2lumpy
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 8,030
I should have gone to bed three hours ago. 5:30 is just around the corner again.
Just an observation, from one guy's narrow perspective. Very narrow I might add. Certainly no better than anyone else's, probably more bias than it should be. And let me say this right up front, I'm not looking for a fight or wanting to offend anyone, just sharing my observations, personal experiences and current opinions, once again, no better or worse than anyone else's.
I started hunting big game in 1961. I owned a .303 British Enfield, with a military elevation open sight. You could use it as a fence post or a hunting rifle, wasn't much of a weapon, by today's standards.
I killed a lot of deer and antelope with it. Most shots were between 50 and 150 yards. I killed one antelope at right close to 300 yards, more luck that good management, I guarantee you. Everybody in my neighborhood thought is was a fantastic shot and made a big deal out of it. In today's politically/ethically correct society, I had no business even putting the rifle to my shoulder, on that antelope.
It wasn't until I was 24 years old, in 1971, that I owned a rifle with a scope on it. It was a wedding gift from a gentleman that treated me like a son. It was a .308 Winchester, semi auto with a Weaver 4 power scope. I loved that gun but I couldn't hit a deer with it regardless of the range. I could hit baby jar lids at 100 yards but missed more deer than I care to remember with that rifle. I just never could get any confidence with it after so many misses, I had to retire it and moved on. I bought a Browning BAR 7mm with a 3 x 9 Redfield. (Variable scopes had been around long before I ever owned one.)
I shot wood, then fiberglas long bows when I was a kid, hunted ground squirrels and prairie hares with them. In 1972 I bought a laminated recurve bow, with a build in rest, imagine that, a bow with a rest build right into the handle. Then along around 1987, when my boys were getting into hunting, I upgraded to a compound, so I could keep up with the kids. (Compounds had been around long before I owned one.)
In 1976, I purchased a Thompson Center Hawkin .50 muzzleloader. I did it because I wanted two things, first, I wanted the "challenge" of hunt big game the way the old trappers and early explorers did, kind of like archery, I wanted to hunt like the Indians, the greatest hunters that ever hunted in America. Secondly, I'm greedy, I wanted to be hunting everyday that I could. In 1976, in Utah, I could buy a tag and hunt a season with archery, then muzzleloader and then rifle. In the late 1970's the UDWR wanted to discontinue the muzzleloader hunt. The Utah Muzzleloaders Association lobbied the "Big Game Board" for a hunt, after everybody else was finished hunting. We made the case that it was a primitive weapon hunt, open sights, round ball, 1 in 28 twist barrel, low harvest and low impact. We win. In the early years, November muzzleloader success was closer to 15% than 20%, even though it was pushing up against the rut. A bunch of us owned 18 foot lodges (teepee), leathers, knives, hawks, hair-pipe necklaces, beaded shirt and all the trappings to go with our .50 cal Hawkins. In the beginning the muzzleloader weapons were very primitive and success was marginal. (Much like my fiberglas bow and .303 Enfield. As with archery equipment, and rifle optics, muzzleloader enthusiasts gradually improved on their weapons.)
Now muzzleloaders have fast twist barrels, hot cap systems, fancy powder, red dot scopes, jacketed bullets, and they keep improving their ability to shove a projectile of some kind down a barrel, adding a modern scope on the "thing" that will hit a milk jug at 500 yards.
My point is this, in my opinion, nothing in present day archery equipment resembles the archery equipment of the 1950s and the way people hunt with archery equipment has changed right along with the change in archery equipment. The same is true with muzzleloader equipment and muzzleloader hunters.
Where is the out rage? Why not a RMEF article on these hunter's ethics? Where is B & C's fair chase definition when it comes to Rocket Launcher bows and Luke Skywalker muzzleloaders?
It seems highly hypocritical and pious, to the upmost, for these folks to pick a fight with the optics folks. Lets face it, a military 30.06, from the 1940s can be tuned into 1000 yard hits, with current high grade optics mounted on it. So it's the optics that have changed, not the accuracy or the distance a rifle will shoot.
Now, if RMEF wants to get into the business of determining hunter ethics, rather promoting hunting and elk conservation, their Board of Directors can let the current executive staff continue to divide and weaken hunting, if they want to. It's their business how they conduct their business, for better or worse. If the B &C wants to amend their awards criteria to a set of standards that include more limitations than they current have, that to, is their business, they have every right to do that, so long as they don't pretend that their view of ethical hunting is the only definition of ethical hunting.
As I said, neither of these entities seems to be all that exercised over the archers or the muzzleloaders. (Yes I know, B & C does care about archery or Muz but the point is the same, they are apparently looking into the ethics of long range optics, as a ethics issue, while they turn a blind eye to what the whole hunting community has been doing for the last 50 years.)
Let's step back and look at this from a little future back and then maybe it will explain what will most likely happen in the future. It would be nice if sportsmen could be ahead of the curve for once but we can't so well end up gut shooting each other while we slug our way through, to a solution.
Since time began, humans have naturally adopted new solutions to solve their problems. In the beginning, hunting was a solution to hunger. Humans developed better and better tools to meet the need to eat and or fight. As quick as someone came up with a better way to do it, they adapted and adopted the new method. It wasn't unethical to go from a spear to a bow. It was a amazing!
Nothing has change in 350,000 years (give or take). Humans are literally "driven", yes, genetically driven, to innovate. To do it faster, more efficient, cheaper, and to use the least amount of energy to do it. We're the same as fish, we won't go after it if the energy expenditure exceeds the reward. So to expect humans to stop being human, to stop innovating, to stop creating, to stop striving for efficiency and stop trying to build a better mouse trip, is dreaming of a world that has never existed or will it. Simply, it would require that humans stop being humans.
So what's the solution?
Think about it. Hand grenades can kill a moose, but your not allowed to use them in an "any weapon" hunt. Utah restricts muzzleloaders to one power scopes. Try that 500 yarder with a red dot. I'll put up a fifth of Alberta Sipping Whiskey to the first guy that can punch a milk jug with a one power scope, and black powder, with any muzzleloader, regardless of the twist or the projectile. It won't cost over a hundred dollars to cover that bet.
The solution to long range optics hunting is simply regulate against specific optics technology, like they are all ready doing in some States with muzzleloaders. Or, it's pretty darn hard to kill big game at 800 yard if all you can hunt with is a slug chambered shot gun. The States can fix the long range issue as easy as 1, 2, 3, if the sportsmen decide they want them to.
However, it seem pretty disingenuous to me that, as a group of sportsmen, we allow archery and muzzleloader technologies to improve the harvest ratio of their hunts without a wimper while we treat rifle hunters, who are fundamental doing the same thing with their equipment, as unethical and blame them for destroying the resource.
Listen, archery and muzzleloader harvest success rates have increased from between 30% to 60%, in the last 50 years. Has anyone worried that increase has endangered the resource.
Truthfully, I am all for long bow hunts, flintlock hunts, open sight lever action hunts, hell, we can have a spear hunts. Having said that, I'd support a long range only hunt too, but I'd limit the tags as opposed to a number of tags I'd issue on a spear hunt.
Here's a question, that makes as much sense as RMEF getting into this discussion.
Would atlatl hunters wound more big game than long range rifle hunters? I would venture a guess we could argue that for the next 50 years too.
Bottom-line. if hunters want more restrictions or more limitation or what every you'd like to call it, we can have them, if you can create enough of a ground swale of support. If you can't get the support, if archers are killing more, if muzzleloaders are killing more, if rifle hunters are killing more, (there are only so many animals available to kill each year), we'll either have fewer critters to divide among the weaponry or we'll have few hunters.
It seems to me, if one kind of weapons hunter has to give up some of his technology, then the other two weapons hunters should be required to, in kind.
Who's to say where it stops or even if it should.
DC
Just an observation, from one guy's narrow perspective. Very narrow I might add. Certainly no better than anyone else's, probably more bias than it should be. And let me say this right up front, I'm not looking for a fight or wanting to offend anyone, just sharing my observations, personal experiences and current opinions, once again, no better or worse than anyone else's.
I started hunting big game in 1961. I owned a .303 British Enfield, with a military elevation open sight. You could use it as a fence post or a hunting rifle, wasn't much of a weapon, by today's standards.
I killed a lot of deer and antelope with it. Most shots were between 50 and 150 yards. I killed one antelope at right close to 300 yards, more luck that good management, I guarantee you. Everybody in my neighborhood thought is was a fantastic shot and made a big deal out of it. In today's politically/ethically correct society, I had no business even putting the rifle to my shoulder, on that antelope.
It wasn't until I was 24 years old, in 1971, that I owned a rifle with a scope on it. It was a wedding gift from a gentleman that treated me like a son. It was a .308 Winchester, semi auto with a Weaver 4 power scope. I loved that gun but I couldn't hit a deer with it regardless of the range. I could hit baby jar lids at 100 yards but missed more deer than I care to remember with that rifle. I just never could get any confidence with it after so many misses, I had to retire it and moved on. I bought a Browning BAR 7mm with a 3 x 9 Redfield. (Variable scopes had been around long before I ever owned one.)
I shot wood, then fiberglas long bows when I was a kid, hunted ground squirrels and prairie hares with them. In 1972 I bought a laminated recurve bow, with a build in rest, imagine that, a bow with a rest build right into the handle. Then along around 1987, when my boys were getting into hunting, I upgraded to a compound, so I could keep up with the kids. (Compounds had been around long before I owned one.)
In 1976, I purchased a Thompson Center Hawkin .50 muzzleloader. I did it because I wanted two things, first, I wanted the "challenge" of hunt big game the way the old trappers and early explorers did, kind of like archery, I wanted to hunt like the Indians, the greatest hunters that ever hunted in America. Secondly, I'm greedy, I wanted to be hunting everyday that I could. In 1976, in Utah, I could buy a tag and hunt a season with archery, then muzzleloader and then rifle. In the late 1970's the UDWR wanted to discontinue the muzzleloader hunt. The Utah Muzzleloaders Association lobbied the "Big Game Board" for a hunt, after everybody else was finished hunting. We made the case that it was a primitive weapon hunt, open sights, round ball, 1 in 28 twist barrel, low harvest and low impact. We win. In the early years, November muzzleloader success was closer to 15% than 20%, even though it was pushing up against the rut. A bunch of us owned 18 foot lodges (teepee), leathers, knives, hawks, hair-pipe necklaces, beaded shirt and all the trappings to go with our .50 cal Hawkins. In the beginning the muzzleloader weapons were very primitive and success was marginal. (Much like my fiberglas bow and .303 Enfield. As with archery equipment, and rifle optics, muzzleloader enthusiasts gradually improved on their weapons.)
Now muzzleloaders have fast twist barrels, hot cap systems, fancy powder, red dot scopes, jacketed bullets, and they keep improving their ability to shove a projectile of some kind down a barrel, adding a modern scope on the "thing" that will hit a milk jug at 500 yards.
My point is this, in my opinion, nothing in present day archery equipment resembles the archery equipment of the 1950s and the way people hunt with archery equipment has changed right along with the change in archery equipment. The same is true with muzzleloader equipment and muzzleloader hunters.
Where is the out rage? Why not a RMEF article on these hunter's ethics? Where is B & C's fair chase definition when it comes to Rocket Launcher bows and Luke Skywalker muzzleloaders?
It seems highly hypocritical and pious, to the upmost, for these folks to pick a fight with the optics folks. Lets face it, a military 30.06, from the 1940s can be tuned into 1000 yard hits, with current high grade optics mounted on it. So it's the optics that have changed, not the accuracy or the distance a rifle will shoot.
Now, if RMEF wants to get into the business of determining hunter ethics, rather promoting hunting and elk conservation, their Board of Directors can let the current executive staff continue to divide and weaken hunting, if they want to. It's their business how they conduct their business, for better or worse. If the B &C wants to amend their awards criteria to a set of standards that include more limitations than they current have, that to, is their business, they have every right to do that, so long as they don't pretend that their view of ethical hunting is the only definition of ethical hunting.
As I said, neither of these entities seems to be all that exercised over the archers or the muzzleloaders. (Yes I know, B & C does care about archery or Muz but the point is the same, they are apparently looking into the ethics of long range optics, as a ethics issue, while they turn a blind eye to what the whole hunting community has been doing for the last 50 years.)
Let's step back and look at this from a little future back and then maybe it will explain what will most likely happen in the future. It would be nice if sportsmen could be ahead of the curve for once but we can't so well end up gut shooting each other while we slug our way through, to a solution.
Since time began, humans have naturally adopted new solutions to solve their problems. In the beginning, hunting was a solution to hunger. Humans developed better and better tools to meet the need to eat and or fight. As quick as someone came up with a better way to do it, they adapted and adopted the new method. It wasn't unethical to go from a spear to a bow. It was a amazing!
Nothing has change in 350,000 years (give or take). Humans are literally "driven", yes, genetically driven, to innovate. To do it faster, more efficient, cheaper, and to use the least amount of energy to do it. We're the same as fish, we won't go after it if the energy expenditure exceeds the reward. So to expect humans to stop being human, to stop innovating, to stop creating, to stop striving for efficiency and stop trying to build a better mouse trip, is dreaming of a world that has never existed or will it. Simply, it would require that humans stop being humans.
So what's the solution?
Think about it. Hand grenades can kill a moose, but your not allowed to use them in an "any weapon" hunt. Utah restricts muzzleloaders to one power scopes. Try that 500 yarder with a red dot. I'll put up a fifth of Alberta Sipping Whiskey to the first guy that can punch a milk jug with a one power scope, and black powder, with any muzzleloader, regardless of the twist or the projectile. It won't cost over a hundred dollars to cover that bet.
The solution to long range optics hunting is simply regulate against specific optics technology, like they are all ready doing in some States with muzzleloaders. Or, it's pretty darn hard to kill big game at 800 yard if all you can hunt with is a slug chambered shot gun. The States can fix the long range issue as easy as 1, 2, 3, if the sportsmen decide they want them to.
However, it seem pretty disingenuous to me that, as a group of sportsmen, we allow archery and muzzleloader technologies to improve the harvest ratio of their hunts without a wimper while we treat rifle hunters, who are fundamental doing the same thing with their equipment, as unethical and blame them for destroying the resource.
Listen, archery and muzzleloader harvest success rates have increased from between 30% to 60%, in the last 50 years. Has anyone worried that increase has endangered the resource.
Truthfully, I am all for long bow hunts, flintlock hunts, open sight lever action hunts, hell, we can have a spear hunts. Having said that, I'd support a long range only hunt too, but I'd limit the tags as opposed to a number of tags I'd issue on a spear hunt.
Here's a question, that makes as much sense as RMEF getting into this discussion.
Would atlatl hunters wound more big game than long range rifle hunters? I would venture a guess we could argue that for the next 50 years too.
Bottom-line. if hunters want more restrictions or more limitation or what every you'd like to call it, we can have them, if you can create enough of a ground swale of support. If you can't get the support, if archers are killing more, if muzzleloaders are killing more, if rifle hunters are killing more, (there are only so many animals available to kill each year), we'll either have fewer critters to divide among the weaponry or we'll have few hunters.
It seems to me, if one kind of weapons hunter has to give up some of his technology, then the other two weapons hunters should be required to, in kind.
Who's to say where it stops or even if it should.
DC
