devil helping you make it tighter...

If you find some of these TV shows the sponcer irresponcible, un-ethical behavior offencive then organize a boycott of the sponcers, let them know that you do not adheare to their values (or lack there of). Write the company NOT your congressman!

You miss the point entirely.

No porblem 2 people or 10 people hunting together.

No problem with the type scope used.

No problems with any optics that are used.

And all of the rest of the shit you mentioned, I have no problem with.

I have a problem with people that will not take the time or put forth the effort to do the type of shooting the long range folks are doing.

I am not alone in the boat that feels that a half dozen people setting up a 1000 yards away from a game animal and conducting nothing mnore than a military sniping excercise is not hunting.

The problem is not in the technology, but how the technology is used or abused.

You miss the point:
What are you going to do about "it" (irresponcible long range shooters posing as hunters)?

Complaining here is preaching to the choir, hell even if you go over to longrangehunting.com your comments would not apply to the vast majority of people that frequent that site.

The problem is that complaining here serves up a big plate of "see even the hard-core hunters" think this long range stuff is crap at PETA headquarters. Let's use this to ban certain forms of hunting, certain equipment.

If you are just venting, fine, I shoot long range PD's and also deer at distances more than a few people around here probably think is "irresponcible". Fine, you're entitled to an opinion, even if based on nothing but conjecture, doesn't offend me at all.

If you would like to do something about it, that would be nice, and I think that the folks here could, at least try.

The problem is not with the equipment or the shooters that actually know how to use it. It is the idiot with some cash that wants to buy his way to "cool". Where does he get his ideas? TV? Magazines?

You can not legislate morality. Education is a good start but let also think about not letting the casual, lazy hunter/shooter get too many ideas about how "easy" whacking something at 600 yds is.

I don't watch "outdoor" TV because those channels are part of the super premeium package in my little back-water town and it is just not worth it to me. I will be happy to email the advertisers of "Shooting Deer at One Mile" or whatever idiot show you choose and telling them if they continue to sponcer irresponcible programing I will not be purchasing their crap and will tell me friends to do likewise.

No arguement from me on what you posted. I cannot change what is going on regarding long range shooting, any more than I can change hunting inside a high fence or at a feeder here in Texas.

For the folks that put forth the effort to be able to shoot game at long ranges, while I do not agree with their methods, I do salute them for putting forth that effort.

As with any other hunting method however there will always be those individuals that are not going to put forth the effort but thinkl that buying the equipment is all that is neccessary.

You made a great post and stated things a lot better than I do.