Field and Stream

[RockyMtnMT]

What saddens me most is the cannibalism that takes place within the hunting community. It has been going on between the traditional bow and compound bow hunters for a long time. To the point that they each want to eliminate the other from the hunting community.

I think that in our efforts to educate others about what long range hunting is, we need to also emphasize that we are all hunters and need to stay together in order to preserve our rights and heritage. Even if we don't like the chosen method of the other.

For me, I am a life long bow hunter. My life revolved around archery. Rifle hunting was just a way to extend my hunting opportunity. I found long range rifle hunting due to this site and meeting Kirby for a day of shooting his rifles. Somebody said it earlier in this thread and I agree fully. Long range rifle and archery carry the same challenges. Thus the reason that I have gravitated to the long range. It is much easier to harvest animals 100 to 300 yards than with either of the techniques mentioned. I have spent more than a week on a hunting trip trying to get a long range shot on a deer that I can accomplish with confidence. Having the conditions acceptable and the animal calm enough to allow the time necessary to set up the shot and execute before the animal moves off is very difficult. When it comes to crunch time I will spot and stalk into 300 yards and the animal doesn't stand a chance.

In summery we should not become angry with those that criticize our methods, (disappointed maybe) but try to be positive about what we do and help them understand.

Steve

 

[Broz]

In summery we should not become angry with those that criticize our methods, (disappointed maybe) but try to be positive about what we do and help them understand.

Steve

Definitely agree. Also I too agree with the fact that the archery shot and skill it takes, are very much indeed like the precision effective range rifle shot. And this should be used to get the point across to those that may know archery but not precision rifle hunting.

Jeff

 

[bvb2508]

Honestly i was one of these guys 10 years ago. I remember saying "if you cant get any closer than that you shouldnt be hunting at all" and other nonsence lines like that which we have all heard. One day i had went out with an old freind that had never hunted with and we were doing a little shooting to verify our rifle zeros and he started shooting a rock at six hundred yards and i was dumbfounded that he was hitting this rock but still didnt belive that he could do this cosistantly. After him showing me that it was possible and letting me shoot his gun and get a few hits for myself i was hooked and also had a change of heart. I think this is what it is going to take to show people that it is not bad it is just another way of doing what we all love to do. If they can see the work, time, and money that we spend all year long to make one perfect shot a year they will have a whole new point of view on LRH so if you get an opportunity to bring a non believer on board take it!lightbulb

 

[mountainman56]

What saddens me most is the cannibalism that takes place within the hunting community. It has been going on between the traditional bow and compound bow hunters for a long time. To the point that they each want to eliminate the other from the hunting community.

I think that in our efforts to educate others about what long range hunting is, we need to also emphasize that we are all hunters and need to stay together in order to preserve our rights and heritage. Even if we don't like the chosen method of the other.

In summery we should not become angry with those that criticize our methods, (disappointed maybe) but try to be positive about what we do and help them understand.

Steve

I couldn't agree more. It isn't necessary we all like the same thing as long as we respect the choices of others. Myself I don't bow hunt but I shoot traditional muzzleloaders. I believe a muzzleloader should shoot round balls, have a lock on the side, use real black powder and have sights you adjust with a file and a hammer. That does not give me the right to criticize those who shoot front loaders that are 400 yard capable.

I admire the guy who has the patience, tenacity and skill to successfully take a deer at 20 yards with a bow as much as the man who has put in the time and has the experience to make a one shot ethical kill at 1000.

I have found that taking someone to the range, handing them your rifle, dialing in some elevation and letting them hit a 500 yard target does wonders to bring them over to our side of the fence. gun)

 

[dvor]

Surprisingly there was no mention of hunters using scent blocking clothes, digital trail cameras, game feeders, blinds, scents, game calls or any of the other man-made technology used to beat animals senses.
Somehow they are more ethical than somebody that has taken the time to develop their skills and use the proper equipment to make long range shots at game?

 

[MMERSS]

Somehow they are more ethical than somebody that has taken the time to develop their skills and use the proper equipment to make long range shots at game?

The wonder of debate with different views is not what is believed but rather why. I view this debate not much different than an NFL game in overtime. The majority of fans wear the jerseys of quarterbacks, running backs, and receivers. The fans want that football pounded into the end zone by their favorite players. After all that's football, or is it also something else? When it's crunch time we also want a win. So a decision needs to be made. It's third down and 2. Do we kick the field goal now or run another play? The use of the long range field goal kicker is now a decision. He has the potential to win the game. WOW what a concept when very few fans wear that jersey. The best way to keep the fans happy is to ensure the game winning kicker makes those points count within his effective kicking range based off the current stadium conditions. Don't risk the chance for a low probability kick unless absolutely necessary. At times it's more sensible to risk running another ground play hoping for the best, then kick that winning score once within effective range. The majority of fans will still wear their ground pounding player's jerseys even with consistent game winning kicks by a player not as well appreciated. It is what it is!

 

[WildRose]

The wonder of debate with different views is not what is believed but rather why. I view this debate not much different than an NFL game in overtime. The majority of fans wear the jerseys of quarterbacks, running backs, and receivers. The fans want that football pounded into the end zone by their favorite players. After all that's football, or is it also something else? When it's crunch time we also want a win. So a decision needs to be made. It's third down and 2. Do we kick the field goal now or run another play? The use of the long range field goal kicker is now a decision. He has the potential to win the game. WOW what a concept when very few fans wear that jersey. The best way to keep the fans happy is to ensure the game winning kicker makes those points count within his effective kicking range based off the current stadium conditions. Don't risk the chance for a low probability kick unless absolutely necessary. At times it's more sensible to risk running another ground play hoping for the best, then kick that winning score once within effective range. The majority of fans will still wear their ground pounding player's jerseys even with consistent game winning kicks by a player not as well appreciated. It is what it is!

Good analogy.

 

[Unofficial Gun Addict (UGA)]

It hasn't been that long since B&C came out with their fair game campaign, and now this from field & stream, one of my favorite magazines when I was a boy. To be quite candid... I'm already weary of this nonsense regarding fair chase, being able to smell the elks butthole before you shoot it, etc.

The end result of a good hunt is usually a dead animal. Is it fair that a bullet can kill a deer, elk, etc in a split second at 100 yards. Hell no. So for them to debate the distance at which killing an animal with a gun constitutes fair play is absolutely absurd.

B&C and Field & Stream should really start hunting with wood spears that they hand carve. Otherwise, they are a bunch of freaking hypocrites and should shut the hell up.

 

[MMERSS]

B&C and Field & Stream should really start hunting with wood spears that they hand carve. Otherwise, they are a bunch of freaking hypocrites and should shut the hell up.

B&C now includes "maximum "a"ffective range" within their clarification statement. Outdoor Life includes shooting within an effective range with practice up to 600 yards in their shooting class description.
Perhaps perceptions are starting to turn.

 

[Clovis Man]

Field & Stream is "off my list" now.

I'm a big fan of voting with my feet, and voting with my money.

 

[Broz]

B&C now includes "maximum "a"ffective range" within their clarification statement.Outdoor Life includes shooting within an effective range with practice up to 600 yards in their shooting class description.
Perhaps perceptions are starting to turn.

Maximum Effective range was part of the 3 1/2 hr discussion meeting we had with B&C. I explained the term and insured there is a large group of us that strive to simply do a better job of placement with precision hunting within it.

Jeff

 

[MMERSS]

Maximum Effective range was part of the 3 1/2 hr discussion meeting we had with B&C. I explained the term and insured there is a large group of us that strive to simply do a better job of placement with precision hunting within it.

Jeff

It does appear B&C is willing to tackle this issue with experienced hunters input. Time will tell if marketing follows suit. Realism should be the marketing tool rather than electronic gadget solutions behind labeled range shooting systems. There is modest realism in the latter.