WSJ does a piece on long-range hunting

[VAspeedgoat]

I agree with Gerald on some of the guys owning a long range gun and the mentality that comes with it. I've got a buddy who just put together some outfit that he hasn't even shot yet and is already talking about how the gun should shoot at 600 yds. Sadly I know he got the gun because he has always talked about how its "impossible" to get close to a pronghorn. I guess I never got that memo.

I agree with the others, it is hard to define what is too far and it keeps moving farther away. I don't know what to do about it so I guess I'll keep my definition of what hunting is and try to ignore the long range crowd so I don't get mad. I hate in-fighting amongst hunters anyway.

 

[sbhooper]

????

I've shot elk at 40 yards that didn't know I was there. I'm not sure they need to know you are around for it to be ethical.

I was only using yardage as an example to show how much variation there is in what yardage has to do with the "hunting" part of it. The main difference is that you used your hunting ability to get within 40 yards. You obviously have the "hunting" part down. At 500 yards, you can be half-assed about it and still get the shot, as the animals have no clue unless the wind just plain beats you.

Lots of variables and lots of opinions. There is no answer to the ethical part of it and it is virtually impossible to legislate it other than through permit numbers.

 

[mtmuley]

If nothing else, the LR subject makes for good reading. mtmuley

 

[sbhooper]

If nothing else, the LR subject makes for good reading. mtmuley

 

[Whiptail]

I prefer close range hunting.

 

[mtmuley]

I prefer close range hunting.

Not that simple anymore. mtmuley

 

[Nameless Range]

There are all sorts of ethical problems with long range hunting. There's also considerations of the effect on the resource. And don't forget that often ignored fact that the future of hunting depends on the way it is perceived by non-hunters, and they aren't going to buy into all of our deep reasons for hunting when we are poking elk in the heart at half a mile.

My main bitch about it is it makes hunting way too easy. I know a couple people who are long range hunters. With $1500 bucks, a cds scope, and a couple afternoons at the range they were taking 600+yard cross canyon shots, or plugging a nice buck at 740 yards from the BMA sign in box. Yes it takes some discipline, just not that much. Definitely not the kind of discipline it takes to get in shape, pay attention to the wind, and remain undetected within those ranges that are less than a quarter-mile.

 

[mtmuley]

Excuse me Nameless. Hitting targets at long range doesn't take much discipline? Explain. mtmuley

 

[Nameless Range]

Based on the two individuals I am referencing. Their admitted amount of practice and their success at the ranges I mentioned. I'm probably off at the money amount.

Most of the great hunters I know are in incredibly good shape, understand animal behavior from years of experience, and through a combination of scouting, getting up early, walking miles in the dark, and failing over and over again they find success. All of which takes a ton of discipline.

As I understand it, Getting good at long range shooting takes money and range time. I would agree that there's Discipline in that, but it pales in comparison to the discipline required in those those things I mentioned earlier. And I feel that way largely because of the two obese, ATV riding hunters I mentioned earlier who are very successful at what they do with their long range guns.

Nothing I just wrote is to imply that long range shooters lack discipline in other aspects of hunting or life. Just that it drastically reduces the need for those disciplines, and will ultimately hurt hunting in the long run.

 

[mtmuley]

Guys that have mastered both disciplines would scare the shit out of you. mtmuley

 

[BuzzH]

Guys that have mastered both disciplines would scare the shit out of you. mtmuley

Pretty rare bird...and I'm 100% confident that those that have mastered both, use one wayyyy more than the other.

Nameless Range has a valid point...money can buy you one discipline, and not the other.

 

[belly-deep]

Guys that have mastered both disciplines would scare the shit out of you. mtmuley

Yep. I can't tell you how many pictures pop up in my Facebook news feed from the Montana Weekend Warriors page where the caption reads "742 yard shot" and features a fat guy with a fork horn buck.

Not many can combine the two, and I doubt if LR hunting is impacting trophy quality animals very much, because you still have to be good enough to find a large animal in the first place.

But I don't doubt it results in more wounded game from the guys who like to get and pretend to be the second coming of Chris Kyle.

 

[Elkmagnet]

[video=youtube;pvKDW-nMk-o]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvKDW-nMk-o[/video]

http://www.wsj.com/articles/huntings-newest-controversy-snipers-1481316596?mod=e2fb

Edit:
The article doesn't really take a stance on anything, but highlights the uneasiness that some hunters have with the long-range (like, electronically assisted, 1000+yd, $25k) setups.

"[FONT="]Of about 14 million rifle hunters in America, about 5% are using new long-range systems, estimates Gunwerks founder Aaron Davidson. “And I would expect that 5% to turn into 50%,” says Davidson, a mechanical engineer who started his company in 2006. In the hopes of spurring such growth, Davidson’s company produces a cable hunting show called “Long Range Pursuit,” which he says gains about 300,000 viewers a week.



[/FONT][/COLOR][COLOR=#333333][FONT="]In a 2014 statement, the Boone and Crockett Club, a 129-year-old conservation and record-keeping group, said 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.”"[/FONT]

Based on the two individuals I am referencing. Their admitted amount of practice and their success at the ranges I mentioned. I'm probably off at the money amount.

Most of the great hunters I know are in incredibly good shape, understand animal behavior from years of experience, and through a combination of scouting, getting up early, walking miles in the dark, and failing over and over again they find success. All of which takes a ton of discipline.

As I understand it, Getting good at long range shooting takes money and range time. I would agree that there's Discipline in that, but it pales in comparison to the discipline required in those those things I mentioned earlier. And I feel that way largely because of the two obese, ATV riding hunters I mentioned earlier who are very successful at what they do with their long range guns.

Nothing I just wrote is to imply that long range shooters lack discipline in other aspects of hunting or life. Just that it drastically reduces the need for those disciplines, and will ultimately hurt hunting in the long run.

Excuse me Nameless. Hitting targets at long range doesn't take much discipline? Explain. mtmuley

 

[Elkmagnet]

We are so predictable

 

[Eric Albus]

There is a lot of difference between hunting and killing.

 

[1_pointer]

"In a 2014 statement, the Boone and Crockett Club, a 129-year-old conservation and record-keeping group, said 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.”

Like

Except they hang their name on and I'd guess collect a royalty on a reticle offered by a scope company to enable folks to be able to take what many here would consider "long range" shots...

 

[noharleyyet]

What used to be a long shot is the new norm....

"I used to think I was an artist. Come to find out I'm a beer salesman. " – James McMurtry

 

[mtmuley]

While I am not a huge proponent of specifically targeting animals at longer ranges, I see nothing wrong with being prepared for any shot that may present itself. mtmuley

 

[TheTone]

I see a couple different types of "long range" guys each fall. Those with a beat up hammered old gun with a massive $2000 scope on it and those with a big money set up all the way around. Both are taking shots at animals way out there and both are killing a few of them. One large camp I know of that seems to be into the large range trend basically cleaned a drainage out of bulls in 2015. They were very open that one bull took over 10 shots to bring down and they lost another. The one they lost was lying maybe 10 feet from a road you can drive a pickup on. That same camp killed one spike bull this year and couldn't figure out why it wasn't as good as the year before. In my part of the world the long range trend is definitely having an impact on game populations and success rates. In canyon country, areas with large clearcuts, and high road densities about the only thing that used to keep animals safe in rifle season was distance, that piece of safety is quickly being removed.

I'm not sure how you regulate it, but I do think its a real concern for the future. In Idaho we have a weight restriction on rifles at 16lbs but the local rifle builders know it and build under it. For a rule to be of any use it has to be enforceable. I can see rifle seasons being reduced in length or even eliminated and replaced with muzzleloader or short range weapon seasons as well.

 

[Gut Shot]

I don't care how someone else hunts. If shooting an animal half a mile away is your thing that's fine. As long as you can pull it off consistently.

I get as close as possible before I take a shot, that's what I get a thrill out of. And that is what counts, I hunt for me, not for the approval of others.