Boone and Crocket club so annoying!!

[darrindlh]

Guys this is exactly the kind of discussion I was hoping for. Thank you all. I totally agree with greyfox. And others as well. I did not start this thread so that we could put anyone down. One person ended up going that way but as his history suggests he will not comment again. Just because we have expanded our abilities of our equipment does not mean that it is wrong or in anyway unethical. More than 50% of the members here are way more ethical than more than 75% of so called "normal hunters". I respect all of you. Great points

Darrin

 

[MMERSS]

This is a tough one for me. There are not a lot of long range shooters in my neck of the woods (Northeast) and a lot of us know each other. The problem with this whole debate is peoples (hunters) perceptions: easy, far, ethical, etc.

Like Pete said, most of the members of this forum can shoot better at 700 yds than the majority of shooters can at 100 yds. The problem is, the plethora of long range TV shows, videos, magazine articles, and computer chat make anyone think they can do it, which they can if they put in the time, effort, and money to do it. But do they?

From what I have seen at public ranges is most hunters (around here) don't. And in most (if not all) of the hunting camps I have shared with guides, they don't either. What upsets me immensely is other hunters watching the videos, reading the articles, and thinking they can do it too. But, they are not putting in the most valuable part: time and practice.

I took my son (13) to Montana last year on a guided elk hunt (could not take him out of school for long enough for DIY). 7 hunters in camp including us. Many topics came up after evening meal. One night, it was how far can you shoot? One hunter, really nice guy (dentist) said he was good to 500 yds. Had a nice Tikka with Swarovski Z5 with the BDC turret. He said he was dialed in to 500 yds. Never shot past 100 yds, but he sent his info to Swarovski and they made him a custom turret. I asked to see his rifle later in the week (i was interested in scope) the scope was so canted I could not believe it. Another gentleman had another Tikka (300wsm) with Nikon scope with their BDC reticle. Same story. He bought the gun, bought 3 boxes of ammo (commented how expensive ammo was) shot 2 boxes to practice, and brought the third box to camp to hunt. 40 practice shots. That's it. He knew the drop of his bullets because he looked it up on the Nikon website. He was ready for 500 yds too. These were two nice guys. I'm quite sure they thought they were doing everything ethical. Meanwhile, my son and I sent hundreds of rounds downrange from 450 (him) to 1000 yds (me) from field conditions. Who is right? Who is wrong?

Personally (which is what all of this is about) I want to extend MY ETHICAL range as far as I can. To that end, I have invested significant amount of time and money on equipment and practice to do that. That being said, I want to close the distance as much as I can to ensure precise shot placement.

Several years ago I read a post on this site from a gentleman in Wyoming. He had taken a nice antelope at 1250 yds +/- if remember correctly. He wrote of how he found the buck, got to within 700 +/- yds, then went back to a hill where he was now 1250+/- yds so that he could make his longest kill shot, to which he did. To be honest, I was a little disappointed. I am pleased for the hunter that he made such a long shot and he tagged a nice animal, but why add 500+/- yds to your shot? The way I look at it, there is so much more that can go wrong adding that extra 500 yds, the animal could possibly be wounded. To him though, I'm sure his actions were perfectly ethical.

As far as long range hunting, I don't encourage it or discourage it. I will continue to stretch my effective range, continue to read here and learn from the experts, and continue to take shots at live game at distances and conditions where I am confident in 100% shot placement, after I get as close as I can. To each his own.

Well said and thank you for hunting Montana. The campfire examples do shed some light on how different people perceive long range. But why wait to engage in campfire discussions only during the hunt? Every change I get I'll ask an outdoorsman what they think of long range hunting while out and about. Sporting goods stores are a great place. During general discussion the topic of long range hunting will casually be brought up. It doesn't seem to make any difference be it the person behind the counter or another sportsman shopping. I won't share my preference of hunting or engage in debate. It's eye opening to hear the different comments. What's more important than a position of for, against, or neutral is the "whys" to the position. The year-long campfire talk kind of gives an outside look from the perspective of the hunters and sportsman that live in the community. From most of the comments this past year the perception in my part of the state has been fairly bleak on this subject. Most seem to be both for and against long range at the same time, but mostly against.

Both for but mostly against at the same time? The best way to try to explain this is with an event that took place a few months ago. A hunting party this last general season wanted assistance with reloading and drop charts. I helped out and provided maximum range accuracy prediction charts based on skills both with shooting and estimating wind reading. One of the hunters was a prior national shooting champion so I was comfortable with his shooting skills and applied a ½ MOA precision potential as part of the analysis as he could easily shoot ten shot groups within ½ inch at 100 yards. Totally ethical hunter in his shooting abilities compared to the other hunters at the 100 yard range. After provided them with a maximum range based on most likely hunting conditions, they were cautioned not to shoot above them. Off they went for the season. Two months ago the hunter stopped by and dropped off a box of 50 rounds asking if I could load up more before the next season. I noticed there were only 6 loaded rounds left. I asked about the hunting season. It turns out of the initial 50 rounds loaded, 6 rounds were used for practice and 38 rounds were taken this year on big game animals with 4 harvests (if you call it that). After further discussion not a single shot hit vitals out of the 38 shots taken. I asked what the problem was with the hunts. The hunters ignored the max range charts and opted to take shots well beyond the listed limits. The majority of the shots were taken trying to finish what the first shot couldn't. In the hunter's mind he was ethical because he could outshoot everyone at the range. After the hunter left, I loaded up rounds for this next hunting season…..3 to confirm zero and 3 to be used for one deer, one elk, and one antelope. I called the hunter after reloading the 6 rounds and informed him to make the shots count as there will not be enough for a single follow up shot this next season. I'm pretty sure he got my message.

Back to both for and mostly against. Most outdoorsmen I have engaged in conversation with realize there are some really good shooters that can apply skill to make first shot kills long range but at the same time realize there are way more really good short range shooters that can't shoot worth a dang long range.

If sportsman are going to accept any form of hunting as acceptable, that first round has to count. Boone and Crockett annoying? What about the expert marksmen making a bad name for those that engage in maximum effective range hunting responsibly? Who's right and who's wrong and in who's mind?

 

[darrindlh]

Mmress,
I could not agree more. And that is a scary story and a funny story. I am confidant that he got the message!! Lol. It only takes a few to give off a bad perspective for the rest of us who take the time to shoot our weapon all year in all conditions as much as possible each one can. I spend way to much money ( according to my wife) on reloading components . Lol. However it's the only way I know to be prepared for hunting season. Practice and the practice some more, but I don't have enough time I want, lol

Darrin

 

[FEENIX]

Guys this is exactly the kind of discussion I was hoping for. Thank you all. I totally agree with greyfox. And others as well. I did not start this thread so that we could put anyone down. One person ended up going that way but as his history suggests he will not comment again. Just because we have expanded our abilities of our equipment does not mean that it is wrong or in anyway unethical. More than 50% of the members here are way more ethical than more than 75% of so called "normal hunters". I respect all of you. Great points

Darrin

LL! Yes, he moved on to another thread (http://www.longrangehunting.com/forums/f86/vermin-elk-153884/index3.html#post1084193) ...

I worked for the F&G in Utah. I had to trap problem critters "mostly beaver" & keep elk out of fields & haystacks. Believe me, the beavers were easier to control than elk. All I can say is GOOD LUCK!
Thanks, Kirk

 

[MMERSS]

I am confidant that he got the message!! Lol.

I would certainly hope so. What took about an hour plus to create accuracy prediction percentages annotated on range cards now only take about 10 minutes using WEZ and AB Analytics. Unfortunately, the caution to not exceed max range listed on range cards was ignored with ugly results the outcome.

 

[EFR]

Last night I watched an episode of Best of the West on one of the cable channels. The last segment showed a shooter taking a 625 yd shot (mule deer buck or cow elk, don't remember). The shooter then goes on to say he had never shot past 350 yds in his life, but the Huskemaw scope allowed him to do it easily.

Now, I am well aware that if he has one or more seasoned long range shooters next to him, calling wind and coaching him, this makes the situation a lot different. But, there was no mention of this; just range dial, and shoot. And it worked.

How many other 'hunters' saw the same episode, saw how 'easy' it was, and will try the same thing this fall?

I enjoy several of the long range hunting cable shows. But I honestly wonder if they are hurting more than helping long range hunting.

 

[rooster740]

Not to get off topic but I was watching Extreme Outer Limits, and on tv the guy shoots a bull elk in New Mexico and because it is late they never even went to the bull elk to remove the guts that evening! I was shocked! I would never watch that program again, and lost all respect for that program!
Don't put that on TV!

Boone and Crockett is junk! Whiners! Their scoring system makes no sense no animal is that perfect!

RMEF was pro wolf, that did it for me! RMEF is not long range friendly, yet take advertisement money and publish advertisement from Night Force and other long range scope builders and display long range reticles in the same magazine that condones long range hunting!

 

[Deleted member 46119]

When it comes to money ....

A man will show his true character.

Any way, yeah, "Best of the West" could have explained a bit more but I still think "average joe" won't be that bold and if he is, he will just be scratching his head and wondering why it didn't work for him.

 

[Bigeclipse]

I couldn't agree more with the OP. I only shoot live critters out to 400 because that is where I am confident to...NOT because I think longer ranges are unethical. I have seen some younger new hunters in the woods bag a monster at 150 yards and it was a terrible shot (guts). Yes we all make mistakes but these are notorious hunters who never practice. In my opinion that is where the issue lies. Its all about practice and skill no matter what distance.

 

[Len Backus]

because it is late they never even went to the bull elk to remove the guts that evening!

Wrong, at least from what I remember.

The animal did not drop at the shot. They did not want to push the bull in the dark, rather let it alone to die and not run off and perhaps never be found.

Not the greatest shot decision but the recovery plan was sound.

 

[longrangehunterII]

My own experience growing up in Michigan was all short range shooting, with either gun or a bow measured in feet not yards.

But when I first went out west to hunt Pronghorn, those shots grew to be hundreds of yards, but I also was more then comfortable with my ability to take Game cleanly with a single shot. I'd get as close as possible and kept shots to under 450 yards. That was my own personal limits and if I didn't like the shot I wouldn't take it! Period.

I later moved out West to Montana and finding cover is or shall I say can or does get a little tricky depending on where you're hunting? I've guided friends to deer as close as 10 feet only to be forced not to take a shot because she couldn't move to make the shot on the standing deer below us. Only a few days later to have them make a shot at almost 300 yards. Both times these were by anyones terms great hunting and ethical.

I've let go more then 100/1 more game then I've ever taken in my lifetime. Long range shooting does have a place in hunting simply because your window of opportunity is diminishing with each moment you wait in some instances.

I missed taking one of the largest Bears I've ever seen because I felt I should get closer? Dumb because I had already killed a Moose in the same spot a few years earlier at 319 yards and a Woodland Caribou two days before across a lake at 449 yards. We watched this Black Bear feeding on the opposite hillside of us after spotting it over a mile away. The Bear was only 300+ yards away, but my thinking was this is a big Bear and it may be more prudent to get closer? I could have clearly taken my sweet time to get settled in behind my rifle and send one of those 210 XLC when I felt the perfect moment to release the bullet. After all I was sitting on the mountain top where I could have gotten prone and made a perfect shot but No I thought I should get closer!

But no that didn't happen. I may have gotten closer but we somehow managed to get upwind of that Bear and it was seen running full blast for over a mile toward Ottawa and we were in Newfoundland! Later that day I did see another Bear near the top of a mountain from the lake below that I hiked up to. As I got closer towards the top I found a crack to stay out of site of where I thought the bear was? Little did I know when I reached the top of the mountain through this crack that Bear was feeding right towards me less the 20' feet away!

I stood and watched that Bear walk within less then 8 feet of me! I didn't even raise my gun because that Bear was too small. It was a Bear but I don't collect Bears like people collect baseball cards. Point being for me it's a personal thing to harvest an Animal or not and how I do it. I either do it for meat and/or the sport of the game.

Hunting is just that..... hunting. Which has nothing to with the killing aspect of the sport, that's the end result which doesn't always mean my time was successful or not? To me if I see Game or get to the point of no return whether or not I take an Animal has little to do with how exciting it was? Sometimes the rush is just getting there, but anytime I lose due to my own fault that sucks and I learn from those mistakes!

Mistakes or not sometimes getting closer may or may not have a better outcome? Long distance does tend to keep the game Animals at ease if they don't have any clue you're there vs. being alert because they sense something is "not right" with this picture? In the end everything has to be thought through of what's the best option for the moment, but that window of opportunity doesn't always get better. Luck or not does play a role in hunting to some extent, but not when to pull the trigger in my opinion. That should be thought through on a individual basis on whether or not to take the shot? A offhand running shot close range may or may not have a great outcome and one I would more then 99% of the time pass up vs. the long range standing feeding shot less then 600 yards away. But that's my personal feelings, which has nothing to do with B&C's opinion on the matter.

Advancements have come a long way in the last few years towards more ethical LR shots on game. A guy behind a custom tack driving rifle with a tactical scope using a ballistic app and range finder is not like twenty years ago. BDC reticles are far from perfect but so was Kentucky windage, either way the game has evolved into making long range shots more doable as long as the person behind the gun has done their homework.

As good as I think I am at long range shooting, there is always someone better then me at every long range precision tactical shooting match I attend. I know my limits while out hunting, if I have the time and can get comfortable with the shot in a no wind situation or little of it, and the animal is in a position that gives me lots of exposure to the vitals. It's thought through enough to insure success or I'll pass for another/better chance another day or season. It's just not that important to me to mess it up otherwise, which is why I like hunting........ it's all about the hunt, not the killing of the animal.

Those animals deserve our respect, God knows those tractor trailer and car hits are far worse to see and happen a lot more often but do we ever hear about that mishap? Talk about ugly, so to those that think hunting is awful or cruel look at that smear of deer, and the two fawns next to there mother or the elk wiped all over the highway that looks like a bad painters dream on the road? Now that's a waste of good meat gone to waste, so why would long range hunting be targeted.......... drama queens that have nothing better to talk about just because of freedom of speech. Like there's nothing else more important to do, but Hey, we're easy targets rather then tackle real issues......... How about if they just looked at how much land gets eaten up by noxious weeds and loss of habitat all over the US. Oh, that cost money to address and B&C would rather point their finger then spend money on a real danger to wildlife, but hey, those rich guys hunt ranches or Indian Reservations like the White Mountain. For a lot of people public lands being invaded by weeds isn't on their mind, big antlers and being in the books is more cool. They'd go broke taking on the invasive weed issues our country has going on, and not just public lands but even private lands as well.

You'd think they'd put issues at risk to the top of there agenda, not propaganda.

I could go on but I wont, but there are more issues then just a quick fix. An educated person would know better, need I say more..........

 

[rooster740]

Wrong, at least from what I remember.

The animal did not drop at the shot. They did not want to push the bull in the dark, rather let it alone to die and not run off and perhaps never be found.

Not the greatest shot decision but the recovery plan was sound.

Len, I am certainly not trying to cause problems with EOL, but I have it saved on my DVR and have reviewed it too many times. I did see that bad shot placement episode also, which happens. I beg to be corrected! I really do! The title is "Down To The Wire" episode 66 original air date 01-10-15. " down and he is done" is what the shooter says! 1201 yards! 338 Lapua. The best and safest thing to do is return tomorrow!

Not cool! That elk was GREEN by morning.

 

[Len Backus]

Ok, I was not referring to that episode.

 

[Jaxdialation]

You know the shooting skills of LRH forum users?

Save your breath -- who care what B&C thinks? You reacting to them is giving them authority they don't have. Nobody can judge you without your approval. Don't give it to them by paying attention to them.

It is so annoying because most hunters here on this sight are more ethical at taking game at 700 yrd than most hunters at 150.
Darrin