Hunting Show -"Extreme Outer Limits" = FAIL!!

E

EROCK1313

Active Member
Messages
505
I just flipped to the Sportsman's Channel and caught the tail end of "Extreme Outer Limits" on an Antelope Hunt. Any one ever see this Episode?

I was thoroughly discusted at the 2 Kills I saw.... #1@ 1010 yards and #2 at an UN-Amazing......1380 effin yards!!! They were jumping in glee at those shots and in my opinion, they just gave the Anti-Hunters a little more fuel for their fight and left an EXTREMELY SOUR taste in my mouth from their so called "Amazing" shots - IN THE HIND QUARTERS on BOTH Antelope!!!!

To state "36 MOA high x 3 MOA left/right" like the shot had no fail and to have the camera zoom in and CLEARLY show the crappy impact in the hind quarters and the Antelope drag it's A$$ end until a 2nd shot finally gave that animal peace; just doesn't sit well with me!

This begs the questions....How many of you would or have taken a shot like that at a Trophy animal or know someone who has? How many of you, if your hunting partner was attempting this type of shot; would do whatever it took to persuade them otherwise?

I realize there are many fine Long Range shooters/Hunters, but what is TOO Far?

In my opinion, long range shots that far should be reserved for target shooting only, not animals. A lot of us take pride in our hunting ethics and I think when hunting an animal, it should be given the respect it deserves with as humane and accurate kill as possible.




?-ERock-> ?
 
I agree 100 percent .I can't stand his show .He left a sour taste in my mouth when he was busted for poaching a few years in Idaho by st. maries .
 
The last time I saw someone decide he needed to take a "no stalk" shot, his words just before shooting was "hold my beer". He missed the deer by seven feet. I was fairly confident he would do so even though he had 5K worth of weapon at his fingers.
 
I have been watching The Best of the West a lot and it has dawned on me that the show is more about the "amazing" shot than the hunt....or lack there of. It's not hunting if you can walk out on a ledge, look across the canyon at 800+ yards and see the animal you want to kill. THAT is not hunting...that is looking and shooting.

After a long shot is made and the animal goes down, the 4-6 guys in the "hunting" party shouts and screams and gives high fives like it was an unbelievable shot. The way they are carrying themselves leads viewers to believe that they are shocked at being ABLE to make that shot. It should leave the viewer believing that it should be a no brainer as the equipment is THAT good....like it is what is expected and not shocking.

36 MOA? Are you kidding me? That leaves a lot of room for error...

We owe it to our quarry to get as close as possible to it so that a humane kill is non-questionable. At 1000+ yards, how much bullet velocity is lost by impact? I'd say quite a bit...just my opinion.

Steve


Cancer doesn't discriminate...don't take your good health for granted because it can be gone in a heartbeat. Please go back and read the last line. This time really understand what it says.
 
I agree with what Wizard just said.

I think all of us here could have that 200 inch buck or 380 class bull if we all could shoot 2000 yards. But stalking the animal and blowing our stalks due to wind/noise or doing something dumb makes the hunt
 
LAST EDITED ON Oct-11-14 AT 04:53PM (MST)[p]Just one more piece of the puzzle as to why we continued to see a decline in trophy animals. There is a very easy answer for states to eliminate this crap but they haven't done so yet with centerfire rifle hunts. Doubt they ever will.

"Courage is being scared to death but
saddling up anyway."
 
I had the Outer Limits episode DVR'd and the goat that he shot at 1380 yards was shot way too far back and it took a second shot to put him down. Mind you, the second shot he took was, again, at 1380 and the buck was nearly facing straight on. Pretty damn lucky that he made THAT shot IMO as well. Bob Beck went on to brag that he was 2 for 2....meaning he shot that buck with both shots....so he's 2 for 2. What an idiot! His sponsor from Nightforce Optics was there and he turned to the sponsor and said, "Are we making Nightforce proud"? I would have to say "no" with gut shooting a goat at 1380 yards. I'd say that just proved the fact that the long range system is not fail-proof.

Steve

Cancer doesn't discriminate...don't take your good health for granted because it can be gone in a heartbeat. Please go back and read the last line. This time really understand what it says.
 
LAST EDITED ON Oct-11-14 AT 05:21PM (MST)[p]I've seen a lot of people make worse shots at close range. See kill pics of ass shot animals on here all the time, so they all must be long range guys huh?

There's always more than one method to the madness and you guys knocking long range hunters are no different than rifle hunters bashing stick flippers. Animals get hit poorly all the time regardless of weapon or distance.

In my opinion there is nothing unethical if you practice a lot with a certain weapon and are extremely comfortable and confident that in the heat of the moment you can seal the deal. I would bet the EOL folks could shoot tighter groups at 800 yards than most people can at 400 just due to experience and practice.

So at what distance do all you guys say is unethical,300, 400, 500....? How about archery? Or is any distance ethical with a bow because you're close?

I've killed bucks ranging from under 100 yards to over 700. I felt equally as ethical on all of them. Who are you guys to say what's right or wrong.
 
JRay....I hear what you are saying and agree that some people are really that great at long shots and more accurate than some people at half the yardages. This episode of the show however, showed 2 different guys taking 1000(+) yard shots at animals smaller than your average deer and both guys hit the Antelope way too far back in my opinion. Did the animals die - Yes. Did they get the respect they deserve for a humane kill - Not in my opinion, especially when you consider the bragging afterwards and the clear camera shots showing the "too far back hits."

I Archery hunt and I do so because of the 1000 plus things that can go wrong while getting in CLOSE range. I know my effective Shot Range (at a Target) is 80 yards; others can take the 100(+) yard shots. The difference I see is in ethics and portrayals to the Non-Hunters. Just because I am accurate at 80 yards, doesn't mean I'm going to attempt to kill an animal at that range. At that point it is called shooting and not hunting, in my opinion.

Do Rifle, Archery, and Muzzleloaders miss or make less than perfect shots - Of course they do, but we owe it to the animal we have the PRIVELEDGE of hunting to make the kills as humane as possible and eliminate as many of the the Variables that CAN go wrong at excessive distances.

All it takes is a half step during a shot (Using any weapon) and a seemingly Great Shot becomes a bad shot! The animals in the Hunting show were standing still and the shots were still in the hind quarters - That's not an ethical shot.

I know some of us get caught in the heat of the moment, but we as hunters need to realize that sometimes its those "Moments," that define us.



?-ERock-> ?
 
It's disrespectful to the animal you are hunting as there is no hunt to shooting anything beyond 400 yards.

I live in Utah and wouldn't mind seeing all rifle tags drop to a LE status.

This leaves me with the question, do I join this long range stuff which I would hate to do? Because everyone that is doing it definitely has the advantage when it comes to drawing public land tags and shooting bigger animals. Because accuracy is not really a question for those dudes that know their weapon and practice. Just seems unfair to the animal. I agree also with the perceived notion these long range shooters appear to have more excitement about the shot and not the animal that was harvested itself. That's why I believe rifle tags should be very limited compared to the other methods these days. Wasnt the case 15 years ago.
 
I was going to ask what the maximum yardage was that I could shoot and still be within everyones ethical standards on mm. I guess Bedawg answered it with 400 yards. I actually shot a deer at 420 a few years back. One shot one kill. My apologies... There is no magic number out there. I have seen more unethical/ poor shots under 200 yards than I have seen long distance. I would rather everyone know how to shoot there gun and know what it's limitations are.
 
LAST EDITED ON Oct-11-14 AT 10:45PM (MST)[p]"It's all about knowing what your firearms practical limitations are and combining that with your own personal limitations!"

A lot of times when i see these guys taking game waaay out there, it's a individuals personal limitations that i question. I've competed a bit with a couple of my hunting rifles and have probably put more rounds down range practicing than most but i feel much over 500 yds is too far and the potential of wounding multiplies with each additional 100 yards.

There are guys out there way better equipped "AND EXPERIENCED" than i. With those guys i just wish they wouldn't try so hard to bring in or encourage new guys to their game as, IMO, They can go buy the proper firearm but the necessary shooting skills can't be bought.

Joey
 
>It'?s disrespectful to the animal you
>are hunting as there is
>no hunt to shooting anything
>beyond 400 yards.
>
>I live in Utah and wouldn't
>mind seeing all rifle tags
>drop to a LE status.
>
>
>This leaves me with the question,
>do I join this long
>range stuff which I would
>hate to do? Because everyone
>that is doing it definitely
>has the advantage when it
>comes to drawing public land
>tags and shooting bigger animals.
>Because accuracy is not really
>a question for those dudes
>that know their weapon and
>practice. Just seems unfair to
>the animal. I agree also
>with the perceived notion these
>long range shooters appear to
>have more excitement about the
>shot and not the animal
>that was harvested itself. That's
>why I believe rifle tags
>should be very limited compared
>to the other methods these
>days. Wasnt the case 15
>years ago.


Not trying to be a smart ass, but why is 400 yards the magic ethical range to you and why is anything further unfair to the animal? I could argue that I think in most cases it's pretty easy to get close to an animal (Within your 400 yard rule) with the right game plan and patience and that shooting long range is more of a challenge.
 
>JRay....I hear what you are saying
>and agree that some people
>are really that great at
>long shots and more accurate
>than some people at half
>the yardages. This episode of
>the show however, showed 2
>different guys taking 1000(+) yard
>shots at animals smaller than
>your average deer and both
>guys hit the Antelope way
>too far back in my
>opinion. Did the animals die
>- Yes. Did they get
>the respect they deserve for
>a humane kill - Not
>in my opinion, especially when
>you consider the bragging afterwards
>and the clear camera shots
>showing the "too far back
>hits."
>
>I Archery hunt and I do
>so because of the 1000
>plus things that can go
>wrong while getting in CLOSE
>range. I know my effective
>Shot Range (at a Target)
>is 80 yards; others can
>take the 100(+) yard shots.
>The difference I see is
>in ethics and portrayals to
>the Non-Hunters. Just because I
>am accurate at 80 yards,
>doesn't mean I'm going to
>attempt to kill an animal
>at that range. At that
>point it is called shooting
>and not hunting, in my
>opinion.
>
>Do Rifle, Archery, and Muzzleloaders miss
>or make less than perfect
>shots - Of course they
>do, but we owe it
>to the animal we have
>the PRIVELEDGE of hunting to
>make the kills as humane
>as possible and eliminate as
>many of the the Variables
>that CAN go wrong at
>excessive distances.
>
>All it takes is a half
>step during a shot (Using
>any weapon) and a seemingly
>Great Shot becomes a bad
>shot! The animals in the
>Hunting show were standing still
>and the shots were still
>in the hind quarters -
>That's not an ethical shot.
>
>
>I know some of us get
>caught in the heat of
>the moment, but we as
>hunters need to realize that
>sometimes its those "Moments," that
>define us.
>
>
>
>?-ERock-> ?


We all know our limits or should know anyway. That's what makes good ethical hunters in my opinion, is staying within your limit.

Each method of hunting has so many things that can go wrong, so I just don't see how people can say one method is unethical and other ways aren't. You say there are 1000 things that can go wrong bow hunting, long range is much the same, just different variables.

The way I see it on here is there are 2 types of people saying long range hunting is unethical. One saying it isn't a challenge and the other saying it's unethical because there are too many variables. Seems a little contradicting to me.
 
I would have to say that there are too many variables to send a bullet over a thousand yards to hit a pie plate consistently. Maybe you could have a good group on Day 1 with certain wind conditions after dialing the equipment in....but not on day 2 with different wind conditions. The thing is, you get one shot at a live animal. You don't get a do-over. I would say if a guy has practiced enough and the wind conditions were right that a shot out to 600 yards is ok. I think that there could be variables that could drastically change that bullets path if conditions weren't so good. As for the 1380 yard shot....definitely not ok. I think that hitting an animal that far back shows that that shot was not a good shot. Simple. Whos to say that he wouldn't make a bad shot at 300 yards? I can't answer that. But his chances at making a good shot at 300 is far better than his odds at 1380.
Not saying long range is unethical...I say taking shots that have a decent chance of NOT hitting their mark is unethical.

Steve

Cancer doesn't discriminate...don't take your good health for granted because it can be gone in a heartbeat. Please go back and read the last line. This time really understand what it says.
 
LAST EDITED ON Oct-12-14 AT 03:57AM (MST)[p]"...I say taking shots that have a decent chance of NOT hitting their mark is unethical."

You said it best right there. Only problem is the majority of these shots your talking about are the guy taking a standing up shot at a deer at 200 yards and waiting for the circular motion of his cross hairs to cross the deer so he can pull the trigger.

Let's admit it. Your regular weekend warrior is just as guilty or more of taking a bad shot then someone that has put the time in with there gun and shooting long distance.
 
As previously stated, equipment, skill and practice all come into play. I have a .300WM I can consistently kill steel out to 1000yds with. I shoot it enough to know I could kill an animal at that range... Given the perfect conditions. But conditions are rarely perfect. Wind, temperature, movement.. Something is bound to come into play. Aside from that, my main concern would be recovery. If the animal doesn't go down right away, it already has over a half mile head start. If you don't have a spotter to direct you to the exact location, you're screwed. What if the wound causes the animal to bleed in.. Not out? Now you have no blood trail. Hopefully these things are all being considered prior to ANY shot.

All that being said... I know guys that are successful at shooting and recovering well past 500yds. Personally, I think 650yds is as far as I would comfortably and confidently feel taking a shot.
 
Hunters that think it is necessary to take shots like this are idiots and give ethical hunters a bad name. The only thing stupider than taking shots like this is teaching you kid that shots like this is hunting, like the video below:


The part of this that makes me the most sick if you go to the website that posted the first video they have another video stating that the 7mm has a terminal range 875 yards:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=6Bk-qr9xiXA

That bullet did not properly expand at 1376 yards and that is not a debate, it is a fact!! The father that is telling a 12 year old to take shoots like this should have his hunting privileges taken away for life!!!! Sorry if this sounds to extreme but there is a reason that so many dead heads are found out here in the West.
 
BMosh,

I think you have brought up a very interesting angle on this topic which I have not thought about before. Recovery of even well shot animals can be jeopardized by extreme shooting distances. THIS CAN NOT BE AVOIDED NO MATTER WHAT THE SHOOTERS CAPABILITIES OR TRAINING ARE. Each MORTAL shot is a unique scenario and we are decreasing our visual intel by increasing our observation distances. We must consider this in our shooting decisions before pulling the trigger if we want to responsibly kill AND RECOVER game.
 
>Hunters that think it is necessary
>to take shots like this
>are idiots and give ethical
>hunters a bad name.
>The only thing stupider than
>taking shots like this is
>teaching you kid that shots
>like this is hunting, like
>the video below:
>
>
>
>The part of this that makes
>me the most sick if
>you go to the website
>that posted the first video
>they have another video stating
>that the 7mm has a
>terminal range 875 yards:
>
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=6Bk-qr9xiXA
>
>That bullet did not properly expand
>at 1376 yards and that
>is not a debate, it
>is a fact!! The
>father that is telling a
>12 year old to take
>shoots like this should have
>his hunting privileges taken away
>for life!!!! Sorry if
>this sounds to extreme but
>there is a reason that
>so many dead heads are
>found out here in the
>West.


Guys like you give hunters a bad name. That's an idiotic statement that your example is why there are so many dead heads in the west. Give me a break! I bet that kid put in more work on that hunt then a huge majority of hunters put in. I would almost guarantee the kid has probably ran more rounds through the barrel then most elderly life long hunters. Sure looked like the 7mm has a terminal range of over 1300 yards to me!

I could say that in my opinion shooting a little forky 50 yards off the road is disrespectful and unethical but I would be greatly outnumbered. To me that is not hunting but I'm not gonna get on a website and disrespect anyone that hunts that way. It's legal and they enjoy it, so good for them.
 
jray said, "I could say that in my opinion shooting a little forky 50 yards off the road is disrespectful and unethical..."

Nice shot there! I'm just glad that with the broken down body that i live in, i'm still able and desire to get out and go.

Joey



"It's all about knowing what your firearms practical limitations are and combining that with your own personal limitations!"
 
There is an effective range of the Weapon and an effective range of a Hunter. More often than not, the effective range of the Weapon far exceeds that of the hunter. Am I going to sit and tell anyone what that range is for them - No, that is up to their personal ethics and capabilities. It is very clear by the 2 Antelope hit by these guys - IN THE HIND QUARTERS - on the show caught on camera, that in this case; the skill set and effective range of the Hunters were greatly overshadowed by the weapons they were using and the Cameras over their back; desperate to promote for their Sponsors.






?-ERock-> ?
 
Somewhere along the way people bought into the Walt Disney approach of anthropomorphizing animals and it has spilled over into the hunting community.
 
>Somewhere along the way people bought
>into the Walt Disney approach
>of anthropomorphizing animals and it
>has spilled over into the
>hunting community.



I don't think I understand how this statement applies here. Can you elaborate please?
 
>Guys like you give hunters a
>bad name. That's an idiotic
>statement that your example is
>why there are so many
>dead heads in the west.
>Give me a break! I
>bet that kid put in
>more work on that hunt
>then a huge majority of
>hunters put in. I would
>almost guarantee the kid has
>probably ran more rounds through
>the barrel then most elderly
>life long hunters. Sure looked
>like the 7mm has a
>terminal range of over 1300
>yards to me!
>
>I could say that in my
>opinion shooting a little forky
>50 yards off the road
>is disrespectful and unethical but
>I would be greatly outnumbered.
>To me that is not
>hunting but I'm not gonna
>get on a website and
>disrespect anyone that hunts that
>way. It's legal and they
>enjoy it, so good for
>them.

I am not on this forum to start an argument. The facts are a .223 has more energy and bullet expansion at a 100 yards than a 7mm does at almost 1400 yards. I am willing to go out on a limb and say that 90% of the hunters on here would not shot a bull elk with a .223 at even a hundred yards, so why would someone go take a shot that far when the bullet expansion and energy would be less?

And, yes there are to many animals that are lost in the west because of this. Like EROCK stated early, "There is an effective range of the Weapon and an effective range of a Hunter" and this is clearly not the effective range of a weapon. Did the kid drop the bull, YES! But it could of very easily turned out different. There are a lot of things to go wrong at long ranges and the easiest thing you can do is make sure your weapon has the effective range to kill the animal.
 
>>Somewhere along the way people bought
>>into the Walt Disney approach
>>of anthropomorphizing animals and it
>>has spilled over into the
>>hunting community.
>
>
>
>I don't think I understand how
>this statement applies here.
>Can you elaborate please?

Dead is dead, no reason to attach human emotions to animals, they can't share the sentiment. A poorly shot deer doesn't understand the concept of suffering or death, nature doesn't get very sentimental either.
 
I have to disagree with you txpackmule. Animals can suffer and feel many different levels of pain. They also have a good instinct to avoid death. They do not understand it on a human level but I guarantee you when an antelope gets both of his hips blown to pieces and it takes more time to put the animal down, IT HURT BAD. My father was in animal research for three decades, believe me when I tell you they suffer.

Nonetheless I do not put them on a level with humans nor do I believe they have a soul. Therefore, shoot away.
 
>I have to disagree with you
>txpackmule. Animals can suffer
>and feel many different levels
>of pain. They also
>have a good instinct to
>avoid death. They do
>not understand it on a
>human level but I guarantee
>you when an antelope gets
>both of his hips blown
>to pieces and it takes
>more time to put the
>animal down, IT HURT BAD.
> My father was in
>animal research for three decades,
>believe me when I tell
>you they suffer.
>
>Nonetheless I do not put them
>on a level with humans
>nor do I believe they
>have a soul. Therefore,
>shoot away.

We will just have to disagree.
 
packmule.....you don't think that a gut shot deer knows suffering? You think that it goes on with its life as it did prior to being shot? That makes no sense at all. It may not understand it to the extent that humans do, but it feels the pain and discomfort. I'm a bit surprised at the dilusion of some of these posts.

Cancer doesn't discriminate...don't take your good health for granted because it can be gone in a heartbeat. Please go back and read the last line. This time really understand what it says.
 
GIVE EM IRON SIGHTS AND A ROUND BALL AT 100 YARDS! If they made that shot it would be more impressive than what they attempted. Long range azz clowns is what they truely are.
 
I am a archery hunter and have taken bull elk, mule deer, and antelope with my bow as close as 10 yards. This takes allot of dedication and hard work honing the skills needed to be ethical and successful. I am also a long range hunter and have taken 2 bull elk one at 560 yards and the other at 608 yards(both 1 shot kills). I am 100 percent positive that with the rifle and time I have put into load development, range verification and real life shot verification that I could ethically take up to a bull elk out to 1000 yards. That does not mean anyone with a gun can ethically do this but there are many bow hunters that cannot ethically take a 30 yard shot at anything either. There are allot of veriables to account for for a archery shot or a long range rifle shot. This is what seperates ethical hunters from weekend warriors and people who have absolutely no buisness shooting at any living thing with any weapon or distance.
 
All this long range archery, Muzzy and Rifle can all be stopped with the outlawing of the rangefinder. Problem solved. Its getting out of hand were guys can sit in a drainage and shoot 1500yds in all directions. All these experts would not be so good if they had to actually guess the yardage.
 
That wouldn't solve the problem. I use a rangefinder and never shoot past 500. Guessing yardage would only create more wounding shots. High, low, not being able to calculate windage at realistic ranges. All can be responsible for poor shot placement.
 
If you do math at all, and spend enough time in the field it is easy to accurately estimate range with a moa or mil retical. I have a range finder but rarely use it. I get range through my rifle scope even out to 1000. I guess they might as well outlaw rifle scopes and carbon arrows and compound bows and anything other than flint lock muzzleloaders. It isn't going to happen. My guess is is that there are on average way more ethical kills made now than ever because of technology like range finders
 
LAST EDITED ON Oct-13-14 AT 07:55PM (MST)[p]The people on here that know me know that I shoot Archery and guns ALOT, I would dare say that myself and my Family will shoot more Arrows in any given 2 weeks than most in 5 years. ( I shot only 20 times tonight) yesterday I shot my 308 (in the wind) only 32 times. Reloaded 100 rnds last tuesday and only had 32 left for Sunday. I shoot for enjoyment mostly NOT for any type of competition. When I used to teach Hunters Ed. I would tell my students to stay within their effective range. This is how I found my effective range this spring. I shot like I always do and then had my grandson pick a day of the week,(it was a sunday) to test myself. throughout the day I shot 20 times at a 12" bull at different ranges. At 20 yds I was 100%. Again at 30 yards 100%. At 40 yards ( 4 hours after starting) I was 100%. At 50 yards I missed the Bullseye 3 times and hit 17. Effective Range for me was and still is 40 yards. This may be considered extreme by some, but Its not for those folks! Its MY effective Range. My wife did the same and hers is 30 yards. (she killed an Elk this year at 26 yards.) I have 1 son who can hit 100% at 60 yards. As to my rifle The load I use at 400 yards to hit 0 I would use my 2nd hash (mil.) and would have over 1300 ft/lbs of energy. I can hit a target farther, But with flight time, Energy, weather, and terrain. I couldn't see myself shooting at an animal beyond that. Again think what you may, this is MY effective range.
 
Thank you. This is a very great explanation of how all hunters should be. One hunters effective range may not, and most likely will not be the same as another's. Bob Beck may have a extended effective range but that does not mean that because he can do this anyone who hunts with him can. I think we can all agree without bickering about what is ethical or not as far as distance, if a hunter will take the time to determine effective range there will be many clean ethical harvests of the great game animals we all enjoy
 
>All this long range archery, Muzzy
>and Rifle can all be
>stopped with the outlawing of
>the rangefinder. Problem solved.
> Its getting out of
>hand were guys can sit
>in a drainage and shoot
>1500yds in all directions.
>All these experts would not
>be so good if they
>had to actually guess the
>yardage.

Since we've got the ethics police telling us how to hunt, lets outlaw trail cams, scopes over 4x, ATV's, spotters over 20x, waterproof clothing & boots, any back pack that weighs less than 10 lbs, LED style headlamps, and any knife that isn't a 6" Buck. Basically we're now back to what my dad and his brother's were doing in the 60's & 70's. Should start seeing Burris class bucks popping up everywhere in a few years...
 
I think certain long range shooters can take ethical shots out to 1000 yards. I believe it to be the weapon setup more than the shooter. I know of guides that will pull out their long range weapon on the last day, dial it in for their client, and bam, a dead animal at 800 yards. So ethical, yes. The debate for me is whether this type of hunting is moral and fair to the animal. I don't think it to be, but that's my opinion.

I watched an Outer Limit episode a few years back where they pushed a herd of wildebeest up on the hillside so they could take an 800 plus yard shot. They originally had them at under 200 yards, but apparently this was too close. Filming a long range hunting show would be incredibly easy. They talk loudly, have a ton of people, find an animal, dial in the rifle, and pull the trigger: episode complete.

I would be all for iron sight rifles, traditional muzzleloaders, and traditional bows, but this would undoubtedly drop the hunter turn out. We need all the hunters we can get to fight the antis.
 
I've got a buddy that is in to the long range shooting. He shoots daily, loads his own rounds, keeps a book in his pocket of bullet reaction in diff temps, moisture, wind. Knows what his bullet will do in any given environment. He puts more work into that one shot than most do in a lifetime. I would actually like to try it but just dont have the time to put into it. I have the gun just no time. Im comfortable out to 400 yrds but thats my max and I know it. Im the same with my bow. 40 yards is my max but I hunt with a couple guys that 80 yards is a given. They do the work to make the shot. Thats what it comes down to.

By the way, my buddy dropped a mulie in his tracks at 906 yrds up in wyoming last year. Nice buck!

I posted my disppointment earlier on an elk hunt with radios and the majority disagreed with me. I see that as more unethical than making a shot youve worked/practiced for.
 
LAST EDITED ON Oct-14-14 AT 01:34PM (MST)[p]When we attack one group of hunters, we attack us all.

Why stop at limiting rifles to iron sights only? Why not do away with all gun hunting and only use traditional bows? Good hell, why not do away with all hunting? Problem solved for us all, right? No more "ethical" debates!

I think we could talk in circles all day long and we'll never all agree on anything. So, why don't we all decide what works for us and that's good enough?

Just do what works for YOU! (I don't like the marketing of the "long range" crap either but that's the way they do it)

Remember, those who can't think those who can shouldn't.

Zeke

PS: I'm not a "long range" shooter but I suspect my effective range exceeds some on here based on some posts. Does that mean I need to conform to your standards and limits?
 
Practice, practice, practice is futile when attempting to make a 1300 yard shot when you don't know the conditions 1300 yards away. Wind may be calm where you are shooting from but how do you know what they are like across the canyon or how do you know there aren't gusty conditions in the bullets flight path? I understand that the trees/bushes in the area may give you some of that info, but there's no way to know that your bullet will find its mark shooting at a target that far away. To each his own....the point in this thread was that Bob Beck whooped it up when he had to make the second shot on that goat after hitting him too far back. Says he went 2 for 2! Not the comment to be put on TV in my opinion.

Cancer doesn't discriminate...don't take your good health for granted because it can be gone in a heartbeat. Please go back and read the last line. This time really understand what it says.
 
I guarantee you when the day comes that all technology is outlawed and I have to beat a deer's brains out with a rock in order to fill a tag, There will be some ethical debates then.
 
for what its worth each person has their own limitations and preference on how they hunt, that is fine and thank god we have the freedom in america to do this. no one agrees on everything nor will they ever, it dont necessarily make it right or wrong. I would guess 90% of hunters pick up a tag over the counter, dust off their scope, grab some mixed matched shells off the garage shelf and head to the woods hoping to see something near the road to shoot, even if that means blowing the legs off first. I do not choose to hunt like that as most of you dont, but those of us on these internet forums are NOT the majority of hunters. we can cuss and discuss all of our different points of view but its really just for our own edification. We likely all have different situations or experiences that guide our Ethics. maybe there might be a handfull of people that have NEVER missed, taken more than one shot, or never recovered and animal they have shot. I am willing to bet the indians didn't discuss ethics when they run the buffalo over the cliffs and then stuck, poked or beat the wounded ones to death! I also bet they didn't drive to their hunting grounds in a truck. this is a never ending disscusion that seems to keep creeping up. we do have laws that guide our sport and our lives, outside of that its personal choices that either you nor I can decide for one another. we damn sure don't need more laws to govern us and we don't need the anti hunters to ruffle our feathers, it seems we(hunters) manage to do a good enough job ripping each other apart. Its America! do as you wish, thank a veteran, and take a kid hunting. Most importantly enjoy your days in the outdoors and remember why YOU hunt.
 
Snipers have been killing terrorists in excess of 1500 yards for decades. Why not wild game, if you have the equipment and ability to make the shot. The problem I have seen with the popularization of longrange shooting is it's attracting people who are neither responsible or skilled to make such shots. Frankly, there are many hunters who shouldn't be shooting beyond a hundred yards. I have killed two mature bucks in the last few years that were shot in the antlers. One with a broadhead, the other was a rifle. I think before you pass judgement on longrange hunters you need to take a close look at those that can't hit the broadside of a barn inside 100 yards.
 
Lets get something else straight real quick. The comparison to the theatre of war and the capabilities of trained military personal and equipment is night and day to what we are doing. You are comparing trained PROFESSIONALS to ourselves and that is not even close. We can not compare ourselves to men that literally shoot hundreds of thousands of rounds, morning noon and night, 24/7, at ranges that just a handful of us get to practice once in a while.

Most importantly the military and US government doesn't feel they have an ethical obligation to recover all individuals struck or killed by our servicemen. So if one of our snipers blows the jaw off of some Taliban jackass from 1500 meters away and it takes him three days to die painfully hiding in a cave, NOBODY CARES. We manage our deer herds for sustainability and health. We manage our enemies to submit to our will and power. There is a big difference between their wounds, death, and our ultimate goals.
 
Because it's hunting. In my Opinion, If you can't get closer than 1100 yards to an animal i would'nt call it hunting or call yourself a hunter. Most of the thrill of being out there is the stalk. I personally think if you want to shoot the long distance's, do it at a target and brag about it then.
 
>Lets get something else straight real
>quick. The comparison to
>the theatre of war and
>the capabilities of trained military
>personal and equipment is night
>and day to what we
>are doing. You are
>comparing trained PROFESSIONALS to ourselves
>and that is not even
>close. We can not
>compare ourselves to men that
>literally shoot hundreds of thousands
>of rounds, morning noon and
>night, 24/7, at ranges
>that just a handful of
>us get to practice once
>in a while.
>


>Most importantly the military and US
>government doesn't feel they have
>an ethical obligation to recover
>all individuals struck or killed
>by our servicemen. So
>if one of our snipers
>blows the jaw off of
>some Taliban jackass from 1500
>meters away and it takes
>him three days to die
>painfully hiding in a cave,
>NOBODY CARES. We manage
>our deer herds for sustainability
>and health. We manage
>our enemies to submit to
>our will and power.
>There is a big difference
>between their wounds, death, and
>our ultimate goals.


You would be surprised how much some of us shoot..I burned 19 lbs of powder last month,not a lot by some standards,but i reckon that would take joe average around 15 years to do.

The problem with LR is guys trying to buy shooting ability, these guys FAR outnumber the ones that can actually shoot.
 
Please let me clarify my comments. What I stated above are part of MY ethics., I am not implying that they should be yours.
Zeke, and BB,FYI I am not against LR hunting, to each his/her own. As for equipment I use modern Bolt Action Rifles,Modern Optics,Compound Bows,Carbon Arrows,Expandable Broadheads. I do feel strongly that Ethics are a must to call yourself a Sportsman. Ethics not only include obeying all the LAWS, they are the UNWRITTEN LAWS that only YOU can institute into YOUR OWN set of Ethics. If you incorporate 1000 yard shots into Your set of Ethics, (and are capable of humanly carrying out the shot, then its fine)BECAUSE it would be part of YOUR ethics.
Tristate, When it comes to hunting with Rocks, I don't think I can toss one at what would be considered "long Range", But am interested in your views on "Caliber" requirements for said Rocks. Also as to your comments on Taliban, I would like to see MORE debilitating, Painful,and yes eventually mortal wounding of Taliban. I would also like to make it mandatory that Bullets be lubed with pig lard prior to the shot. My ethics towards radical moosims are GREATLY different than those for Big Game, HeII mooslims dont even rate Coyote ethics .
 
I personally don't have a problem with long range hunting. My long range gun has killed 5 critters this year so far. From 646 Caribou in AK to 1064 Elk in the books. The only thing I've missed is a wolf in AK. Had nothing to do with the gun. I have not had and animal go more than 20 yards (1064 elk in the books) 2 shots both in the vitals. My 300 ultra with 230 gr. burger is deadly out to that range. (In the right wind) that I watch closely. I watched a guy last week at east canyon miss a bull at 300 yards 18 times. 10 the first day and 8 the next. But he did finally hit it in the lower leg, never recovered. I chose to hunt that way and I like it. I still hunt with a smoke pole and bow often. To call me un-ethical is so far from the truth. I spend more time at the range than 95% of the people on this site that are hunters. Its not us long range hunters that are un-ethical. I did ask the elk we shot last week at 989 yards 1 shot if he would rather be shot from 989 or 50 yards he said he would rather not be shot at all. I don't think it mattered to him. Should I take the downriggers off my boat because fishing to deep is wrong?
 
I am glad that there are some people who can shoot 1000 meters. Woo-hoo! That's great! THAT IS NOT WHAT THE DISCUSSION IS. My car can drive 100 mph it doesn't mean I SHOULD be driving 100 mph.

And yes I Know there are a lot of people who think that because they shoot a whole bunch they are as good as a PROFESSIONAL military sniper. Guess what you aren't. You don't have the backing of millions of dollars invested in training. You don't have the weaponry, rangefinders and other equipment they do. You do not have dozens of people literally working all day just to make you the perfect load/rifle combination with a bottomless pit of funds. You don't get flown all over the world to spend weeks of practical shooting training at a time. You think shooting 5k rounds in a month from a bench teaches you to be deadly?????? A military sniper will shoot that 5k rounds plus another 5k rounds of practical shooting all under the scrutiny of a team of trainers with a building full of computers analyzing every aspect of the shot right down to a downrange mouse fart.

Are you a better shot than me? You bet! Are you in a league that those military snipers are? No way.

Do I believe we should legislate against long range shooting? No way.

I have said it before. Each sportsmen should practice and be able to recognize his true limitations and respect those. A$$ shooting speedgoats by part time shooters and full time TV personalities IS NOT RECOGNIZING AND RESPECTING ONE'S LIMITATIONS.
 
LAST EDITED ON Oct-15-14 AT 10:17PM (MST)[p]you're a ******** moron and a window licker, just for starters.

You flatter yourself to think you are qualified enough to even comment, its so damn far over your head that it aint even worth trying to explain.

Since you like the word PROFESSIONAL so much, how ethical is it for you to go hire a PROFESSIONAL hunter to find your buck of a lifetime?why dont you hire a sniper to shoot it for you too?Cant you just do it yourself and give the buck a chance? Not very sporting of you.and hire a porn star to take care of the wife while your at it, I'm sure they are better in bed than you, after all they are professionals at what they do..

The point is, using yourself as a barometer of anything is no comparison at all,your too damn lazy to learn how to shoot,so you just tell everyone its either whichcraft or you have to be military trained,military training isnt proprietary,and neither is their equiptment. a moron that gets stumped by a muzzloader wants to "tell" me about shooting, GFY.

Another hint, I've shot with lots of PROFESSIONAL trained military snipers, they aint any better than the other non military trained guys in the same competitions,I use BETTER equipment than most them are hamstrung by.you thinking they are on another level than civilian shooters shows you dont know your head form your azz.At competitions there are military teams and civilians all rubbing shoulders, shooting the same targets, they dont always win, not even close.Read that really slowly,then read it again.


Maybe you should educate yourself a little as to who are the best shots in the world, are a lot of them military trained? yep, are a lot of them not? yep..you wouldnt ******** know that tho would you.

I'm not defending Beck, he's a jackass and I cant stand his show.
 
JUDAS DAWG!

Any Chance We can Talk some KNOCKDOWN Power at Long Range?:D:D:D










[font color="red"]From My Smokin Cherry Red Hot Barrel & My Dead Cold Hands I Shall go down Fighting for American Pride & Rights!
I Know I'm Out Numbered by Pusssies & Brainwashed Democrats that'll Throw Their Hands in the air & I know I can't Lick the U.S. Military by Myself when they Turn on us but I'll make
you one Guarantee,They'll be Enduring a Situation where I Hope to Hell All Americans become True Americans once again & Stand up for their Rights!
 
"Since you like the word PROFESSIONAL so much, how ethical is it for you to go hire a PROFESSIONAL hunter to find your buck of a lifetime?"

Actually that is very ethical. When I don't know something I go to a professional. That's what grown ups do. Maybe its time for you to learn that.

"why dont you hire a sniper to shoot it for you too?"

I don't need to. My professional guide got me 35 yards from the deer. See, I respected my limitations and achieved my goal.

"Cant you just do it yourself and give the buck a chance?"

Is that actually logic? Did you actually use a brain to write that sentence?

" Not very sporting of you.and hire a porn star to take care of the wife while your at it, I'm sure they are better in bed than you, after all they are professionals at what they do.."

And now we are on to sexual insults because in the last sentence you showed logic had failed you. All because you got your but hurt when I told you that you aren't on the same level as the military.

"The point is, using yourself as a barometer of anything is no comparison at all,"

EXACTLY! This is EXACTLY what you are doing. You think you shot two critters at long distance so now you and military snipers are one and the same. You think two bullets and two dead animals made you "barometer" for long range shooting AND YOU'RE NOT. I am not trying to be a barometer. I am just trying to pull your ego out of the clouds and bring you to reality.

"your too damn lazy to learn how to shoot,so you just tell everyone its either whichcraft or you have to be military trained,military training isnt proprietary,and neither is their equiptment."

I never once said any of that. Are you a woman? Am I conversing with a woman? I swear that is what women do in arguments. I love how I am now the lazy one when I am the one person out of the two of us WHICH WILL GET OFF HIS A$$, AND USE HIS LEGS AND BRAINS TO ACTUALLY APPROACH A LIVE ANIMAL!

" a moron that gets stumped by a muzzloader wants to "tell" me about shooting, GFY."

You seem to think I said I shoot better than you. I never said that. I recognize my limitations and I still get it done. I didn't have to shoot a critter at ridiculous ranges to fill the freezer. I never called you a name. I just said you aren't on the same level as the military and look how childish you have become. Snap your crap together boy, you're loosing it.



"Another hint, I've shot with lots of PROFESSIONAL trained military snipers, they aint any better than the other non military trained guys in the same competitions,I use BETTER equipment than most them are hamstrung by.you thinking they are on another level than civilian shooters shows you dont know your head form your azz.At competitions there are military teams and civilians all rubbing shoulders, shooting the same targets, they dont always win, not even close.Read that really slowly,then read it again."

And this is my favorite part. Your defense for why you shoot as good as military snipers. Because yall shoot PAPER together. PAAAAAAAAPER at competitions. Let me tell you something an actual military sniper told me once. "It's all about what you do in the kill box". Paper don't mean squat. The bench doesn't mean squat. Your competition doesn't mean squat. When you start shooting at living breathing moving things that are 2.5 seconds of travel away you get a whole new education. CONGRATULATIONS AT DOING IT TWICE THIS YEAR.

Whether you like it or not those men are professionals and at best you are a really good amateur. Give your ego a rest.
 
LAST EDITED ON Oct-16-14 AT 09:30AM (MST)[p]By the way Dog, why don't you post up one of your military grade recipes that you are shooting these days.


Also I am not surprised that a person who talks about other men's wives being with porn stars and considers all other men "Lazy" if they do not shoot 1000 meters at animals, to be confused in a conversation regarding ethics.
 
Tristate, it's not that nobody here likes you... ah hell yes it is. Nobody here likes you.

[font color="blue"]I don't make the soup,I just stir it.[/font]
 
Bighorn,

If you haven't noticed yet I made it past third grade and I don't worry about people "liking" me.

I certainly don't care if a person who talks about strange wives' sex lives, "likes" me or not.
 
>Bighorn,
>
>If you haven't noticed yet I
>made it past third grade
>and I don't worry about
>people "liking" me.

Good for you. Fourth grade fits you better.




>
>I certainly don't care if a
>person who talks about strange
>wives' sex lives, "likes" me
>or not.

Wait, are you saying your wife IS strange or LIKES strange?


Play through boys. I'm just stirring.




[font color="blue"]I don't make the soup,I just stir it.[/font]
 
Bighorn,

I am saying that Dog finds it necessary to insult ladies he knows nothing about.

If fourth grade means I don't have to worry about whether you or Dog will win homecoming queen that's perfect for me.

Stir all you want I will turn on the mixmaster. ;)
 
For a second I thought you said "jizzmaster". I'm glad you didn't because BESS already has that title. I think he's been working on getting it trademarked. :)

Cancer doesn't discriminate...don't take your good health for granted because it can be gone in a heartbeat. Please go back and read the last line. This time really understand what it says.
 
Bob Beck is a Long Range Instructor. He has taught many people to shoot accurately out to 1760 yards... He also has all the latest gear to make a long shot. He is not shooting your grandpa's rifle and scope.He is a very skilled Long Range Shot. His skill comes from the Equipment he uses and 1000's and 1000's of round of practice. The amount of Equipment and Time that Bob puts into his brand of hunting should be taking into consideration. I wouldn't want Bob shooting at me at any range. I believe Bob is just as capable of making long range shots as many of the Military Snipers. JMO dgarrett
 
Dgarrett,

Totally believable. But that is my point. BOB BECK IS A PROFESSIONAL. Professionals that do this day in and day out can shoot like this consistently.

This is a common problem with people regardless of the profession we are talking about. A man is a trained professional at skill A. On the weekends and spare time he likes to dabble in Skill B. Somehow his ego and a little more knowledge than the average man now makes him believe he can perform at the level of the very best professionals in skill A.
Case in point. I saved a dogs life one time that had had his face ripped off by a baboon. True story. I spent hours in the middle of no where Africa sewing a dogs face on his skull. He lived. Not many people could have pulled it off. Guess where my dog is going next time it has a laceration? THE VETERINARIAN.

My argument is not that no one can shoot as good as a military sniper. My argument was to use the military as your defense for taking irresponsible shots IS ILLOGICAL.
 
OK, i'm going to take the bait and join in.

A little scenario: A guy goes on a hunt with a few guys and watches one of his group knock down a buck at say, 1000yds. He's never shot a buck half that far before but he's interested and sees the possibilities in how he too might be able to take game that far.

He signs up for and takes this Bob guys class, buys one of his long range rigs, practices for a few weeks, and goes hunting for game out to and past 1000 yds.

I just don't know that i can agree that guys doing this have the ability even though their equipment might be up to snuff.

My problem is not so much with the guys who have been in the game for years, it's the newer guys buying these long range rigs and getting into the game that concern me.

If you hunt long enough, one will miss a shot at game. If that miss was a just little better shot, closer to the aiming point, the miss could then turn into a lost animal. For myself, i limit my shot to about 500 yards max and because so, have only lost 3 bucks, going back 50 years and that i'm aware of, in over 100 big game animals taken. Not fantastic but a pretty good percentage.

Also, the guys who believe in the, "it's only a animal",.. i'm just never going to agree with.

Joey




"It's all about knowing what your firearms practical limitations are and combining that with your own personal limitations!"
 
""""his skill comes from the equipment he uses"""""
(I know I took you quote out of context but hear me out)

Therein lies the rub. WAYYYYYYY TOOOOOOO many guys think it all about the tools. The dumb "tool" thinks he can watch a TV show and then buy his way to top performance.

Like I said before, everyone is entitled to their own opinions and they can certainly set their own limits but MOST guys haven't a clue what their limits are or how to find out!!!

These shows are to promote goods and sell them to the unskilled! Yes boys, therein lies the problem!

Zeke
 
Ok, here's a little test:
By raise of hands, who has really (I said really) shot, practiced and perfected their skill even to 400 yards?

Let me answer that for you guys. About 20% of those who say they have! Period, end of story. I watch "you guys" shoot every week and I know what I'm talking about. I see your damn targets which look more akin to a shotgun pattern than a rifle group.

I don't know how many times I've heard, "yep, still on from last year"!

These are the guys who are buying into the LR "range, dial, kill" crap and will never give the time or effort to become the least bit proficient at long range yet they'll still be banging at deer on Saturday because they "seen" it on TV!!

Zeke
 
dgarrett- If Bob Beck is such the professional and expert shooter, why did he hit the antelope in the show too far back? The argument I am making is that long range shooters may not know if the conditions are the same at the 1380 yard target. Professional or non-professional.....military sniper or regular joe who thinks because he has a Huskemaw scope he can shoot far...it doesn't matter. The longer the distance the target is from the gun, the more room for error. That is a simple fact. Same goes for archery equipment and ML equipment.

Cancer doesn't discriminate...don't take your good health for granted because it can be gone in a heartbeat. Please go back and read the last line. This time really understand what it says.
 
Guys that are into long range shooting read and watch grass, tree limbs and mirage, ect at all the distances to the intended target. Many of the top shooters become very good at this. Many years of practice and reading the wind and test shots are required. It seems to me that even at the benchrest matches the guy that usually wins is the guy that can read the wind the best. It is obvious that nothing is going to change some of the peoples minds about how far is ethical to shoot an animal. It is an self set limit. I would hope that most people set their limit within a distance and weather condition where they are sure they can make the shot 100% of the time. I would rather worry about my limits and leave everyone else to make up their own limits. dgarrett
 
I believe it comes down to how comfortable you are at what distance. If you can lay down and shoot 500 yards consistently I don't mind shooting that far at an animal. That being said shooting 1300 yards even with a .5 MOA gun is going to have a large range for error. I don't know anyone that can hit a target the size of vitals at that far every shot in field conditions.
 
EASY there Wisz!

You'd of never known that if Ms Wisz hadn't of told you!



>For a second I thought you
>said "jizzmaster". I'm glad you
>didn't because BESS already has
>that title. I think he's
>been working on getting it
>trademarked. :)
>
>Cancer doesn't discriminate...don't take your good
>health for granted because it
>can be gone in a
>heartbeat. Please go back and
>read the last line. This
>time really understand what it
>says.












[font color="red"]From My Smokin Cherry Red Hot Barrel & My Dead Cold Hands I Shall go down Fighting for American Pride & Rights!
I Know I'm Out Numbered by Pusssies & Brainwashed Democrats that'll Throw Their Hands in the air & I know I can't Lick the U.S. Military by Myself when they Turn on us but I'll make
you one Guarantee,They'll be Enduring a Situation where I Hope to Hell All Americans become True Americans once again & Stand up for their Rights!
 
So if a guy was able to maintain that.5moa grouping out to 1300 how far apart would the impacts be? Heck, let's say a 1moa group at 1300yrds is how big? So if a hunter had the time, knowledge, range experience, to make a shot at this distance when he or she knows the conditions are right, would that make it ethical? What is the size of the kill zone of a antelope? Or maybe an elk?
 
Try-state, you've been talking directly out of your ass this whole thread about what you think you know about shooting..

maybe you should try stomping your feet and holding your breath while your typing your next reply!?

PS, I've only taken one big game animal at what I consider LR..I am not a LR HUNTER,but I can make the shot..Its called repertoire you dumbass. and if you read the last part of my second post you'd see i'm not defending beck. also most guys know i'm rather critical of the LR fad.

Zeke explained it in a more professional manner than I did or will, but again it will sail right over your head.

I'm just making fun of you for constantly talking out of your ass,mostly because of your reply to my first post. your reply was fueled by dumbfuqery and estrogen, with a huge dose of clueless thrown in.
 
HELL SAKES!

I FLINCH more than 1/60th of a Degree everytime I shoot!:D



>13.6" is MOA at that range,1/60th
>of a degree..












[font color="red"]From My Smokin Cherry Red Hot Barrel & My Dead Cold Hands I Shall go down Fighting for American Pride & Rights!
I Know I'm Out Numbered by Pusssies & Brainwashed Democrats that'll Throw Their Hands in the air & I know I can't Lick the U.S. Military by Myself when they Turn on us but I'll make
you one Guarantee,They'll be Enduring a Situation where I Hope to Hell All Americans become True Americans once again & Stand up for their Rights!
 
So I'm getting that for most probably, 1300yrds would be way outside of effective range. But if a hunter was able to maintain a.5moa group or 6.8" group this would be a do able shot. So an moa at 100yrds is 1.047", this hunter because he or she knows how to read environmental conditions and down range trajectory is as ethical to take this shot as a hunter who can barely maintain a 1 to 2moa grip at 600yrds. Telling me that what is right or ok for one will not always be the same for another.
 
Dog,

You are talking trash because your fragile ego is hurt and your panties got in a twist. Now your brains can't crawfish your dumb butt out of a corner. Keep talking boy.
 
There are lots of guys that can hold MOA or below beyond 1000,AFTER a few sighters..thats the rub.

just for try-state,that would include "military professionals".
 
Hey dog, you ever pooched a shot an a critter? Ever loose one? Was your tool chest ever not deep enough? If it was legal to use a missile guidance system would you? After all the military does that all the time right? Would you ever draw a line and restrict yourself even if you knew the military does it all the time?

I am just trying to get in tune with this horse crap you consider logic.
 
I hate the way people are going for longer and longer range weapons. it gets to a point where you get so far away that the animal doesn't even know you are there. If they do, they don't care because you are so far away. people use the arguement that it still is hard because you have so much to factor in for that shot. Wind is one I always hear. While I agree it would be tough to shoot across all of the wind currents and connect on the shot but i don't think that it is ethcial. It is those wind currents you are just punching through that the animals use as protection. We are already such an elite predator that I think that is taking it too far. We need to stop riding four wheeler's down every point, having a trail camera on every tree, paying people to watch every move they make, and then sniping them from 1200 yards. Give them a fighting chance. Go back to walking draws and having family fun.
 
LAST EDITED ON Oct-16-14 AT 10:55PM (MST)[p]>Hey dog, you ever pooched a
>shot an a critter?
>Ever loose one? Was your
>tool chest ever not deep
>enough? If it
>was legal to use a
>missile guidance system would you?
> After all the military
>does that all the time
>right? Would you ever
>draw a line and restrict
>yourself even if you knew
>the military does it all
>the time?
>
>I am just trying to get
>in tune with this horse
>crap you consider logic.


I'll answer the legitimate questions,but I aint going to address the ones that are obviously from the imagination of a day dreaming window licker, akin to what a preschooler would ask.

Yes, I have lost a critter, one deer with a rifle when I was a teen, shot was around 200 yards.

Second was an antelope with a bow 10 or so years ago, 45 yards, bad shot that ended up in the neck, dont know if he lived or not but the last time i seen him he was still with the herd in another unit..

If you could read, or better yet had the slightest clue what you are talking about you would know where I stand.
 
I know where you stand. WAAAAAAY over there. 3000 feet away because you are too lazy to get closer :D


Why don't you do every one a favor and the next time you decide to poke one poorly or even a clean miss tear your tag up.

In fact I think that is probably the very best way to solve this issue from a conservation standpoint. Make it law that if you cut hair or draw blood the tag is spent.
 
And the Republicans are wrong, the democrats are right. Gay marriage should be legal or illegal. Everyone should own dogs and not cats. If I like something everyone should like it. If I do something it should be law that everyone does it. If you don't do it my way you are lazy.
I think I will continue using all the skill and knowledge I have gained to take game with my bow at close range if that's the tag I have, or continue using all the skill and knowledge I have gained to use my rifle to it's full potential if that's the tag I have. That doesn't mean everyone has to but that's what I feel is right for me.
 
My argument can be boiled down to how much is to much? Some people don't care if a naked man shoots a record breaking deer with a missile that is guided by a keyboard from someone in China.

I know that you can shoot accurately and effectively from 1000 yards and are better than the other guy that shoots at 200. My complaint is how increasingly impossible it is becoming for Western Game to grow up and stay alive when people are able to take them at such ranges. From that distance it doesn't matter what you wear, how much noise you make or who you are with because that animal has no-idea you even exist. This practice puts an unfair advantage in favor of man and technology vs the animals. We are not trying to put them into extinction so why are we allowing this on public land with state owned animals?
 
BeDawg,

All valid points. I don't want to regulate one bit what methods you use to kill, OR WOUND :D, your beast. If the state wildlife agencies are willing to set accurate harvest quotas and pass law that if you shoot the animal and do not recover then your tag is invalid then the herds will be safe no matter what weapon or range or method of killing is used.

Sustainable hunting of a healthy herd should be goal number one. I think the minute these thousand yard shooters have to start deciding whether or not the shot is worth the gamble with their tag a lot of this will get curbed.
 
Why is it that the heards of mule deer took the biggest drop years ago before long range hunting was even a topic? Heard managment has everything to do with exactly that, management. Regaurdless of how the animal was taken. Elk heards are doing well all over due to the management and help from groups like rmef. It's not how the animals are taken but how many, winter mortality, poaching, range develoment and management. It is inaccurate to place blame on long range hunting for heard problems.
 
JF239,

You are right. There is more to herd management than just harvest regulation. And I am not stating that all those other factors be ignored. But I can tell you this, you can not manage a herd without strictly managing the harvest numbers. If you are allowing people to keep hunting after wounding and loosing animals it is almost impossible to effectively manage your herd.

By the way the number one threat to your deer herds right now is the harvest objectives set forth by the states. They are based on opportunity and not mortality and that is managing for people's satisfaction, not the herd's strength.
 
""""How much is too much?""""

Be really careful guys.

That's a slippery slope. Are big scopes too much? Are any scopes too much? Are rifles too much? Is 500, 100, 300, 1000 too much? Are compound bows too much? Is hunting any animal too much?

I'm not a "longRanger" and yet I try to have every animal completely unaware of my existance so throw that arguement out the window.

You've all made good points in your quest to make others conform to your ideas but be careful! Be really careful what you wish for!

Divided we fall!

Zeke
 
I couldn't agree more Zeke. That's why I am saying that the rule should be the second you cut hair on a critter then your tag is filled. Whether the animal is recovered or not. That goes for all weapons. If you wound and loose an animal at 10 yards or 1010 yards the hunt is over once one is shot. There is no slippery slope with that rule. We all should live under it and all suffer the consequences of both chance and the bad decisions we can all make.
 
LAST EDITED ON Oct-17-14 AT 10:04AM (MST)[p]>
>By the way the number one
>threat to your deer herds
>right now is the harvest
>objectives set forth by the
>states.


Bull$hit. There are several bigger things wrong with deer herds today. Habitat changes and loss are so much bigger.




[font color="blue"]I don't make the soup,I just stir it.[/font]
 
>That's why I am saying
>that the rule should be
>the second you cut hair
>on a critter then your
>tag is filled. Whether
>the animal is recovered or
>not. That goes for
>all weapons. If you
>wound and loose an animal
>at 10 yards or 1010
>yards the hunt is over
>once one is shot.


Impossible to enforce and probably not even a significant number. Are there statistics to support your notion that wounding is significant? From all hunters let alone long range hunters?

And no, I am not a long range hunter. I shot a buck antelope at 13 yards (not 1300) this year who had no idea I was even there. Was it ethical?



[font color="blue"]I don't make the soup,I just stir it.[/font]
 
Keep chewing on that crap they have been feeding you. The main reason your state agencies can't get management moving in the direction that it needs to be is they can't get a firm grasp on hunting. The vast majority of western big game hunting is based around hunter opportunity. They GAMBLE each year on the number of lost deer, the number of harvested deer, and the number of unsuccesful hunts and they have not been able to look accurately in that crystal ball yet. Am I saying those other factors are not important? No sir. But take it from a person with a wildlife degree on the wall that you are wasting time fighting a loosing battle if you do not get a handle on your harvest first. Period. Talk all the crap you want it won't change it. If you think I am lying to you watch where your muledeer will be in two more decades if this problem isn't addressed.
 
Its enforced all over the world and they are starting to enforce it in Alaska.

As far as your ethical 13 yard shot I don't know. What did you dress her up in?
 
You Shot an Antelope at 13 Yards & didn't even give it a chance by letting the Poor Thing know you were in Existence?

JUDAS!

Very UN-ETHICAL!:D:D:D



>
>>That's why I am saying
>>that the rule should be
>>the second you cut hair
>>on a critter then your
>>tag is filled. Whether
>>the animal is recovered or
>>not. That goes for
>>all weapons. If you
>>wound and loose an animal
>>at 10 yards or 1010
>>yards the hunt is over
>>once one is shot.
>
>
>Impossible to enforce and probably not
>even a significant number. Are
>there statistics to support your
>notion that wounding is significant?
>From all hunters let alone
>long range hunters?
>
>And no, I am not a
>long range hunter. I shot
>a buck antelope at 13
>yards (not 1300) this year
>who had no idea I
>was even there. Was it
>ethical?
>
>
>
>[font color="blue"]I don't make the soup,I
>just stir it.[/font]












[font color="red"]From My Smokin Cherry Red Hot Barrel & My Dead Cold Hands I Shall go down Fighting for American Pride & Rights!
I Know I'm Out Numbered by Pusssies & Brainwashed Democrats that'll Throw Their Hands in the air & I know I can't Lick the U.S. Military by Myself when they Turn on us but I'll make
you one Guarantee,They'll be Enduring a Situation where I Hope to Hell All Americans become True Americans once again & Stand up for their Rights!
 
>Keep chewing on that crap they
>have been feeding you.
>The main reason your state
>agencies can't get management moving
>in the direction that it
>needs to be is they
>can't get a firm grasp
>on hunting. The vast
>majority of western big game
>hunting is based around
>hunter opportunity. They GAMBLE
>each year on the number
>of lost deer, the number
>of harvested deer, and the
>number of unsuccesful hunts and
>they have not been able
>to look accurately in that
>crystal ball yet. Am
>I saying those other factors
>are not important? No
>sir. But take it
>from a person with a
>wildlife degree on the wall
>that you are wasting time
>fighting a loosing battle if
>you do not get a
>handle on your harvest first.
> Period. Talk all
>the crap you want it
>won't change it. If
>you think I am lying
>to you watch where your
>muledeer will be in two
>more decades if this problem
>isn't addressed.

Well take it from someone else who has a wildlife degree hanging on the wall, you have no clue what you're even talking about. And which "western state" is it that you live in that makes you the frickin expert on western deer herds? Oh and in case things are different where you got YOUR wildlife degree, bucks do not give birth to fawns.



[font color="blue"]I don't make the soup,I just stir it.[/font]
 
>Its enforced all over the world
>and they are starting to
>enforce it in Alaska.
>
>As far as your ethical 13
>yard shot I don't know.
> What did you dress
>her up in?

Hows the weather down there where you stooped to by bringing on the attempted sexual insults.


[font color="blue"]I don't make the soup,I just stir it.[/font]
 
Wow genius did you figure that out on your own? I live in Texas and guess what we have more mule deer here than several of the western mountian states. Guess what slick do those doe just get bred on their own. According to you you must only need a healthy doe herd and murder every buck you see. There will be more next year right? Do you have any plan whatsoever for age structure within your bucks? I guess you think a healthy deer heard is a bunch of 18 month old bucks trying to breed all the doe before you and your buddies mow them down. Please tell me you aren't anyone of influence within a wildlife agency?

By the way you know what you can do in my state? SHOOT THE DAMN DOE!

Have you ever done a doe shoot and seen what percentage of your doe are even getting bred?
 
Anyone of influence? Nope, just like you I'm nobody. Next you'll tell us those 18 month old bucks can't breed the does until they are older cuz they have no genetics of their own til they grow up. Or you'll start spewing bs about management hunts. How many bucks do you think are needed to breed 100 does?

And if you think for a minute that the west is anything like Texas either in
Management or habitat you're a bigger fool that I thought. Apples and oranges. You have no idea how the world turns in the west any more than I could tell you about Texas.

Save it for your enlightened discussons with your lawyer friends and girl talk.

[font color="blue"]I don't make the soup,I just stir it.[/font]
 
I passed out...

... and when I woke up I was stinky and covered in $hit. And I realized that I had been wrestling with the pig again.

Go to hell tristate.


[font color="blue"]I don't make the soup,I just stir it.[/font]
 
RE: I passed out...

Face it boy you just got your butt handed to you. Let's talk herd management. You knew you had a habitat restriction decreasing available groceries, right. At least that's what you stated in previous posts, right? Everyone knows that right? Or maybe you want to blame a drought right? At what point did you start shooting those girls that you think magicly get pregnant every year without boys? Come on slick. Start answering the questions. You have a wildlife degree. At what point did it enter that giant brain of yours to start shooting the bitches who ate your limited groceries. At what point do people quit thinking like a little boy with a box full of bunnies and start becoming men that use science?
 
RE: I passed out...

^heh, spray much???

Just got a nice new record in the mail from my bros in sverige, titled "At War with Reality"...seems to define Tard-state's pathetic self created situation on here pretty well, in name at least

Like I said before, his poor frayed tail must be getting to be very stumpy indeed :)
 
RE: I passed out...

A few months ago I posted a thread on the elk forum titled, "wounded bulls." The story behind the thread is that an individual drew a LE elk tag in Utah and wounded 3 different bulls, each time the bull was 700+ yards and he "borrowed" his friend's long range set-up. When people with this attitude, independent of distance/weapon, are wounding animals; it severely hurts the rest of us hunters (as does trying to standardize all weapons, optics, etc. because of what one person thinks is right or wrong).

I have a long range set-up and I love shooting steel with it. However, when hunting season rolls around, my personal effective range is less than during "steel season."

I worked for an outfitter for a few years and Bob Beck hunted with us while I was there. He did shoot a bull elk at 800+ yards, but his editing crew hid the two missed shots and the one gut shot prior to Bob dropping the bull. I am not taking a shot at Bob, just stating the facts.

In my opinion, it blows down to agency. I hunt with people that share the same ethics that I do and I try to stay clear of those who don't share the same ethics - this is completely my choice. It is not to say that I am right and they are wrong, or that I am wrong and they are right. It is just a matter of different perspectives, and who am I to tell someone else how to live?
 

Similar threads

gr8fuldoug
SHOT Show Day 1
Replies
0
Views
311
gr8fuldoug
gr8fuldoug
Founder
Montana Mule Deer, Whitetail, Antelope, Archery Elk
Replies
0
Views
511
Founder
Founder
gr8fuldoug
SHOT Show Day 2
Replies
7
Views
445
gr8fuldoug
gr8fuldoug

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

IMG_5737.jpeg
D43D3DEC-CD15-4547-8D65-EA84D6EF193E.jpeg
IMG_0439.PNG
7B639A8E-19E8-4A2F-A4AF-ECF405244735.jpeg
06220162.JPG
1919448_105984316082840_7110416_n.jpg
Screenshot_2022-11-10-06-56-52-311.jpg
1672693214205.png
Dads deer 3.jpg
IMG_3560_Fotor.jpg
33761C20-C0A7-41BD-B077-A51F1DE4E91B.jpeg
Neat Buck
Back
Top Bottom