TheShootist.41
Banned
Your spelling says it all!
B & C on Long Range Shooting
- Thread starter Nameless Range
- Start date
- Status
Your spelling says it all!
Quote:
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 goes all camo, scent control, tree stands above an animals normal vision, range finders, spotting scopes, etc etc.and I could go on and on.
How many on this forum currently use or have used a Leupold scope with a long range B&C reticle? Nothing like calling another man's kettle black - just send me the royalty fee every time a scope is produced using the B&C name/logo. Going to be interesting to get Leupold's feedback on this B&C proclamation - I have already written them and asked for a response.
I would like to ask the B&C board of directors how much money is ethical to spend to be able to harvest an animal to qualify for their precious book while buying one of them governor's tags. I know way too many heavy hitters that have/are playing this game. Ethical???
Trying to dictate ethics to someone you do not agree with is like trying to say my religion is the correct one and yours is unethical. Nothing like deviding the hunting community.
sweetnectar
New member
Lots of good points.
bigskyblueman
Member
The media guys that hype all the long range everything don't help in terms of image and perception with the non-hunting public. Their choice if they want to take those shots, but I don't watch their shows.
I do not mean to be disrespectful - but this whole B&C proclamation has nothing to do with the media shows. B&C is a well established, old time, well financially healed international organization that has chosen to now dictate an unlisted distance that an animal is to be ethically shot at - and if you went to their facebook page it showed a rocket being launched with the heading : LR ETHICAL HUNTING?
It is your individual choice to not watch or support any of the LR shows - good for you. One person on this site mentioned he has never shot at anything over 300+ yards - good for him - he knows his limitations and lives by them. BUT - don't tell me that a 375 yd (or whatever yardage) shot is not ethical or I am not an ethical hunter.
A guy posts a kill on this forum of a coyote taken at 70+ yards with a bow and all he gets is attaboys and congratulations, yet when you go to the posts on ethical distance on shooting deer/elk with a bow the vast majority are in the 40 yd ethical range. Is it OK or ethical to shoot a bow/rifle at any range on a coyote/wolf versus a deer/elk?
A couple years ago I volunteered to help (my first and last time) at our local gun club for open public sight in day. After 8 hours of trying to help John Q. Public try to hit an 8-1/2 x 17" target at 100 yds off a bench I had seen enough. One guy even had the wrong ammo for the cal. rifle he brought and didn't know the difference. One father and grandfather had a young man so messed up the poor kid will never have a chance at becoming what most of us would refer to as a true hunter. These people seemed perfectly happy with dusting Ol Betsy off a week before season, shooting a few rounds to get "close enough" and getting the same privileges that you and I get. Am I going to knock their methods because they are not the same as mine. No - to me that is what unethical really is.
Last edited:
DSull
New member
In my opinion we have to remember it's hunting NOT shooting!
MinnesotaHunter
Well-known member
Why does everyone have to approve of what everyone else is doing? If you want to shoot longrange, and you believe you can do so ethically, knock yourself out. This is similar to Nugent's argument with P&Y about game farm deer. Nobody is telling you you can't do it, but you can't expect everyone to agree with you just because you want to try and kill things from a long ways off. IMO, if you are that concerned about what the rest of the hunting community thinks about your practices, you might want to look in the mirror before you start throwing stones at everyone else.
I very much appreciate Buzz's post. While I am not confident enough to shoot at game beyond 450-500, I would like to be better at it in the instance that I need to put a second shot into a wounded animal at longer distances.
I very much appreciate Buzz's post. While I am not confident enough to shoot at game beyond 450-500, I would like to be better at it in the instance that I need to put a second shot into a wounded animal at longer distances.
Nameless Range
Well-known member
It isn't about approving of the actions of someone else. It isn't about looking down on others.
It is about having a coherent, ethical definition of "hunting". Because without that, we will have a hell of a time defending it to those who either do not engage in it, or already disapprove of it.
When we hunt, it needs to be as ethical as is reasonable. We need to stress that we have a deep respect and appreciation for the animals we will destroy. Otherwise, we will no longer be able to continue to do what we do, as there will seem to be no honor in it. These aren't quantifiable values, but we have to draw the line somewhere, or at least acknowledge that the line exists - as B & C and P & Y have on various issues. Rinella's quote again:
"We hunt at the pleasure of non-hunters"
Hunting isn't a constitutional right. It could be taken away, and in certain respects has been in certain areas. This graphic was in B & C's follow up post, and highlights why hunters need to speak out against trends within hunting that cheapen the hunt to a point that removes the focus from the deeper meaning of the hunt, and to something else entirely.
It is about having a coherent, ethical definition of "hunting". Because without that, we will have a hell of a time defending it to those who either do not engage in it, or already disapprove of it.
When we hunt, it needs to be as ethical as is reasonable. We need to stress that we have a deep respect and appreciation for the animals we will destroy. Otherwise, we will no longer be able to continue to do what we do, as there will seem to be no honor in it. These aren't quantifiable values, but we have to draw the line somewhere, or at least acknowledge that the line exists - as B & C and P & Y have on various issues. Rinella's quote again:
"We hunt at the pleasure of non-hunters"
Hunting isn't a constitutional right. It could be taken away, and in certain respects has been in certain areas. This graphic was in B & C's follow up post, and highlights why hunters need to speak out against trends within hunting that cheapen the hunt to a point that removes the focus from the deeper meaning of the hunt, and to something else entirely.
Attachments
MinnesotaHunter
Well-known member
I guess I was refering more to the apposing responses. I agree with B&C's stance.
roadhunter
Banned
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2013
- Messages
- 714
MinnesotaHunter
Well-known member
Topgun 30-06
Active member
I think Nameless Range hit the nail on the head with his post and why we really need to police our own at least to some extent. Sooner or later we will all lose our rights to hunt even a mouse if we don't!!!
roadhunter
Banned
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2013
- Messages
- 714
Buzz,
The problem is the people who you discuss as being "cutting edge" are just a small % of the overall group of all hunters. Unfortunately because they make up such a small % of hunters it's going to be difficult to change anything if all you do is look down your nose at "weekend warriors", NRA members, people who support other types of hunting, crossbows, long range hunting, hunting over bait, hunting with dogs, etc...
I know you like to beat your chest and claim victory over anybody who doesn't bring their "A" game but what are you really winning? Seems to me that you are claiming victory in battles on this web site but overall losing the war against SFW, landowner tags, outfitters, high fence hunting, NRA, ranching community, etc... Not to mention dividing hunters even more than they already are.
RobG
Well-known member
This seems to be the typical negative response, and it is missing the point... It has nothing to do with your limitations and everything to do with fair chase.
Fair chase hunting is not shooting! At some point these long range shots are not fair chase because you are simply too far away to be detected. Obviously there is a gray area on how far away that is, but it is clear some of these guys are over it.
This is B&Cs definition of fair chase:
(emphasis mine)B&C said:
It is something to think about.
JoseCuervo
New member
Care to share with the rest of the class how high fence hunting is doing in Montana?
How about letting us know how many court battles we have won against Welfare Ranchers?
roadhunter
Banned
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2013
- Messages
- 714
Jose,
http://www.montanaelk.com/
Isn't this posing the same thread to wild animals as a high fence hunting operation? Only difference is in one situation the animal is shot and in the other it's slaughtered. BFD. But dont' let that stop you from claiming victory for Montana once again.
This is exactly what I am talking about. You act like you are winning the war because of a few minor decisions in 1 state. In reality the "Montana" opinion of hunting is a very small % of all hunters. Basically a fringe political extremist group that is against many types of hunters/hunting (crossbows, electronics, muzzleloaders, baiting, hunting with hounds, high fence, etc) and many other groups (SFW, NRA, MOGA, WYOGA, etc).
To act like hunters in Montana are dominating the ranching community and outfitters is a bit of an exaggeration as well. We all know how powerful and well funded those groups are.
JoseCuervo
New member
What "war" are you fighting? The right to shoot penned up animals with AR-15's with 40 round clips while they stand around under a corn flinger?
Yeah, that is a cause we should all rally about.
Next thing you're going to tell me that the kill line at the beef slaughter plant is "fair chase hunting" and guys should get in the books for killing angus steers for McDonalds.
Long range hunting
The best thing to do is like bigsky said and not watch those show. We could also
let their sponsors know what we think of those shows and tell them we won't be
buying their products.
The best thing to do is like bigsky said and not watch those show. We could also
let their sponsors know what we think of those shows and tell them we won't be
buying their products.
roadhunter
Banned
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2013
- Messages
- 714
The best thing to do is like bigsky said and not watch those show. We could also
let their sponsors know what we think of those shows and tell them we won't be
buying their products.
Problem is that companies such as Leupold supports shows like OYOA/Fresh Tracks but they also sponsor Pigman and other gun shows. So do you boycott Leupold because they support Pigman and the NRA? Or do we support companies who support shows like Pigman and groups like the NRA?
Buzz has Leupold scopes on some of his guns, so he has indirectly supported the NRA and Pigman through buying Leupold products.
Kenetrek sponsors Extreme Outer Limits. That guy was busted for poaching and promotes the long range shooting this thread is discussing as a growing problem in hunting. So do you boycott Kenetrek because they support poachers and people who take long shots while hunting?
Anybody who has a pair of kenetrek boots has indirectly supported the poacher who runs EOL and long range hunting.
Last edited:
roadhunter
Banned
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2013
- Messages
- 714
Your comments are exactly what I am talking about. Anti high fence, anti AR-15, and anti baiting all in one sentence. Thanks for giving us an example of the political extremist views of hunting from a Montana perspective. Funny how you dont' want to discuss the high fence elk breeding operations in Montana but do want to change the subject to McDonalds of all things. Very predictable.
Well since the discussion has stopped making any sense at this point it's' probably time for me to stop our discussion. Please throw a few more one liner insults toward me so we can wrap it up and move on. Thanks for enlightening us.
- Status
