Long Range Gunners

nebo12000

Active Member
Messages
634
Had an experience that brings a question in regards to long range shots -- 1000 yds plus. A guy was shooting at least that far just off the road. Took 2-3 shots. The deer was not huge, just a small 2 point. After the shooting was over he eventually left and drove on down the road. The deer had disappeared over a ridgeline. The hunter evidently must of thought he didn't hit the deer because we never saw him make any attempt go after the deer or check to see if he had hit it. Went out this morning before sunrise into the same canyon that the deer disappeared into. When we dropped into the canyon bottom near a small stream we walked up onto a deer that was laying near the stream. It was still alive, could hardly hold its head 6 inches off the ground, its rear hindquarters were swollen. It had been shot low in the belly just in front of the hindquarters. A portion of its intestines was bulging out. We were only 25 feet from it and it was obviously very sick and suffering.

My question is this-- is it possible that long range shots could end up wounding more deer that the shooter does not follow up on and check if they hit the deer? In this particular instance the shooter made no attempt to follow up. I'm not saying this deer was the one he shot at, but it gave me wonder if some long range shooters don't go check- especially if they're going to have to hike 1-2 miles down and up through canyons to get to where they shot at the deer. If the deer doesn't tip over and roll down the hill are they going to go check for blood? What do you think-is this a problem ?
 
Saw it happen saturday, if it doesn't fall down it must be a miss. Call me a d k but i'll correct anyone if the chance arises.
 
I usually jump in on this fight just because I'm a sucker I guess.

Do I think hunters that shoot at 1000 yards go check for blood as often as they should...(which is ALWAYS) NO I do not believe they do.

Do I think hunters that shoot 100-400 yards go check for blood as often as they should...(which is ALWAYS) NO I do not believe they do.

I also believe that there are many many many more shots taken at close range (400 and under) that are not followed up than long range shots.


On the same note, I have been around a lot of long range hunters. Many times they are phoneskoping the shot with a spotter. They will always play back shots multiple times. If it is an obvious miss they wont make the hike to check for blood. If it questionable or unable to see they always check. In many ways the real long range hunters (not slob hunters lobbing bullets and praying) are the most thoro hunters I have met. In preparation and follow through and follow up. Its how they are wired.

Nebo,
Out of curiosity did someone in your group "do the right thing" and shoot the 2 point and tag it.
 
I think a lot of long range shooters just look at some little buck as just another prairie dog. They can blow the guts out of one and keep shooting at another one over the next hill. It's not like they have to punch their tag when they wound stuff.

SOME, NOT ALL of these guys, are doing this because of their laziness. So why would lazy people go follow up on wounded deer a mile away they were to lazy to stalk to begin with?
 
One of the downfalls of our current technology. I love technology but hate it at the same time. I hope people will do the right thing by checking. But a few bad apples can really mess it up for the rest.

"We don't have a gun problem we have prescription drug problem."
 
Muley_73,

"Nebo,
Out of curiosity did someone in your group "do the right thing" and shoot the 2 point and tag it."

there is no way you should be claiming the "right" thing nebo or any of his party should have done is use their tag on that buck...that is BS.

Defend the long range shooters all you want but don't try making Nebo pay for it.


323421626570513685990098870652286725493870346854n.jpg
 
Muley_73. I hear what you are saying but I think your logic has one flaw. You mention the word "hunters" and 1000 yards in the same sentence. Just my opinion, but if you are shooting at an animal that cannot see you, smell you or hear you...you are not "hunting" and you cannot call that person a hunter. If you do not have to overcome any of an animals senses, then i would submit that you are a "shooter" and not a "hunter."
Having said that, no offense is intended here and I'm not saying it's wrong. People that are into that sort of thing are entitled to do what they enjoy. Just a clarification on the definition.

JMO
 
Homer,
I didn't say it or imply, that it was the right thing to do. It was in quotations on purpose. However it was a legitimate question to ask it this discussion is really about ethics....no???
 
Hmm, sent covers, camo, blinds, tree stands, optics, quiet clothing. All things designed to give the hunter an advantage. Yes long rangers are still hunters, they just choose to hunt a certain way. No not all hunters that shoot long range are ethical hunters I'll buy that all day. However they are all hunters, choosing individually how to hunt, some close some far, some ethical and some not, all hunters.

mt,
Not to the rescue of anyone, just voicing an opinion based on personal experience. Ironically exactly the same thing that this thread started with. :)
 
Homer,
It's a legit question. Don't drag someone out onto a public forum and then be surprised when a question gets asked. Did the deer get left to suffer? Not Nebos fault at all but none the less, I guess my tag is never more important than ending the suffering of an animal that I have great passion for.

If Nebo can ask the question about long range then why can't the that question be asked?
 
Ok 73, fair enough. I've shot enough steel and milk jugs at LR to know my limits, and how incredibly hard it is. Shooting at game at extended range is nothing more than an ego boost and way to brag to guys that haven't killed out as far as you have. Breeds competition and assholes behind a rifle that have zero business pulling the trigger. THAT,is the truth. The most piss poor hunter on the planet can get close to a critter if they try hard enough. I was caught up in it at one time. Not so much anymore. mtmuley
 
nebo didn't shoot it in the guts from a thousand yards and drve off...one of your kind did.
 
LAST EDITED ON Oct-25-17 AT 08:37PM (MST)[p]Homer,
No, no, my kind wouldn't have missed and they wouldn't have not checked for blood. That's like calling me a white supremacist because I don't agree with you. Come on that is snowflake logic.

My question still stands, and it's a valid question. Every single bit as valid as the original question Nebo asked.
 
LAST EDITED ON Oct-25-17 AT 09:50PM (MST)[p]nebo brings up a valid question. how many 1000 yard shooters are following up their shots to check? from what we have seen with our own eyes the answer is not many.
 
So when they begin to pass laws to discourage long range shooting will it be for conservation or will they be legislating ethics muley73?


#livelikezac
 
>I usually jump in on this
>fight just because I'm a
>sucker I guess.
>

>
>I also believe that there are
>many many many more shots
>taken at close range (400
>and under) that are not
>followed up than long range
>shots.
>
>


Your argument doesn't hold water. See if this helps, it's something I learned in 10th Grade Advanced biology.


http://www.onlinemathlearning.com/proportions.html

#livelikezac
 
Just a thought
If you let lead fly, regardless of 10 yards or 2000 yards you better start walking and investigate.
Phone scoping and play back is not cutting it. Nor is it ethical!
Ahhh never mind that
Let's just sell another tag good for all 3 seasons and create a new general season hunt
Only in Utah
 
As long as I've b en hunting from the mid 80s the long range for the time has really not changed much. I remember some pricks shooting at a two point 50 yards up the hill from me out of the cab of a pickup some 400 to 600 yards out. They emptied at least a box of cartridges and then just drove off. They were the skilled long rangers of that day and I think he had better odds at hitting me than the two point. Ironically it was associates of another classy gentleman but that's another story. As one man's signature line goes... when there is lead in the air there is hope.
4abc76ff29b26fc1.jpg
 
You guys crack me up. Pick and chose your ethics. I guess that's the times we live in now. Someone raised those snowflakes...right?
 
LAST EDITED ON Oct-26-17 AT 08:25AM (MST)[p]>You guys crack me up.
>Pick and chose your ethics.
> I guess that's the
>times we live in now.
> Someone raised those snowflakes...right?
>

Won't answer the question?
Name calling signifys something, I forget?

#livelikezac
 
I really don"t want get into this fight. But some people should not be shooting long range. But hopefully with the help of others, like those on this forum. They can learn and become better hunters. Like Muley73 said, we always have a spotter. Usually running a Phonescope or Tines up camera. First off, judging a animal from a great distance. How do you even no what you are shooting ? Then calling wind or the shot if you choose to take the shot. That being said can't we all get along ? I don't think most of us on this forum are the problem. Most here have a major hunting addiction ! Go to bed and waking up with the Outdoor channel on . Its these new guys that don't know any better. Walking out of Sportsman's with there new 6.5 Creedmoor. That the salesman just sold them on, 1000 yards no problem. Not knowing that altitude (pressure),angle, temperature and wind. Have a little to do with the shot they are getting ready to take. But with that said, many of you here. Have a lot of knowledge and love for hunting and long range shooting. Isn't that why we are here. Common interest and love of our sport. I have learned from many of you ! Thank you for your input and help. But being patient and maybe cut back on the bickering a bit. P.S For the record, I have never shot 1000 yards at a animal. :)
 
DW,
Yes it does. I didn't start the conversation I just added to it and asked a couple of questions. If the term snowflake hit to close to home I apologize and I'll give you a second to pet your dog and gather yourself. Seems that some like to post subjects that cause a stir. Is Nebo's post involve something unethical? Absolutely. But that's my point, unethical hunters shoot at all ranges.

Again walking alway from a wounded animal with a tag in your pockets to me is unethical. To some it may not be. Shooting at 1000 yards under any circumstances is unethical to some, to me it's not if done correctly. The truth that none of you want to acknowledge is that more game are wounded and lost from archery, muzzy and rifle at ranges under 400 yards every single year than animals wounded and lost at ranges 400-2000 yards. It's just a fact. Should the idiot lobbing bullets at 1000 yards without the proper set up and training and practice be doing it? Nope. Should the idiot that only shoots their weapon the week before the hunt if even that be popping off at animals 50- 400 yards? Nope.
So why hammer the smaller issue instead of the larger issue? I can't wrap my head around that. But again it's in line with how the world we live in currently operates. Act like the small issue is the real problem rather than addressing the actual larger issue at hand. Kinda like the reason Trump is president is because the white racists decided to come out and vote last Nov...Right.
 
>DW,
>Yes it does. I didn't
>start the conversation I just
>added to it and asked
>a couple of questions.

Neither did I and all I did was ask a question.

If
>the term snowflake hit to
>close to home I apologize
>and I'll give you a
>second to pet your dog
>and gather yourself.


Nowhere near home but it does tell me alot about you, your intelligence level and your character.


> Seems that some like
>to post subjects that cause
>a stir. Is Nebo's
>post involve something unethical? Absolutely.
> But that's my point,
>unethical hunters shoot at all
>ranges.
>
>Again walking alway from a wounded
>animal with a tag in
>your pockets to me is
>unethical. To some it
>may not be.


I agree, walking away from a wounded animal is a difficult thing to do, tag in your pocket or not. I don't think anyone in that situation is obligated to dispatch then tag and be forced to eat a stressed out gut shot deer. Ive finished off several through the years.


Shooting
>at 1000 yards under any
>circumstances is unethical to some,
>to me it's not if
>done correctly.


My definition of done correctly is currently somewhere in the sandbox. Not on the game that I respect.


The truth
>that none of you want
>to acknowledge is that more
>game are wounded and lost
>from archery, muzzy and rifle
>at ranges under 400 yards
>every single year than animals
>wounded and lost at ranges
>400-2000 yards. It's just
>a fact.

Reread post 17. This argument holds no water.



Should the
>idiot lobbing bullets at 1000
>yards without the proper set
>up and training and practice
>be doing it? Nope.
> Should the idiot that
>only shoots their weapon the
>week before the hunt if
>even that be popping off
>at animals 50- 400 yards?
> Nope.
>So why hammer the smaller issue
>instead of the larger issue?

The smaller issue was the topic of this thread correct? You're welcome to start a thread of the larger issue.


> I can't wrap my
>head around that. But
>again it's in line with
>how the world we live
>in currently operates. Act
>like the small issue is
>the real problem rather than
>addressing the actual larger issue
>at hand. Kinda like
>the reason Trump is president
>is because the white racists
>decided to come out and
>vote last Nov...Right.

Now you've gone off the rails.


#livelikezac
 

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos
Back
Top Bottom