B & C on Long Range Shooting

[BigRack]

If you blindly trust the NRA when it comes to science based wildlife management...you shouldnt even be posting on this board.

You owe it to yourself to research issues before you go to posting a bunch of BS and accuse others of ignorance. Similar to your "bison are livestock in Montana" comment...research would have saved you from egg on your face with that "intelligent" statement, just like researching this one will.

The NRA should stick to defending the 2nd...period. Its what they're good at, and where their level of expertise ends.

As part of a major effort since 2008 to bolster its lobbying and political power, the oil and gas industry has steadily expanded its contributions and influence over several major conservative sportsmen’s organizations, including Safari Club International (SCI) the National Rifle Association (NRA) and the Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation (CSF). The first two organizations have assumed an increasingly active and vocal role in advancing energy industry priorities, even when those positions are in apparent conflict with the interests of hunters and anglers who are their rank-and-file members. The third group, the Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation, is also heavily funded by oil and gas interests and plays a key role in providing energy companies, SCI, the NRA, and other corporate sponsors with direct access to members of Congress.

In this report, we identify three high-profile debates in which the growing influence of the oil and gas industry in SCI, CSF, the NRA and other conservative sportsmen groups could play a decisive role in achieving outcomes that are beneficial to energy companies at the expense of habitat protection, science-based management, and hunter and angler access to wildlife and public lands. These areas to watch are:

■Endangered and threatened wildlife in oil- and gas-producing regions: The case of the greater sage grouse and the lesser prairie chicken
■The backcountry: How the oil and gas industry and its allies are working to undo protections of roadless areas and wilderness study areas
■Public access and ownership: The movement to privatize public lands and wildlife

Is there a reason why you didn't give the link to where you got your report from?

The link is below to the center for American Progress report that wasn't written by a scientist.

http://cdn.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/IndustryInfluenceReport.pdf

I guarantee you that there is more anti-hunting money out there than pro-hunting money in the non-profit sector.

Here is a link to a Congressional hearing about abusive Government employees.

http://www.c-span.org/video/?91849-1/natural-resources

I don't blindly trust the NRA and I'm not a member of it either. I use common sense, and common sense tells me the NRA is not at the top of the anti-hunter pole.

You keep reading your liberal websites and I will follow the science and use common sense.

We can both follow the money and I will win when it comes to anti-hunting money.

 

[BigRack]

I never have been a trophy hunter and I don't care if the B & C club exists or not.

 

[LopeHunter]

I like to get close. That to me is part of the skill set needed to be a better than average hunter. Anyone shooting over 300 yards where there is nothing to gauge the wind where the animal is standing is a gambler. Much of the West does not have an aspen a few feet from the target. 5mph wind starts to move the bullet. 15mph can move the bullet inches over 500 yards. 1000 yards? Seriously. What about winds in-between when shooting over a canyon? A windless day in the West is rare during the autumn. The cameraman story, if accurate, does not surprise me. I have wondered how every shot at 700-1100 yards was so successful knowing how the wind can swirl and rifles can canter even if trusting a bubble level and the solidness of the rest.

Hunt how you want as long as it is legal. If you can live with the results that are inevitable shooting long distance then so be it. I used to archery hunt before my elbow gave out and archery has inherent risks as well that I could live with but I did not like it. Good luck on your hunts.

 

[redwoood]

As men, and really as Americans, we are obsessed with competition. It saturates our culture from sports to American Idol. We are wired to compete at work and in social media for popularity.

I believe that our obsession with competing leads to lives filled with restlessness and empty accomplishments...because there is always somebody out there who has outdone you.

Sadly, this extreme competitiveness has produced the worst possible culture for hunting and that is the culture obsessed with the scoring of antlers. It has gotten out of control and is destroying much of outdoor TV for sure. No longer do we long for the challenge of the hunt, we long for the length of the brow tine. Rather than being content to shoot a good buck at the end of a hard hunt, we see outdoor personalities passing on amazing deer and elk because "He's not what I'm looking for." Most of us would give our left nut to shoot the animals they pass on, but the never ending drive to shoot bigger animals with more inches of antler has reached the absurd and drown out the sport altogether. Look no further than the trophy deer breeding farms to see the gross manifestation of our hunger to win the un-winable biggest buck contest.

Enter long range hunting. Long range shooting in general, and long range hunting specifically, are a craft. You don't simply order a gun from Gunwerks and go shoot an elk at 750 yards. Long Range Pursuit is more about promoting the tools of the craft (selling guns, scopes, classes and rangefinders) than it is about only taking long range shots. The guys at Gunwerks are truly passionate about their craft and teaching others how to do it. Whether or not their show or others depicting long range shots is a further extension of the competitiveness engulfing hunting is for you to decide. We can argue all day about the nuances of what makes "hunting" hunting. I would argue that each man can define it very differently and that shooting an elk or deer or pronghorn across a great distance using finely tuned skills and equipment is still a form of hunting.

Nobody likes the idea of risky shots wounding game and most responsible hunters know the limits of their gear and skill. Certainly we all take shots outside those limits at times, but we usually regret them. The reality that some of us have better skills and better equipment means that we can and sometimes do make longer shots. There is a limit to this however. Despite the fact that technology makes longer shots possible, they still may be unethical given the situation and that's where the hunter's ethics come into play. Is long range hunting just another "main beams, kickers, and brow tines" competition to claim the longest kill? Probably so for some hunters, and we need fewer of them.

I do find it ironic that the organization making this statement is also at least tangentially responsible for the scoring craze. Kudos to Steve Rinella and Randy for showing us the sport with passion for the adventure over passion for record books.

/\ /\ /\ /\
Agreed. Rinella, Newberg, and I would even throw Eichler in there even though he is a little over the top, save outdoor TV. Most of the hosts on there are flat out corporate whores. I still get too tied up in scores at times and it has ruined some otherwise memorable hunts for me.

Long range hunting for me is just another way of trying to buy hunting success. Here is 10 grand, now I can shoot at elk at 1200 yards across two canyons.

As far for "admiring" them for being able to shoot at those distances.........I find that hard too since they can hand the gun to their kids and dial in the scope for them so they can shoot animals at 1000 yards too.

It's not good for hunting but it is good for the hunting/shooting industry so it will only get worse IMO.

 

[RobG]

In a nut shell they are saying to only shoot at distances you are completely confident in. To most of us this is common sense, but like they always say it's not that common.

No, that doesn't seem to be what they are saying at all.

Hunting must involve the risk of detection and failure if there is to be any honor in having overcome the superior senses and survival instincts of the hunted.

Basically, in order for it to be hunting, the animal must have a reasonable chance at detecting you and escaping.

 

[BIDZ]

I find that hard too since they can hand the gun to their kids and dial in the scope for them so they can shoot animals at 1000 yards too.

There is a lot more involved than dialing a scope. I admire that those guys get their kids involved and teach them to shoot.
It is clear that these guys are using top-notch equipment and that they have spent a lot of time learning to use it. What aggravates me is when they move those activities off the range and start flinging bullets at animals.

 

[sbhooper]

I like to get close. That to me is part of the skill set needed to be a better than average hunter. Anyone shooting over 300 yards where there is nothing to gauge the wind where the animal is standing is a gambler. Much of the West does not have an aspen a few feet from the target. 5mph wind starts to move the bullet. 15mph can move the bullet inches over 500 yards. 1000 yards? Seriously. What about winds in-between when shooting over a canyon? A windless day in the West is rare during the autumn. The cameraman story, if accurate, does not surprise me. I have wondered how every shot at 700-1100 yards was so successful knowing how the wind can swirl and rifles can canter even if trusting a bubble level and the solidness of the rest.

Hunt how you want as long as it is legal. If you can live with the results that are inevitable shooting long distance then so be it. I used to archery hunt before my elbow gave out and archery has inherent risks as well that I could live with but I did not like it. Good luck on your hunts.

I got banned from a forum for bringing ethics into the conversation. What sent me over the top, was a guy asking about how to dope a gusty 35 mph wind for a 750-yard shot. The poster appeared to be sitting on the hillside when he posted the question. I blew up and was kicked out Suited me just fine.

 

[Sytes]

Hunting must involve the risk of detection and failure if there is to be any honor in having overcome the superior senses and survival instincts of the hunted.

Agree. There is a difference between hunting and long range rifle shooting.

 

[BuzzH]

As to the B&C article, I mostly agree. I think its great that the B&C prints articles like these to get hunters thinking.

The B&C club is much more than a record keeping organization. Their Fair Chase Magazine has some great articles about all sorts of wildlife management, hunter ethics, etc., usually written by well respected authors.

That said, I have set up a couple rifles for longer range hunting for a couple reasons.

1. I believe anyone that spends the trigger time, ammo, etc. getting to the point they can shoot well at 500+ yards, really improves their shooting at closer ranges. From 500+, shooting form, breathing, trigger control, muscle memory, all start making a huge difference. Using the same shooting form at more moderate and normal hunting ranges gives the hunter an almost certainity in a quick, clean kill.

2. I also honestly sat down and asked myself what I would do given a situation where I'd applied for a particular permit for 20 years, drew it, hunted hard for the entire hunt, only to find the animal I wanted on the last day and it was 500 yards in good conditions. I want to be able to execute that kind of shot with confidence.

3. Also in the case of a needed follow up shot should something go wrong, I dont want to be "guessing" I could finish the job at longer range...I want to know I can.

Since rigging my rifles for longer range shooting, I've only shot a few animals past 300 yards...most of them closer than 200.

Having the ability to shoot farther isnt a bad thing, its just knowing where and when to do so, or more importantly, not to.

 

[sbhooper]

Exactly, Buzz. That is right on. There is a distinct difference between being competent to take a shot if you cannot get closer and doing it on purpose.

The cow elk that I shot last January was the longest shot that I had ever taken. It was 443 yards in good conditions. I knew that my rifle and I could do it and there was no way to get closer. She was in her bed and so there was plenty of time.

There are lots of arguments that arise in shooting long distances because of the definition of how long is too long.

 

[Gr8bawana]

That's true long range is a matter of prospective. To some people used to shooting back east 150 yards
is long range when you can barely see that far in the woods.

 

[sbhooper]

That's true long range is a matter of prospective. To some people used to shooting back east 150 yards
is long range when you can barely see that far in the woods.

That is the quandary, it is a matter of perspective. A 500-yard shot for one person, is as easily done as a 200 yard for another. It depends on experience, confidence and quality of equipment.

However, when you start stretching it past 500 yards, then it becomes more problematic with many variables at work. It is a tough call and because of that, the only real control is going to be personal ethics.

 

[Topgun 30-06]

This long range stuff is just another example of hunting now being turned into an industry, rather than the sport that I have grown up with since the 50s. Now all the TV shows are plugging products 90% of the time just for the sake of making money with no intent or purpose other than that, Fresh Tracks, Meat eater, and a couple of Jim Shockey's shows are about all I watch any more because it's gotten so bad.I watched several of those long range shows where a half dozen people go out to a high spot and shoot up to and more than 1000 yards at an animal that always falls right over and then they pat each other about how great they and their equipment is. They always intimate that they couldn't get closer or just flat out say they do it just to see how far they can kill something and it's absolutely disgusting. Then Joe Blow watches the show and goes out, buys that fancy equipment and shoots a few rounds, and then pronounces himself ready to shoot that bull he drew a tag for at 1000 yards! I fully agree with that B&C article and if these LR people want to shoot at these extreme distances then keep it on paper or gongs for God's sake! I could go on, but I'll end the rant right here before I blow a gasket!!!

 

[Sytes]

Boon and Crockett Club sums up a valuable position that fits my own thoughts on the use of "long range shooting" and "fair chase hunting":

The Club finds that long-range shooting takes unfair advantage of the game animal, effectively eliminates the natural capacity of an animal to use its senses and instincts to detect danger, and demeans the hunter/prey relationship in a way that diminishes the importance and relevance of the animal and the hunt.

Say... 1,000 yards? 1,500 yards? 200 years from now 16,000 yards? This, in my opinion, is not the content of their comment. It is not how skilled one can shoot an animal vs a metal target off in blue yonder There has to be a reasonable element to the hunt.

I applaud B&C for their position on "fair chase hunting" vs "long range shooting" and agree there must be some form of "hunt" within the event...

 

[mtmuley]

So now Boone and Crockett should define exactly what long range is. They going to exclude trophies if their imaginary yardage limit is not followed? Mtmuley

 

[Khunter]

I doubt i could hit squat beyond 350 yards. Never occured to me to try to fix that. Certainly watched some animals walk out of my life that were at that range or longer. That's hunting.

 

[sbhooper]

This long range stuff is just another example of hunting now being turned into an industry, rather than the sport that I have grown up with since the 50s. Now all the TV shows are plugging products 90% of the time just for the sake of making money with no intent or purpose other than that, Fresh Tracks, Meat eater, and a couple of Jim Shockey's shows are about all I watch any more because it's gotten so bad.I watched several of those long range shows where a half dozen people go out to a high spot and shoot up to and more than 1000 yards at an animal that always falls right over and then they pat each other about how great they and their equipment is. They always intimate that they couldn't get closer or just flat out say they do it just to see how far they can kill something and it's absolutely disgusting. Then Joe Blow watches the show and goes out, buys that fancy equipment and shoots a few rounds, and then pronounces himself ready to shoot that bull he drew a tag for at 1000 yards! I fully agree with that B&C article and if these LR people want to shoot at these extreme distances then keep it on paper or gongs for God's sake! I could go on, but I'll end the rant right here before I blow a gasket!!!

100 Percent agree.

 

[TheShootist.41]

100% right but that is not true on this site. This is probably the most opinionated group of hunters you will find. You won't find many hunting groups that are anti NRA but this site has plenty of those as well. It's funny to watch all the political maneuvering and hate for other types of hunting (baiting, hounds, crossbows, high fence, tree stands, sabots, lighted knocks, etc) but it definitely does not bring hunters together.

You forgot egocentric, narcissistic, arrogant and insulting!

 

[shoots-straight]

You forgot egocentric, narcissistic, arrogant and insulting!

egocentric? Narcissistic? Sense you put no smiley face after the sentance I assume you believe what you wrote to be true.

I've seen arrogant, and insulting (at times) but never the other two. Please elaborate or post something to back up your claim.

 

[sbhooper]

You forgot egocentric, narcissistic, arrogant and insulting!