Why is LR good?

hossblur

hossblur

Long Time Member
Messages
10,530
I love to throw bombs as much as the next guy, but I am hoping for an honest discussion.

It is becoming a pretty heated topic. Opinions are all over the map, all over the place. Personally my thoughts are this:

1. LR hunting for mule deer is quiet damaging to the species. Mule deer, when jumped rarely run out of the country. Generally they cross the ridge, and find ways to stay about that distance from the stalker. Because they don't put miles on to "save themselves" they are more susceptable to LR hunters.

2. LR hunting mature animals. Especially with older, wiser, mulies, they often live in areas that don't lend to closing the distance. Most of us have seen those bigger, older, deer in that "little piece of pines" surrounded by 1/2 mile of open country. This practice has let them become older, bigger. This practice is simply wiped clean by guns reaching out over 1000 yrds.

3. Physics. For every yard that projectile travels, gravity, the wind, imperfections in bullets, branches, etc, play more and more a force on it. At extreme distance there is almost zero room for error, which in turn leads more possibility of wounds. Because the shooter is so far away the violent, brutalness of a wounded animal is lessened because the shooter can't see it. Hunting, wounding, become sanitized, making it easier for the shooter to quit thinking of the animal as a living breathing thing, and makes them just a furry target.

4. One reason for the push of roadless areas, or wilderness, or walk in is to try to have those areas be more natural. No dudes cruising in the pick-up to every ridge top look out. IF you do the same, shooting ridgetop to ridgetop, what difference did it make?

5. Artificial intellegence. You cannot be a LR hunter without it. You need wind meters, balistic computers, range finders. By allowing these to become dominate in the hunting, we also must allow for other forms, GPS tracking, satelite imagery, drones, robotics. The arguement is always why not go to sticks and stones then, but the difference between present day and AI assisted is simple. With sticks, spears, bows, rifles, scopes, etc, it is still HUMAN, and with such comes all the human imperfections. Once the human is replaced, those imperfections are as well.

Now, I don't participate in it so my thoughts probably aren't great.

Positives:

1. Devoted LR hunters will spend the money, time, and practice to be efficient.

2. Money spent of the guns, computers, etc, help us all.

As you can tell, I can go on all day about the detriments of LR, I can't do the same as for positives.

Other than "because I want to", or "your just a hater", is there a positive that I am missing as to why LR is not the negetive most of us believe it to be? I do realize that the hope of hunting is to be successful, but most of us realize that doesn't, and can't happen or hunting becomes irradication.


"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun"
 
Hoss,
Easy answer, because it's more effective. It's the reason we don't just throw rocks at them. Lumpy already summer it up. It's the most efficient way to kill. If you wanna talk about ethics lets looks at killing effiencey. If we are being honest the most efficient way to kill is a rifle. More effcient than, rocks, sticks, bows, Muzzys. The rifle is the most ethical and efficient. Now it's just all opinion and statics on 1 foot to however far on how you apply that efficiency.
 
....one of my biggest fears of long range rifles in general, and the fact that they have come along with the militaries exstensive use of and public exposure is that the antigun left now knows the capabilities of what we've hunted with for a hundred years....

...AR-15 type firearms have been demonized as "military", "extremely dangerous".......unsuitable for civilian ownership.......the same is about to happen to bolt action hunting rifles...mark my words...


8346emporor_obama.jpg

I liked it big...fondler doesn't
 
I see long range rifles and shooting as nothing different than all the other pieces of equipment that many of us have that make us better at killing stuff. It'll probably only get worse. 20 years from now we'll be wishing it were still like it is now. Unless things change and sportsman force limits upon themselves, we will continue to become more and more effective at harvesting animals, and with it being a very limited resource, tags will continue to decline and opportunity will also decline. Look at the change in the past 10 years, and how much less opportunity there is. Crazy if you ask me.

Hopefully sportsman will find a way to limit the use of the technology that we have available now and most importantly, what is still to come.

Brian Latturner
MonsterMuleys.com
Will you LIKE MonsterMuleys.com on Facebook! I need a friend....
 
Brian said it best, tags will continue to decline seasons will be shorter as well with opportunity. Sad deal
 
I find that practicing at long range really helps me fine tune many aspects of my shooting. I concentrate more on trigger pull, follow through, body position, being relaxed and taking my time. Further more shots in the 300-500 are much easier since I practice a lot and much further.

Another positive is it gives many hunters a chance to really look over the animal and make a decision on how mature the animal is. If to young or not what the hunter is looking for then they can pass.
 
What founder said makes a lot of sense, we need a way to limit our selves. Is long range unethical? No, if the proper practice and knowledge of long range shooting is applied. Is there people shooting long rang that should not be? Absolutely. But is ther people packing bows, muzzleloaders, and rifles during the hunts that don't practice like they should before the hunt? Yes, probably more so than the guys that are practicing long range. Is there a easy answer for this split in sportsmen? No. No matter what we hunt the weapons we choose all the way down to the brand of gear we choose, we will never agree on everything. The one thing we can agree on, is we all love to hunt. Do I believe in hunting long range? No never packed a center fire rifle in my life during a hunt. Does that make it wrong? Nope just not my style of hunting. As sportsman we all should be proficient with the weapon we choose to hunt with, and put the animals we hunt before our egos.
 
May I answer your question, with another question? These are not intended to be rhetorical questions, but questions that seem to me to be relevant, as we consider the original question.

Is a 120 yard range finder good? Meaning, now that I know exactly how far the animal is, I know which pin to hold on.

Sub question:
Is there more chance a deer will duck an arrow from 60 yards, than an arrow at 25 yards?

Is there most chance for wind to move an arrow traveling 60 yards than an arrow traveling 25 yards?

Does it take more practice to zero an arrow at 60 yards than zero one at 25 yards?

Are more deer wounded at 60 yards or at 25 yards?

Does a deer wounded with a bow suffer any less than a deer wounded with any other legal weapon?

How much does it cost to purchase the necessary equipment to make reliable "long range" archery shots? Include a 120 yard range finder.

Do archers, without the proper equipment, the hours of practice or the proven "long range" skills ever wound animals at 60 yards?

Is it more likely an unprepared archer, on a windy day, will gut shoot a deer at 60 yards or more likely that an unprepared rifleman, on a windy day, will gut shoot a deer at long range?

Again, don't take offense, they're just questions to ask ourselves, as sportsmen.

Is a fast twist muzzleloader good? Meaning, my round will hold a tighter pattern with a fast twist barrel, so I can shoot more accurately at a longer distance.

Sub Questions:

What is the shock factor of a black powder round at 250 yards, vs the shock factor of a 7mm at 1000 yards.

Will wind effect a muzzleloader round at 250 yards as much as it will effect a 300 Win Mag at 1000 yards?

If you hit a mature bull elk at 250 yards, on the point of the shoulder, with a muzzleloader round or hit the exact same spot with a 6.5- 284 from 1000 yards, which round is going to do the most damage and produce a more humane kill?

Is it any more likely that a hunter with a "stock", off the shelf muzzleloader, with a high grade variable scope mounted on it, (allowing the hunter to easily put the cross hairs on deer at 250 yards) more or less likely to motivate a hunter to take the shot that it is for a hunter with a "stock", off the shelf rifle, with a high grade variable scope mounted on it, to be motivated to take a 1000 yard shot?

Who is likely to put in more practice, perfecting there skills, a long range muzzleloader hunter or a long range rifle hunter?

What's a mid-grade muzzleloader, with a variable scope, along with all the "possibles" cost? Include a range finder.

Folks, I hold no animosity toward any of the weapons groups or the sportsmen that prefer one over the other. At different times in my life I have hunted with all three, thoroughly enjoyed all three experiences. Highly recommend every sportsmen do the same. I honestly don't believe, when you peal back all the layers of the onion, in any of the technologies, in any of the three weapon groups, one group is any more inappropriate than any other. I believe you can find as many "concerns" in archery and muzzleloader equipment as you can in rifle equipment.

There is a big difference between laser guided systems, heat seeking, lock-on-target systems, remote-shooting/harvesting systems, drone mounted arms technologies and present day field-calculation long range hunting technologies.

As others have said, repeatedly, over the last 6 weeks, technologies of all kinds, for all three weapons have enhanced the advantages to the hunter over the hunted. As these technologies develop and enter the market place, some hunters will adopt the new tools, as they do, (as the BobCat said in a different post) if someone is going to do it, then others will follow, not all will but more and more as time passes, with regards to whatever new technology becomes more common and accessible . To expect humans to do otherwise or to assume, hope, wish they won't, won't feed the bulldog.

Wildlife regulators "will" in my opinion, create a balance between harvest success, populations, tag numbers, as they interface with equipment technology developments. Will they lag behind? Yes. That's human nature too, but to the best of our ability, (meaning there are some things humans can't completely control) sportsmen, through the sport hunting regulation systems, will bring harvest success, populations, and tag numbers into balance, regardless of what innovation brings to the table. As I said before, you can't hunt big game with a hand grenade (they have been around for a while) and on the other hand we no longer sell an unlimited number of deer tags in most States. I think we can expect the same kinds of alignments to continue, more or less, in the foreseeable future.
 
I agree that LR guns have made us better at killing, but they have also made us worse hunters.
I also know that people don't share the wounding of deer at long range. I guarantee there are more deer wounded and not recovered by people shooting out past 500yds than there are people shooting inside of 500yds.

Killing a deer at 800yds doesn't make you a good hunter, it makes you a good shooter, Nothing more.
 
>tags will continue to
>decline and opportunity will also
>decline.

Brian, exactly how will tags/opportunity decline? At least in Wyoming, I see no decline with opportunity for sheep, mtn goat, moose & antelope. The harvest success stats are already so high that a long range rifle won't impact those numbers. Elk populations are increasing in numerous areas throughout the west. Large amounts of deeded ground will continue to guarantee opportunities in many areas. That's the case in elk areas 7/19. Last I heard the target capacity was 5000 elk. The G&F have counted 9000 - 10000 in past winter surveys. It seems like most limited quota deer areas are conservatively managed with many having shorter seasons or fewer tags. Would doubt the harvest stats will change much as most folks have opportunities in those areas whether they're shooting long range or not. General license elk and deer areas won't change unless they make some of them limited quota which will be due to other political pressures or wolves.

The only thing long range rifles might do is reduce quality with some species in some areas, but that's not reducing tags...
 
Hoss, I believe that long range equipment has as much place in hunting as your opinion did in that sportsmans tag thread! Somewhere there has to be a limit, a line where we cross from one activity to another.

I don't believe that hunting and shooting are the same actions and one ought to seriously examine whether they ought to be mixed. I've made a couple of excessively long shots, but the majority have been less than 100yrds much preferred method!

https://www.facebook.com/strawberrybayoutfitters
 
Need to correct Triple about Wyo opportunity.

Moose-tags way down
Sheep- tags down
Antelope- tags way down
Mule deer- tags way down
Mtn goat - tags slightly up
Whitetail- any tags down
Elk- tags up
Bison- about the same

Not looking up for anything but elk, and quality is down most places except wilderness and late hunts
 
Really? Opportunity is down. Thanks for telling us what everyone already knows. If you want to add to the conversation, advise how long range hunting will decrease tags with antelope, sheep, moose & mountain goat and many limited quota elk areas in Wyoming. And feel free to provide any data or studies you've muddled through that back up your arguments...
 
Founders post hit it on the head. Of course long range hunting effects opportunity, the more effecient at killing we become the more protections wildlife will need in order to survive. The post about modern Hunter prowess not effecting hunting in Wyoming is laughable, just look at the changes the famous Grey's river mule deer hunting has seen over the last several decades, every few years a new survey comes out because of what's happened.
 
I agree that the LR hunting is taking it's impact on the Grey's River, Hoback and Gros Ventre areas. Bucks in that area that used to get away are no longer getting away. Some, not all LR'ers are lacking in ethics as well. I watched several times when other hunters were starting to make a stalk on a deer or elk, the LR hunters watching too simply just set up and started banging away before the close range hunters could get into position. One young local kid blazed away because he could see another hunter getting close to the same trophy he was hunting, his shots were at 1400 yards... This young man did not have the skills to make a shot at 600 let alone 1400... Pretty sad display of ethics.

Founder is completely correct... We ALL will pay the price for additional technology. I see it as a crutch for some hunters who are lacking in stalking skills. Others it's an effective tool, and in the hands of a really good hunter, we are going to loose the cream off the top of our herds. We are going to be forced to make a choice one way or another, sooner or later.

I shoot at 1000 yards plus a bunch... I choose to only shoot at predators and steel at that range. Every year big game animals get away from me that I know I would have a fairly good chance of killing passed 500 yards.... I personally choose not to take the chance at loosing the trophy, I am willing to admit the variables that are out of my control, and the risks of wounding. Every long range shooter has to be willing to admit they are shooting with these risks too, or they are simply lying to themselves as well as everyone else.

Now on a wolf... I shoot at every opportunity given, if he is getting away.

But in the end we are all hunters...even if we don't agree we still need to stand together as HUNTERS.
 
I Find the definition of Hunting to be up to each Individual!! Meaning Some like archery, some Muzzleloaders, some Firearm hunting, Myself I like them all, And happen to love LR shooting as well. I have harvested way more elk with archery equipment than I ever have with rifles, but do not have a problem with somebody LR hunting, especially if they have put the trigger time into becoming good at the ranges they intend to shoot. Being able to shoot 5-6-700-800 yds with precision does not make you less of a hunter, Just a more dedicated marksman in my book. It does open up a window of opportunity that others may not have or want to spend the time to achieve, shooting at those distances and knowing there equipment that well. But it is something that I'm willing to do and support
 
Hitting a target at 1000+ yards is, indeed, quite an accomplishment. It just saddens me that we're using live game animals as those targets when a bullseye would be just as impressive, a lot less controversial, a lot less expensive and would increase the opportunity for another person for a more personal one on one challenge with a worthy quarry.
 
People are saddened by the fact that some chose to kill an animal different than how they like to kill them. Some would say it saddens them to see an animal stuck with a sharp stick, or a heavy chuck of lead from 100 yards. Other are saddened to see an animal die at all.

More animals wounded at LR compared to "acceptable" range? I'd bet a pile of pennies there are more deer in this country wounded at under 100 yards every single year than those over 300 yards. In fact I'd wager a second pile of pennies that a huge percent of hunters in this country would consider anything over 200 yards as LR.

I've shot my fair share with a bow, mulitlpe, deer, elk, javelina, lope, rabbits, coyote. I've shot multiple at over 600-800 yards with a rifle, deer, elk, ram, yotes, chucks..... Guess what, they were all the same amount of dead when it ended. And I was happy and proud every single time.
 
Most of the posters miss the point, it's not about you and your shooting or hunting skills. It's about what choices we have to make in order to have healthy big game population's in the wake of human hi Tec predators, a predator prey balance so to speak. I also wonder about youth hunters and others who aren't super skilled hi Tec hunters, their chances to take a trophy seem do be going downhill all the time, it's sure different than it used to be
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-15-14 AT 08:12AM (MST)[p]Piper is right... people who are making theses kills do not want to listen. It's all about the short term for them. As long as they get the trophy, they are not listening to the long term effects. Sadly very few even seem to care about the next generation or our hunting future in this day and age.
 
Where I do most of my deer hunting is LR proof. You can't even see 100 yards, let alone shoot beyond that. I like it.

Eel

It's written in the good Book that we'll never be asked to take more than we can. Sounds like a good plan, so bring it on!
 
I gotta agree. Still, its legal. But, bragging about 1000 yard kills on the internet may not be wise or in good taste.


>LAST EDITED ON Dec-15-14
>AT 08:12?AM (MST)
>
>Piper is right... people who are
>making theses kills do not
>want to listen. It's
>all about the short term
>for them. As long
>as they get the trophy,
>they are not listening to
>the long term effects.
>Sadly very few even seem
>to care about the next
>generation or our hunting future
>in this day and age.
>
 
>I agree that LR guns have
>made us better at killing,
>but they have also made
>us worse hunters.
>I also know that people don't
>share the wounding of deer
>at long range. I guarantee
>there are more deer wounded
>and not recovered by people
>shooting out past 500yds than
>there are people shooting inside
>of 500yds.
>
>Killing a deer at 800yds doesn't
>make you a good hunter,
>it makes you a good
>shooter, Nothing more.

I have every confidence that I will make a quick and lethal kill every time I squeeze the trigger.
If the conditions are not right a hunter should not take a shot. I don't care if you are hunting with a spear, bow, muzzleloader, or rifle.
Every time a hunter has an opportunity to shoot at an animal he must decide weather he can make a quick clean kill based on the current conditions and factors of that situation, combined with his or her skill level and equipment capability.

-Why can't the Game and Fish department issue the same number of tags as the herd can sustain being harvested? It's ridiculous to issue more tags than animals than the herd can sustainablely have harvested.

-Who goes hunting and thinks? geez I don't want to kill anything on this hunt. -No one! They wouldn't buy a tag if they didn't want to harvest an animal.

-I want to be successful on a hunt, I use a rangefinder so I know the exact distance to any animal over 200 yards, why? -So I can make a quick clean kill. Why not be more efficient with your weapon?

-I also like to shoot in a prone position or with a dead rest. Should I have to shoot off hand because it takes more skill? -No

If we all police Ourselves and only take shots we know will be quick clean kills then what is the problem with LR?

- Unethical hunters, weather it be bow muzzleloader, or rifle are the problem.

So I think the more important question than "why is LR good?" Is "how do we eliminate the unethical hunter?"
 
How many times have you been out hunting and seen an animal 1000 yards away that you wanted to harvest? You put the stalk on and ended up bumping him and losing out on the opportunity. lots of us have been in this situation several time.

If we all had long range setups, we wouldn't need to stalk the animlas we could just kill anything we see at any distance.

So to answer the question of "Does LR have an affect of the population and quality of our hunting opportunities?, the answer is yes.

I also loved this statement mentioned in a previous post:

"Killing a deer at 800yds doesn't make you a good hunter, it makes you a good shooter, Nothing more."

It's a question of being a "Hunter" or a "shooter". If you want to put away your camo, scent cover, calls and all your other equipement to be a "Shooter", go for it. Just don't call yourself a hunter please.

HJB
 
Hmmm, hunter? Yes without question some LR shooters are hunters, just like some archers actually archery hunt, and some pistol shooters hunt with handguns, some guys that never shoot anything are even hunters. In fact any one regardless of skill level is a hunter once they purchase a license and go out in pursuit. No matter what the method of harvest, they are a hunter.

I'm honestly really surprised at how many sportsmen are quick to saddle up the high horse on this issue. I totally get the concern with advancement of technology but this I'm a better hunter or you're not really a good hunter or even a hunter at all. Craziness
 
>Hoss,
>Easy answer, because it's more effective.
> It's the reason we
>don't just throw rocks at
>them. Lumpy already summer
>it up. It's the
>most efficient way to kill.
> If you wanna talk
>about ethics lets looks at
>killing effiencey. If we
>are being honest the most
>efficient way to kill is
>a rifle. More effcient than,
>rocks, sticks, bows, Muzzys.
>The rifle is the most
>ethical and efficient. Now
>it's just all opinion and
>statics on 1 foot to
>however far on how you
>apply that efficiency.
Well then if it is all about being efficient then why not allow poisoned bait piles or hunting with fully automatic 50calibers etc. The problem with this line of thinking is once again you are moving into a realm where the only thing that matters is the kill...
 
>>I agree that LR guns have
>>made us better at killing,
>>but they have also made
>>us worse hunters.
>>I also know that people don't
>>share the wounding of deer
>>at long range. I guarantee
>>there are more deer wounded
>>and not recovered by people
>>shooting out past 500yds than
>>there are people shooting inside
>>of 500yds.
>>
>>Killing a deer at 800yds doesn't
>>make you a good hunter,
>>it makes you a good
>>shooter, Nothing more.
>
>I have every confidence that I
>will make a quick and
>lethal kill every time I
>squeeze the trigger.
>If the conditions are not right
>a hunter should not take
>a shot. I don't care
>if you are hunting with
>a spear, bow, muzzleloader, or
>rifle.
> Every time a hunter has
>an opportunity to shoot at
>an animal he must decide
>weather he can make a
>quick clean kill based on
>the current conditions and factors
>of that situation, combined with
>his or her skill level
>and equipment capability.
>
>-Why can't the Game and Fish
>department issue the same number
>of tags as the herd
>can sustain being harvested? It's
>ridiculous to issue more tags
>than animals than the herd
>can sustainablely have harvested.
>
>-Who goes hunting and thinks? geez
>I don't want to kill
>anything on this hunt. -No
>one! They wouldn't buy a
>tag if they didn't want
>to harvest an animal.
>
>-I want to be successful on
>a hunt, I use a
>rangefinder so I know the
>exact distance to any animal
>over 200 yards, why? -So
>I can make a quick
>clean kill. Why not be
>more efficient with your weapon?
>
>
>-I also like to shoot in
>a prone position or with
>a dead rest. Should I
>have to shoot off hand
>because it takes more skill?
>-No
>
>If we all police Ourselves and
>only take shots we know
>will be quick clean kills
>then what is the problem
>with LR?
>
>- Unethical hunters, weather it be
>bow muzzleloader, or rifle are
>the problem.
>
>So I think the more important
>question than "why is LR
>good?" Is "how do we
>eliminate the unethical hunter?"
>

I go hunting to not kill. I don't shoot litle bucks, I don't shoot ducks on a pond, I don't ground pound pheasants, I don't shoot doves of a fence.
I do think it is unfair to talk about ethics with LR shooting. I don't think using technology makes anyone unethical. I do think that doing so is not good for hunting. Again, there have always been guns and shooters that could shoot long range very effectively, the new thing is the use of the artificial intellegence. I really think that is where we can place a limit. If you still want to shoot LR, no one is stopping you, but I would guarantee that the majority of the LR shooters can't do it without the AI doing the hard work for them.
"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun"
 
It is interesting where this went, acutally it went about where I expected. On one side, the side I sit on are the guys who seem to be thinking long term, whats good for the sport, herds etc. It might be interesting to see how many of them have kids, I find that as mine are just starting to get going, I worry ALOT about what things are going to be like for them.
On the other side sit a lot of guys for whom the next season is all tat matters. As long as its their "trophy", their tag, etc. Again I would wonder if they have kids or not.
I appreciate the honesty, because I have made my view known, but I wanted to see if I had missed something. I lean strongly libertarian, so limiting someone is against my general nature, plus I am very "you can never have enough guns". What really spawaned my thoughts are the recent laws that are starting to come about stopping the use of drones. Something that 10 years ago I would have laughed at, now is here.
I will say again I don't think ethics has a lot to do with this. I think survival of a way of life has everything to do with it.



"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun"
 
People think long range hunting is something new? It isn't new. What's new is this push by idiot companies like Gunwerks and such selling this dream of distance hunting.
My family has been hunting and shooting long range for over 70 years with nothing more than a stock rifle and open sights to old Leupold scopes.
It takes skill and years of experience to do it.
How many animals do we see each year wounded by archery, muzzles, and even short distance shots.
Just look at the posts on here during archery.
What you haven't seen is a post regarding a long distance shot and I can't find my animal. Not saying that doesn't happen, but it happens much less.

So because I take good ethical longer range shots, that makes me less of a hunter and the OP is mad at people like me? That's silly and ridiculous.

This war on long ranger hunting is asinine. Unethical? Come on, no it isn't.

Taking stupid shots no matter the distance is what's unethical. Poaching is unethical. Me taking a 600 yard shot in solid conditions and knowing my weapon/capability is NOT unethical.

OP, you sound like a bitter hash who can't shoot & knows nothing about ballistics, bullets or rifles. That's how you sound IMO
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-16-14 AT 05:48PM (MST)[p]Hyowyo not pickin 1 here just wonderin, how do u control what that animal does in the 1-3 second flight time of your projectile?
 
DW what you shooting a bow? At 600 yards my 264's time of flight is .625 of a second and 1.147 seconds at 1000 yards. It amazes me all the BS people who don't shoot long range come up with to defend their chosen way of hunting. I think the real question should be "What's wrong with long range hunting." If you can't do it or don't want to take the time and effort to get proficient at it don't, but don't limit my hunting possibilities because you can't hit the broad side of a barn at any distance over 200 yards. Like Dirty Harry said " A man's got to know his limitations."
 
I qualed expert in both rifle and pistol in the service....I can shoot. I also know at 1000yds u need a static target for the flight time. Am I wrong?
 
In a little more than the blink of an eye how far can a deer travel should it decide to move?
 
How many guy's do you see pull out the deer rifle, go to the outskirts of town shoot offhand at a rock at maybe 50-75 yards and say "she's right on." and go hunting. Come on, if your going to shoot at an animal at long range your not going to shoot unless they're standing still. They could move a few inches in 5/8ths of a second if they are spooked but if they're standing or feeding they won't move much. Most long range hunters will do their best to make the shot, no one likes to see an animal suffer. I just hate to have anyone tell me how I need to hunt based on their belief of what an ethical shot is.
By the way I shot in state matches as a youth and was working on my Distinguished Expert when I quit competing about 40 years ago so I can shoot too.
 
Why don't you tell us DW? Am I shooting a 7mm Mag or 30-30? Cause I looked at the difference in a ballistic program of a lot of bullets and not a one of them said TOF was 0.00. My furthest two shots are 450 and 660. Those two deer had no clue that I was there! I was prone, conditions were great and the deer wasn't moving because I had time to make the perfect shot. Looking back on all the other deer I shot under 300 yards and a lot closer, I can't think of many where the deer didn't know I was there or he could sense something wasn't right. I am not going to bs you and say that I haven't lost a deer. If you haven't then you haven't hunted long enough. The last one I lost was on about a 75 yard shot. I thought for sure I made a good hit, but I could not find him. I think he moved right as I pulled the trigger resulting in me hitting a little too far back.

So if you divide the lr crowd with the avg hunter 80/20 or whatever you believe it is, who loses the most deer? I can tell you my observation and it's not even close!

If you guys want to complain and say that it's detrimental to the sports then so be it. I can't really argue that because guys are killing some big buck that might have made it 20 years ago. Just stop the bs and lie's to further your point.

I don't really no what the answer or solution is. All I know is most people take advantage of technology. I don't see to many people shooting traditional muzz, recurves, and 30-30's. You know why? Because there is something that is a lot more efficient and will give you the upper hand.
 
Gentlemen. Deer move, after the shot, regardless of what weapon your using and at what distance your shooting. A deer shot at with a rifle does not duck the sound or the sight of an arrow like the can and do at times with a compound bow. Sound travels at 600 feet per second. Faster than an arrow, slower than a bullet. They say they can see an arrow, they can't see a bullet.

This argument we are having leave none of us, with our best weapons or least effective weapons, without some degree of chance for a miss or a mishap. It's part of hunting now and will always be, now and in the future. When you release a shot, from a bow, muzzleloader, or rifle, and never miss, never have a mishap and never wound an animal, it will stop being hunting and simply becoming killing, as they do in a slaughter house.

Again, I'm not trying to discredit anyone or call anyone a lier, but if you are a hunter that believes your skill, your equipment, our your luck, will never allow you to miss or wound an animal, (regardless of your weapon or how far you shoot it at critters) under open range hunting conditions, you're not being honest with yourself. If it's never happen, you haven't shot at many animals, with any weapon. It's kind of like the old cowboys used to say, "if you haven't been thrown, you haven't ridden very many horses".

For goodness sake, it happens, short range or long range.

668788.jpg


261989.jpg


500490.jpg


92591.jpg


38493.jpg


Nobody is immune from deer moving after the shot, regardless of the weapon and regardless of how far your shooting from.

DC
 
>DW what you shooting a bow?
>At 600 yards my 264's
>time of flight is .625
>of a second and 1.147
>seconds at 1000 yards. It
>amazes me all the BS
>people who don't shoot long
>range come up with to
>defend their chosen way of
>hunting. I think the real
>question should be "What's wrong
>with long range hunting." If
>you can't do it or
>don't want to take the
>time and effort to get
>proficient at it don't, but
>don't limit my hunting possibilities
>because you can't hit the
>broad side of a barn
>at any distance over 200
>yards. Like Dirty Harry said
>" A man's got to
>know his limitations."

Probably thinks it's a pretty good chance the animal will hear the shot and move before the bullet gets there :) ignorance is bliss, it's easy to criticize something you don't understand
 
JUDAS!

F'N!

PRIEST!

Hunters Limit their abilities?

This I gotta see!

OK!

We got 3 Guys in each State actually Policing their selves!

GEEZUS!

Kinda like sayin: We as ATV Owners must control Our Selves and do the Right thing 110% of the time!

Tell Ya What!

It Ain't Happening!

If it's Available!

TARDS are gonna Use/Do it rather it be Ethical/Un-Ethical/Right/Wrong!

It's a little too GAWD-DAMN late to limit the use of Technology!

Let's see?

Gotta get ready for the Hunt!

Can't forget my:

4 Dozen Trail-Cams!

Drone/Drones!

Wheelers!

Side by Sides!

My 8000 Power SWARO Bino's!

My 15,000 Power Zeiss Spotter!

My Night Vision Bino's!

My 4,000 Yard RangeFinder!

My F'N Smart Phone so I can Post Pics all over the World before the Animal is Gutted!

My TRICK New Wave Camera that makes the Buck/Bull look 5 times bigger than He really is!

My 36 foot ToyHauler that is nicer than Most Peoples Homes!

My 70,000.00 Belcher to Pull the Toy Hauler!

My 4,000.00 GPS Big Buck/Bull Tracking Device!

My Ultralite/Shoot-Plane!

Last but not least,My New Long Range Rifle that'll take a Gnats Ass out of the Air at 30 FootBall Fields away!

GOOD GAWD A MIGHTY!












[font color="redhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMsueOnu0kY
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-16-14 AT 09:43PM (MST)[p]>People are saddened by the fact
>that some chose to kill
>an animal different than how
>they like to kill them.
> Some would say it
>saddens them to see an
>animal stuck with a sharp
>stick, or a heavy
>chuck of lead from 100
>yards. Other are saddened
>to see an animal die
>at all.
>
>More animals wounded at LR compared
>to "acceptable" range? I'd
>bet a pile of pennies
>there are more deer in
>this country wounded at under
>100 yards every single year
>than those over 300 yards.
>In fact I'd wager a
>second pile of pennies that
>a huge percent of hunters
>in this country would consider
>anything over 200 yards as
>LR.
>
>I've shot my fair share with
>a bow, mulitlpe, deer, elk,
>javelina, lope, rabbits, coyote. I've
>shot multiple at over 600-800
>yards with a rifle, deer,
>elk, ram, yotes, chucks..... Guess
>what, they were all
>the same amount of dead
>when it ended. And
>I was happy and proud
>every single time.

And all my multiple bullseye and paper and foam animal targets are also the same amount of dead and I also am happy and proud every single time I make a good shot. I just choose not to use a live target that also belongs to someone else and that would allow them (or me) an opportunity for a one on one close encounter with a target that could beat me.
 
>People think long range hunting is
>something new? It isn't new.
>What's new is this push
>by idiot companies like Gunwerks
>and such selling this dream
>of distance hunting.
>My family has been hunting and
>shooting long range for over
>70 years with nothing more
>than a stock rifle and
>open sights to old Leupold
>scopes.
>It takes skill and years of
>experience to do it.
>How many animals do we see
>each year wounded by archery,
>muzzles, and even short distance
>shots.
>Just look at the posts on
>here during archery.
>What you haven't seen is a
>post regarding a long distance
>shot and I can't find
>my animal. Not saying that
>doesn't happen, but it happens
>much less.
>
>So because I take good ethical
>longer range shots, that makes
>me less of a hunter
>and the OP is mad
>at people like me? That's
>silly and ridiculous.
>
>This war on long ranger hunting
>is asinine. Unethical? Come on,
>no it isn't.
>
>Taking stupid shots no matter the
>distance is what's unethical. Poaching
>is unethical. Me taking a
>600 yard shot in solid
>conditions and knowing my weapon/capability
>is NOT unethical.
>
>OP, you sound like a bitter
>hash who can't shoot &
>knows nothing about ballistics, bullets
>or rifles. That's how you
>sound IMO

Bro, you really need to read and not feel. I specifically said I don't think ethics have anything to do with it. I also specifically said that I know there are guys who have LR and would be able to continue to without all the Technology. And lastly, I said nothing about the rifles, ballistics, or bullets. So your kinda 0-3 on my OP. My discussion was more about how the whole concept affects hunting. Your right, I don't shoot LR. I grew up deer hunting in the cedars and sage where you have to belly crawl to get a look at a deer. I hunt elk in the deep dark timber. I don't even carry binos for elk, there isn't any 200yrd shots, lucky if you get 50. Bitter has nothing to do with it, concern does.
We are bombarded by the "trophy" crowd calling for more and more tag cuts, more and more LE units. Yet in that crowd there is more and more "efficient killing". Seems you can't have both. If you are offended, too damb bad, this is America you have the right to be offended, and I have the right to not give a shiz if you are. You took the time to post, but you didn't even come close to answering the question. "Why is LR good?", not what your family has done or how you were upset with the OP.


"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun"
 
I'm sure many of you are fantastic long range shooters, the problem is, for every guy who "really is" a fine long range shooter, there's 20 guys who buy an expensive gun, sweet scope, go shooting a few times before the hunt, and think they too are long range hunters. They hit the hills and test their skills at distances that are simply too great.

As for "more efficient killing", again, some of you might do it, but again, there are all those others who like always, shoot at animals that are simply out of their range.

It used to be that "out of range" might have been 400 yards, now it's 600-800 for many.

The bottomline, in my opinion hunting opportunity will continue to decrease as long we continue to get better and better at killing the game we pursue. That doesn't just include the rifles we use, but also all the other tools we have available. Heck, just available free time that most people have now is far greater than it was in the 60's, 70's and 80's. That makes a huge difference!

So much has changed over the years that makes harvesting animals far easier. Google Earth!!! That right there is a huge game changer.

I'm not saying I don't use many of the tools available. I use Google Earth, have an angle compensating rangefinder, nice spotter, bino's, warm boots, ATV, etc. I'm just saying that I think if things continue as they have been, most of us will be spending a lot more time reading about other peoples hunts rather than hunting ourselves because tags will continue to decrease. And decreasing opportunity is happening, I think it's quite evident when we look at the number of points it takes to draw tags each. Continues to get tougher each year in most units and for most species.

Brian Latturner
MonsterMuleys.com
Will you LIKE MonsterMuleys.com on Facebook! I need a friend....
 
So?

Who's willing to Give up all their Technology they're packin these days?

How could it ever be Enforced even if some of it was Out-Lawed?

Once again!

The Honest Guy will be Shafted again!







[font color="redhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMsueOnu0kY
 
I do think with all the new technology, we should really take a close look a the term fair chase. That's what we should all be about. And if that means limiting tree stands, new muzzle loader technology and long range equipment, then so be it. Taking 1000+ yards shots is simply not hunting, great shooting, but not hunting.
 
Frankly, I could care less if one marksman can shoot at a mile better than another at 50 yards. Equivalency of relative skill levels with regard to marksmanship is irrelevant.
The point is you have rendered the game defenseless. The game can hear better, see better, smell better, run faster and climb faster than any hunter. Shooting game at mega ranges truly annuls any and all challenge the games superior senses offer. Of all the technology we use in the field nothing turns game into targets more than 1000 yard shooting.
 
To the original post:

1. Damaging to the specie - Why we have game management. If harvest rates go up and it impacts the population to the extent that it drops below objective, tags will go down. Taking a mature buck doesn't really affect the population as long as there are sufficient bucks to service the rut. I doubt many long range hunters will be harvesting does.

2. Mature animals - Older, bigger bucks adapted their behavior to elude hunters. Their safety distance threshold is driven by threat encounters. That's why you can walk up to town bucks but bucks in areas they are hunted are less tolerant. Big bucks will figure out a way to adapt and overcome.

3. Furry target - When a deer is killed or wounded the brutality of the outcome is the same at 10 yards or 1,000 yards. Anyone so calloused as to not feel that twinge of sorrow at the taking of a life or the deep regret of a wound isn't more or less compassionate because of the distance of the shot.

4. Wilderness - I don't know what its like where you live or hunt, but where I live and hunt the creation of a wilderness area means I now must hike 1 1/2 to 4 miles to reach the base of the mountains where I once drove, parked and started hiking. I know of no one that can compensate for that loss of access by shooting farther.

5. Artificial intelligence - I hate to be picky but the proper term is technology. AI is a concept of something that doesn't exist, namely a sentient machine. Once a hunter utilizes any tool other than their bare hands, they have crossed that threshold of taking advantage of technology. The debate then becomes how much technology. Personally, I don't care if someone kills a deer from 3 miles away as long as they follow the rest of the law as well. The current law requires a hunter to recover their game and take all edible meat out of the field. If you kill an animal so far away it can't be recovered in edible condition, it's wanton waste and you are breaking the law. It's the same if you shoot a deer 100 yards away on the other side of a crevasse that is unable to be crossed.

What is positive?

I don't need or want anyone's permission on how far I shoot, how I hunt or any other aspect of how I live. Especially a self appointed czar or committee. That diminishes my enjoyment of the quality of my life.

The real issue here is not what is good for the game, what is good for the sport, or even what can be considered ethical. The real issue is should an individual be compelled to submit to the whims and desires of another individual or group of individuals and, if they refuse, can the threat of force be applied, which is governance. Hence the impassioned debate.

What is beyond my comprehension is how one individual can feel they are negatively impacted by the distance another individual chooses to shoot. If deer are being routinely killed at 1,000 yards in every unit in every state and in every season and no one ever mentioned a word of it, there would be no debate.
 
Excellent post Sagebrush and I agree 100% especially with this;

"What is beyond my comprehension is how one individual can feel they are negatively impacted by the distance another individual chooses to shoot."
 
>To the original post:
>
>1. Damaging to the specie -
>Why we have game management.
>If harvest rates go up
>and it impacts the population
>to the extent that it
>drops below objective, tags will
>go down. Taking a mature
>buck doesn't really affect the
>population as long as there
>are sufficient bucks to service
>the rut. I doubt many
>long range hunters will be
>harvesting does.
>
>2. Mature animals - Older, bigger
>bucks adapted their behavior to
>elude hunters. Their safety distance
>threshold is driven by threat
>encounters. That's why you can
>walk up to town bucks
>but bucks in areas they
>are hunted are less tolerant.
>Big bucks will figure out
>a way to adapt and
>overcome.
>
>3. Furry target - When a
>deer is killed or wounded
>the brutality of the outcome
>is the same at 10
>yards or 1,000 yards. Anyone
>so calloused as to not
>feel that twinge of sorrow
>at the taking of a
>life or the deep regret
>of a wound isn't more
>or less compassionate because of
>the distance of the shot.
>
>
>4. Wilderness - I don't know
>what its like where you
>live or hunt, but where
>I live and hunt the
>creation of a wilderness area
>means I now must hike
>1 1/2 to 4 miles
>to reach the base of
>the mountains where I once
>drove, parked and started hiking.
>I know of no one
>that can compensate for that
>loss of access by shooting
>farther.
>
>5. Artificial intelligence - I hate
>to be picky but the
>proper term is technology. AI
>is a concept of something
>that doesn't exist, namely a
>sentient machine. Once a hunter
>utilizes any tool other than
>their bare hands, they have
>crossed that threshold of taking
>advantage of technology. The debate
>then becomes how much technology.
>Personally, I don't care if
>someone kills a deer from
>3 miles away as long
>as they follow the rest
>of the law as well.
>The current law requires a
>hunter to recover their
>game and take all edible
>meat out of the field.
>If you kill an animal
>so far away it can't
>be recovered in edible condition,
>it's wanton waste and you
>are breaking the law. It's
>the same if you shoot
>a deer 100 yards away
>on the other side of
>a crevasse that is unable
>to be crossed.
>
>What is positive?
>
>I don't need or want anyone's
>permission on how far I
>shoot, how I hunt or
>any other aspect of how
>I live. Especially a self
>appointed czar or committee. That
>diminishes my enjoyment of the
>quality of my life.
>
>The real issue here is not
>what is good for the
>game, what is good for
>the sport, or even what
>can be considered ethical. The
>real issue is should an
>individual be compelled to submit
>to the whims and desires
>of another individual or group
>of individuals and, if they
>refuse, can the threat of
>force be applied, which is
>governance. Hence the impassioned debate.
>
>
>What is beyond my comprehension is
>how one individual can feel
>they are negatively impacted by
>the distance another individual chooses
>to shoot. If deer are
>being routinely killed at 1,000
>yards in every unit in
>every state and in every
>season and no one ever
>mentioned a word of it,
>there would be no debate.
>

Excellent post. I would counter on a couple of points. First my AI point I agree is not proper word usage, but I guess my point is a 3rd party. If you have the gun in your hand its your eye, your finger, your brain. When you go to a third party, aka a windmeter, range finder, drone, ballistic computer etc, it takes it from human to non human. I realize there are range finding scopes, ballistic turrets, etc.

I agree if no one mentioned distance we would never know, which kinda proves that by mentioning the distance the posters want it known. So it is disingenuous to then claim we are attacking anyone. The posters want the attention, they just want the worshipping type.

I do think that some of the draw to LR is that the shooter doesn't have to be "on hand" to see the brutality of death, or worse a wound. I believe that some guys want to sanitize that part of killing, and distance help to do so.

Lastly though, buck to doe objectives is no measure of herd health or strength, so using it as a measuring stick is useless. Again, if you only have 10 deer, and 4 are bucks your buck to doe ratio is out the window, but you only have 10 deer. Not to mention that here in Utah, when they do reach this "magic" number and have good buck to doe ratios they simply start more hunts in order to gut this number back. The DWR is a reactive organization, not proactive.

I am limited in Utah as a smokepole hunter on my technology, and it has yet to diminish my enjoyment of the sport.

Thanks though for an honest discussion.
"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun"
 
"If deer are being routinely killed at 1,000 yards in every unit in every state and in every season and no one ever mentioned a word of it, there would be no debate."

I do agree with this part of your post. As long as people feel compelled to tell us about their 1000 yard shots, they are opening up the dialogue. And Every time I read a post about it, my first thought is; but could you have got closer?...
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-18-14 AT 11:45AM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Dec-18-14 AT 11:43?AM (MST)

> "If deer are being routinely
>killed at 1,000 yards in
>every unit in every state
>and in every season and
>no one ever mentioned a
>word of it, there would
>be no debate."
>
>I do agree with this part
>of your post. As
>long as people feel compelled
>to tell us about their
>1000 yard shots, they are
>opening up the dialogue.
>And Every time I read
>a post about it, my
>first thought is; but could
>you have got closer?...

And their first thought is; Why would I want to get closer? And thus the debate would ensue.
 
"And their first thought is; Why would I want to get closer? And thus the debate would ensue"

Because it is our responsibility as hunter...

Long-Range Shooting: Defining a New Ethic in Hunting
Tuesday, August 12, 2014
The ethical issue isn't the 350-yard shot. The real concern, as Boone and Crockett Club sees it, is hunters not trying to get a closer one.

Long-range shooting is a hot topic in hunting. Improved and specialized guns, gear, bullets and sniper skills are growing in popularity, stretching the lethal range of hunters further than ever before. But many hunters wonder how it all fits with traditional, ethical standards. How far is too far to be considered fair chase?

Boone and Crockett adopted a new position statement to help define the ethics of taking game from long range.

"It's not about distance; it's about intent," said Bill Demmer, Club president.

He explained, "Hunters have varying degrees of marksmanship skills and capabilities. Some are steady only out to 100 yards. Others are very efficient at much longer distances. All kinds of field conditions also factor into what is or isn't an ethical shot. So, within reasonable sideboards, it's impossible to use distance as a measurement of fair chase."

But the Club firmly takes issue with hunters who choose shooting long rather than trying to get close. Intent is what separates hunting from merely shooting a live target.

"The honor and lasting memories in hunting have always been in our ability to get close to game animals. And every hunter has better odds of a quick, clean kill at closer distances. That's one of our most imperative responsibilities as a hunter, and that's the legacy of sportsmanship that we believe is important to uphold," said Demmer.

Maintaining the integrity and public support of hunting is vital. The tradition, along with its indelible ties to conservation, is a key to sustaining wildlife for the future.

C.J. Buck, president of Buck Knives and a Boone and Crockett member, said, "Hunting is personal and the reasons why people hunt are personal. For many, making a kill is merely incidental to their time afield. This elevates hunting to mean something more than just filling a tag, and that's one of the things that make it special. Sure, we have laws for safety and to conserve the resource, but at the end of the day our satisfaction has more to do with our own intentions. I think that is why so many sportsmen are disturbed by those who make the shot or the kill more important than the hunt itself."

Boone and Crockett has been a standard-bearer for hunting ethics since 1902, when Club founder Theodore Roosevelt refused to shoot a captive black bear during a hosted hunt in Mississippi. The incident, widely covered in the press, popularized the concept of fair chase on this continent, elevated public appreciation for sportsmanship and even inspired introduction of a new toy, the Teddy bear.

Demmer concluded, "Some people don't like us talking about ethics, claiming it divides hunters when hunters should be united. Rallying around hunting ethics is how sportsmen did away with the anything-goes culture that nearly eliminated big game in the early days of the conservation movement. I believe doing right by the game and the traditions of hunting still unites hunters."
 
>"And their first thought is; Why
>would I want to get
>closer? And thus the debate
>would ensue"
>
>Because it is our responsibility as
>hunter...
>
>Long-Range Shooting: Defining a New Ethic
>in Hunting
>Tuesday, August 12, 2014
>The ethical issue isn't the 350-yard
>shot. The real concern, as
>Boone and Crockett Club sees
>it, is hunters not trying
>to get a closer one.
>
>
>Long-range shooting is a hot topic
>in hunting. Improved and specialized
>guns, gear, bullets and sniper
>skills are growing in popularity,
>stretching the lethal range of
>hunters further than ever before.
>But many hunters wonder how
>it all fits with traditional,
>ethical standards. How far is
>too far to be considered
>fair chase?
>
>Boone and Crockett adopted a new
>position statement to help define
>the ethics of taking game
>from long range.
>
>"It's not about distance; it's about
>intent," said Bill Demmer, Club
>president.
>
>He explained, "Hunters have varying degrees
>of marksmanship skills and capabilities.
>Some are steady only out
>to 100 yards. Others are
>very efficient at much longer
>distances. All kinds of field
>conditions also factor into what
>is or isn't an ethical
>shot. So, within reasonable sideboards,
>it's impossible to use distance
>as a measurement of fair
>chase."
>
>But the Club firmly takes issue
>with hunters who choose shooting
>long rather than trying to
>get close. Intent is what
>separates hunting from merely shooting
>a live target.
>
>"The honor and lasting memories in
>hunting have always been in
>our ability to get close
>to game animals. And every
>hunter has better odds of
>a quick, clean kill at
>closer distances. That's one of
>our most imperative responsibilities as
>a hunter, and that's the
>legacy of sportsmanship that we
>believe is important to uphold,"
>said Demmer.
>
>Maintaining the integrity and public support
>of hunting is vital. The
>tradition, along with its indelible
>ties to conservation, is a
>key to sustaining wildlife for
>the future.
>
>C.J. Buck, president of Buck Knives
>and a Boone and Crockett
>member, said, "Hunting is personal
>and the reasons why people
>hunt are personal. For many,
>making a kill is merely
>incidental to their time afield.
>This elevates hunting to mean
>something more than just filling
>a tag, and that's one
>of the things that make
>it special. Sure, we have
>laws for safety and to
>conserve the resource, but at
>the end of the day
>our satisfaction has more to
>do with our own intentions.
>I think that is why
>so many sportsmen are disturbed
>by those who make the
>shot or the kill more
>important than the hunt itself."
>
>
>Boone and Crockett has been a
>standard-bearer for hunting ethics since
>1902, when Club founder Theodore
>Roosevelt refused to shoot a
>captive black bear during a
>hosted hunt in Mississippi. The
>incident, widely covered in the
>press, popularized the concept of
>fair chase on this continent,
>elevated public appreciation for sportsmanship
>and even inspired introduction of
>a new toy, the Teddy
>bear.
>
>Demmer concluded, "Some people don't like
>us talking about ethics, claiming
>it divides hunters when hunters
>should be united. Rallying around
>hunting ethics is how sportsmen
>did away with the anything-goes
>culture that nearly eliminated big
>game in the early days
>of the conservation movement. I
>believe doing right by the
>game and the traditions of
>hunting still unites hunters."

Am I the only one who finds the irony in B&C talking about hunters who only care about the shot or kill? Pretty much their whole deal is "scoring" kills, but they want to try and claim that high road? Good lard! B&C cares about the conservation of big game more than the kill? Didn't the AI bucks get scored? Guess I missed where the conservation in selling Denny island tags is? HYPOCRITS!!
"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun"
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-18-14 AT 06:42PM (MST)[p]Good post theboys. I don't find the B+C statements to be ironic at all. I enjoy hearing about quality hunts where record book animals are taken, yet I don't give a second glance at animal pictures with outfitter logos on them, they are pretty meaningless to me, the best part of the hunt is missing IMO, I figure its not much better than killing farm animals.

You see to me it's mostly about being in wild country, interacting with wildlife and being outdoors, the kill is only a small part of hunting.

When I hear bragging about long range shots where animals are killed, It just conforms some of my beliefs in why mule deer hunting is generally so crappy and why so many young people find hunting distasteful these days.
 
Hossblur, Glad to hear that you are a Libertarian. I was beginning to think I was the only MM poster who was.

As for the positives of LR the best one that I have noticed is that it allows a disabled or partially disabled hunter a better chance of being successful. Able bodied hunters may not need to long range but for some people they could not be successful with out it.

Two cases in point; my own mother at 70 years old was only able to harvest her Desert Sheep because of long range. Her back problems and pending surgery made her mobility limited. And just last week I hunted Desert Sheep again with an 84 year old who could only walk short distances from the truck. Stricken with Palsy he would shake like a leaf...disadvantages that could only be overcome with Long Range technology.

Long Range shooting serves as the great equalizer for the partially or fully disabled. I will watch with pride as the 84 year old gentleman picks up his Ovis award for taking a B&C Desert Sheep. If he is able to walk to the stage on his own. Just like I did when my Mom won her "Ram of the Year" award for taking Utahs biggest Desert Sheep of the year...A little old Lady. Mom looked like Mrs. Santa Clause picking up her Sheep Hunter of the year trophy...the macho men, who eat nails for breakfast had to settle for the bronze and silver.
 
I was thinking about this same inquiry. The disabled are the only ones who don't strike me wrong with this whole LR debacle.
 
I do take issue with Hossblur and Elkantlers claim that Long Range shooting leads to more wounding. My experience is, that is not true. Having been on about 600 big game hunts I have found that most wounding has occurred from Archery hunting and that most rifle wounding occurs from ordinary hunters who view themselves as Long Range shooters. I think gun manufacturers are primarily to blame for this.

I cringe every time a hunter shows up in camp with a fancy rifle. You know the ones I am talking about. The high end $5000 rifle the the hunter bought at the SCI show after BSing with the sales guy for an hour. The gunmakers convince these guys that all they need is one of their fancy rifles and they will be good out to 1000 yards...let the wounding begin...Long Range shooting when done right is a science, its more about the bullet than the gun, its even more about the shooter and the rest than the gun. and the ordinary hunter has little business practicing it on live animals.

The bottom line is that true long range shooting results in less wounding not more.
 
Now theres some contradictions in that post, long range shooting doesn't lead to more wounding, but then it does? I believe it.
 
Tramm,

I don't think that wounding is the primary problem I have with it. I don't think anyone intentionally goes out to wound something. I think you have to ignore physics to not admit that at long distance the odds of doing so are greatly increased.
I am more concerned with the inability of game animals to escape, primarily mule deer. I agree though, being out in pursuit is what I think draws in younger hunters. That adrenaline rush you get when you are on the sneak, the shakes you get when you are close. 1000yrds is nothing but a target shoot, regardless of how good your optics are, you can't trick the brain, it knows when your a predator and when your a shooter.

But yeah, like I said earlier, as a libertarian, I really struggle with limits being put on anything because the government says so. I started this post because I really was missing what the draw to LR hunting, I get the challenge of hitting that far, but I don't get the draw in hunting like that. My best hunt ever was for elk in the uintas. I killed a six point bull at 20 yrds. I could smell them, hear them, was right in their comfort zone. I watch my 9yr old this morning trying to jump shoot ducks. Watching him creep and sneak, that sucks him into hunting, shooting clay pigeons sure doesn't.

Like I said earlier though, this was an honest question, I appreciate the honest answers.


"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun"
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-25-14 AT 01:52AM (MST)[p]There is no doubt there are hunters that can make ethical long range shots. It is the morality of the issue that I question. Doesn't seem fair to me, so I will not be participating. A buddy let me shoot his rifle at a 1000 yard target. He did the computing and adjusted the scope, I pulled the trigger; bulls eye! Again on shots two and three. I feel the the rifle, bullet, computer and scope did the majority of the work, while I put the crosshairs on the target and squeezed the trigger. Was kind of fun for sure.

Funny how at one time anything over 300 seemed to be considered a long shot. Now people are asking why a person wouldn't sneak into 500 yards instead of 1000 yards. Even at 500 there isn't much sneaking; it requires walking. I like on videos when LR shooting that the shooters talk at normal levels with no fear of spooking the target.

But like mentioned previously, one should not tell another what they can or can't do while legally hunting. Morals are not uniform across all hunters. What some might think is cool, others may not. We just have to deal with it.
 
Today I took a 40 mile boat ride out of our bay and through the ocean to a distant bay where I know deer come down to eat kelp. I set up on a beach at 826 yards from the other beach. I've been there before and set up targets to check my drops. I know my rifle and it's capabilities and never shoot past where I know I can thunder-d!ck an animal on my first shot. I've done my homework.
6279dscn0918.jpg



I know it's a record pisscutter but all you longrange haters can kiss my ass!
 
Most people viewing a video, don't really care if the animal was shot at 10 yards or 1000 yards. I think perception is the issue. Perceiving that the shot itself, is more important to the hunter than the animal, is when the issue starts.

If you were to show Chases moose film to a non-hunter, then show one of the long-range videos where the deer is shot at several times, got a leg blown off, etc, with the hunters leaping around squalling like a pack of howler monkeys, MAKING SURE EVERYONE knows how far the shot was.....See which one they find distasteful and which one they don't.

I don't think that killing an animal at long range is an issue, but if you have practiced and become proficient, and confident in your own ability of shooting at distance, why the need to publish yardage?
 
Another primary argument that I make in favor of Long Range is that sometimes Long Range is the only range.

One year, I hunted a cagey 12 year old Mule deer buck that I had seen for a couple of years in a row.I watched the buck regress over the years. Going from over 200 inches to 190 to about 180. The inline would survive by timbering up on a boulder covered spine. To be on the ridge with the buck provided little or no opportunity for a shot. if even a glimpse of the buck. That year I made my longest shot and took the buck from my glassing spot. I submit, an impossible buck to kill with out Long Range.
 
I'd like to beat the dead horse a little more. I see that long range shooters often justify the practice by describing the many hours of practice preparing for it. Okay let's say that makes it reasonable. What about somebody just handed a long range rig because the shot is long? No practice, never even shot the gun before.

The WY monster buck they call Snag was taken this way. It worked out. Many outfitters are now making this standard practice. Some are even advertising it. What do you think?
 
Crapola tags will be reduced, seasons will be shorter etc. Lets cut the tag in Wy and issue more primitive weapon tags. Muzzys with out scopes.
 
If LR guns lead to less Deer and less tags the LR hunters will ##### the most. Why ? Because they spare no expense at gear and many, not all I declare, feel entitled to hunt.
 
I've noticed on many LR hunting videos that the hunters main priority is to make a long distance shot. I saw this video where a guy shot a coues at 1000 plus yards when there was a ridge 100 yards above the deer. Why not just circle around and get on the ridge and have a much closer shot and a reduced chance at wounding the animal?
 
Sometimes its just the only option. Hard pill to swallow I know. But it's the truth.
 
I personally am not a big fan of LR shooting but it really doesn't matter. Those that are in favor of LR shooting really could give a hoot to what I think. - I see this issue pretty much like the discussion on ATV's - there are two sides to the issue. If my memory is right, I think the ATV blog went on for several postings and when it got to tune ups - the blog was pulled. We still have ATV's going where they aren't suppose to be and folks will still shoot LR - the issue does make good reading even though I doubt if anything substantial will come of it. I do hope that we don't see in the future, a hunter doing something foolish when some one shoots LR over him for an animal he has been stalking.
 
"Sometimes its just the only option"

...and that's about the only reason that i can partially buy in. I won't condemn a guy who has one chance at what he thinks is a trophy buck and if he doesn't take that extra long shot, he might be blowing his only chance. I can't and won't blame a guy for that.

Otherwise, keep it to the target ranges, enjoy the skills needed in stalking closer, and great shots at distance on targets usually always make nice one shot kills at "for sure" ranges.

I'm not Pro- LR because i still don't know after all these years, all the good to better bucks taken, after all the range time put in as a upper end competitor with my own shooters, exactly what the wind is doing way over yonder across that big canyon. If it's any guess work, the animal deserves better, get closer.

Joey


"It's all about knowing what your firearms practical limitations are and combining that with your own personal limitations!"
 
I can't believe I missed this thread back when it first got started. Some good points made against L.R. hunting. Not too many good points made that were pro L.R. hunting though. The hunters with disabilities that physically prohibit them from getting close to an animal is the only good point I can think of that was made for L.R. hunting.

Depending on what your definition of long range is I don't fully agree with the "Sometimes its just the only option" statement that was made a few post back. Anything between 300-500 is what I consider to be in the realm of long range and anything past 500 yards is what I consider extreme L.R. If a hunter can't get within 500 then shouldn't the animal win that round and get the chance to live another day. When you think about it getting within 500 yards should be fairly doable for most hunters in most situations. There should be no need for an option to shoot at an animal at extreme long ranges.

This of course is just my humble armchair QB opinion made while hating atop my high horse so take it for what is is and nothing more.

Great thread BTW!
 
Here's a good question.

If I kill he "Hyde Park Buck" in the church yard during legal shooting hours and I have my tag but I am outside of the city limits shooting long range, are there any charges?
 
You have to do what turns you on tristate, if that's your scenario of a dream hunt? Then no charges should be filed.
 
Hey piper,

If you have a memory you know what my stance is on this LR killing.

I want to know what YOU will do when that legal question actually comes up. One thing I have learned about hunters is they are always looking for loopholes.
 
Better toss out the high end glass too. Seeing an animal at 1500 yards with your Swarovski and stalking could just as easily be interpreted as an unfair advantage. Sneak up the back sides of a few ridges to get within 500 yards and what....all the sudden you are Geronimo? The anti crowd only cares about one thing. Shooting at any distant with anything other than an SLR is reducing opportunity. Of course if they had it their way it would all be no humans allowed wilderness area anyway.
4abc76ff29b26fc1.jpg
 
>Here's a good question.
>
>If I kill he "Hyde Park
>Buck" in the church
>yard during legal shooting hours
>and I have my tag
>but I am outside of
>the city limits shooting long
>range, are there any charges?
>


Probably depends on the tithe amount.
 
Here's the benefit to LR Hunting.

-I don't have to get in shape anymore, I can gain 300lbs and sit in my lawn chair at 2000 yards and kill my buck. In fact, I can turn my stereo on, put my cooler down and sit off the side of the road and shoot in any direction 2000 yards. When I kill one, I'll just call my buddies to go and get it for me.

This is great, I don't have to do any work at all anymore. We don't even need to call it hunting.
 
Subjects like this crack me up. I would bet a paycheck that most of the "LR" hunters I know could and do hunt circle around 95% of most hunters. They are killlers and being able to shot long distance has just made them that more efficient. This whole they are not hunters and they are lazy is nothing more than jealousy or opportunity to saddle up the tall pony in the stable. If you want to argue ethics, ok there can be a logical discussion had for both sides. Lazy and not good hunters, that is just rock throwing and name calling and holds no water!
 
>Lazy and
>not good hunters, that is
>just rock throwing and name
>calling and holds no water!

I'm not calling anyone out specifically. I know a few LR guys that do hunt circles around everyone. However, the question was "What are the benefits?"

Does a LR setup provide an opportunity for FAT and LAZY idiot to fling lead 1500 yards? Yes, it does and that's a fact. Just like a trailcamera provides a guy a way to sit at home all day while a camera scouts for him. It's not name calling and rock throwing, it's just the facts.

There are LR guys that are excellent hunters, and then theres the guys that just go pay $4000 to get a LR setup and fling lead at deer. Same goes for Archery setups at 100+ yards.

If I had the money, I would buy a LR setup too. I wouldn't shoot a deer at 1000 yards, but I sure would love to shoot targets that far.
 
LAST EDITED ON Jun-18-15 AT 11:27AM (MST)[p]A tag in pocket allows plenty of Lazy Idiots the opportunity to go fling lead outside of their proficiency. I'd dare say the idiots fling lead at 300 yards or less that are not proficient out numbers the idiots flinging lead 500 plus. It's interesting that you bring money into the argument? This falls into line with the jealousy.

It's all a type of hunting. So I guess the question should be .....why is hunting good. We all agree that hunting is good and we enjoy it. We all have different reasons we like hunting.
 
I don't frequent this sight much anymore but I'm sure glad to see not much has changed with you Hoss! Stirring the shi+ pot as usual! LOL.

I love shooting long range...at targets. I can smack an 8" metal gong 10 out of 10 shots at 1000 yards. But there is a difference in my thought process when I am hunting big game. I am cautious when it comes to flinging lead because I know what the slightest change in variables will do to a bullet at long distances. Some just don't care. IMO, it's a little irresponsible. But that's JMO.


It's always an adventure!!!
 
LAST EDITED ON Jun-18-15 AT 01:16PM (MST)[p]Bull said, "I love shooting long range...at targets. I can smack an 8" metal gong 10 out of 10 shots at 1000 yards. But there is a difference in my thought process when I am hunting big game. I am cautious when it comes to flinging lead because I know what the slightest change in variables will do to a bullet at long distances. Some just don't care. IMO, it's a little irresponsible. But that's JMO."


Coming from you, a dedicated, respected, and accomplished long range target shooter, your words should carry a lot of weight in this discussion. Thank you!

Please post up once in awhile. I always enjoy your threads or posts if it be about hunting with your daughters or the newest cat or iron on the bench drilling teeny tiny little groups out there farther than thought possible, whatever!

I love target and varmint shooting at range and take my hat off to the guys that can do it so well... at targets and varmints.

Joey




"It's all about knowing what your firearms practical limitations are and combining that with your own personal limitations!"
 
LAST EDITED ON Jun-18-15 AT 02:11PM (MST)[p]Yep some people just don't care about anything but themselves. I had a conversation about long range hunting with a couple of former hunting buddies a few year ago. I asked them both what effect do they think long range hunting will have on hunting in 50 years. The reply I got was "why do I care I'll probably be dead." They also both feel that hunting will be outlawed within the next 20 years so until then they'll do whatever it takes to fill their tag. "If it's legal it's legit" is their motto. Even if it means screwing over a fellow hunting buddy. Unfortunately this me 1st attitude seems to be a growing tread in the hunting community as of late.
 

Similar threads

littlebighorn
Backfire Milk Jug Challenge
Replies
73
Views
2k
elkassassin
elkassassin
luckyluciano2
Have you heard of Howl For Wildlife
Replies
2
Views
297
bullskin
bullskin
Servehim
Easter, why its so special
Replies
22
Views
812
Togwotee
T

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

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

3BF8771D-8CB4-42D7-BBAA-9A91C8FA5C6C.jpeg
F8B5FB9C-F212-4CD5-9449-BF99B53D494E.png
5171BBBA-FF8E-431D-8DFC-C93432A37A23.jpeg
IMG_2882.jpg
38362147-885D-4499-AA6D-2DD5255B05EF.png
Parker photos 046.JPG
B81029BC-EAF5-4386-A144-E30598218B6F.jpeg
20220811_164022.jpg
IMG_5103 copy.jpg
IMG_3574 copy.jpg
IMG_0013.jpeg
1678844573327.jpeg
Back
Top Bottom