... today, they are definitely going to be LRH big time. esp., Teddy with his Speak softly and carry a big stick ideology. 
Just saying! gun)
Just saying! gun)
If Boone, Crockett, and Teddy were alive ...
- Thread starter FEENIX
- Start date
Help Support Long Range Hunting Forum
vikingsniper
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2014
- Messages
- 82
Aren't we overreacting with the Boone and Crockett situation. I mean is it really that big of a deal?
cowboy
Well-Known Member
It is that big of deal to me. To each his own. It shows B&C stance on ethical LRH, PERIOD, and sets a terrible precident.
I Have written Leupold to ask what their reaction or stance is to the B&C statement in that Leupold markets a reticle called the long range B&C reticle. With every scope Leupold makes using the B&C reticle I would assume they send B&C a royalty fee.
Should I not get a response or one that supports B&C I will send a response to Leupold that after using them for the last 40 years I am done with "any" Leupold products. No grey area for me - AMEN.
In these type of deals just follow the money - money talks and B___ S___ walks.
lightbulb"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." (Edmund Burke).lightbulb
Your choice, like cowboy and others, I've also let Leupold know how I felt on B&C's stance.
Yes, I think it's a big deal. Anything like this is great fodder for the anti-hunters. It is crazy the damage some silly statement like this can cause. If we don't stand strong together, the anti's just chip away at us and believe me they are smiling while they do it.
I live in Oregon where dogs and bait are outlawed for bear and cougar. We now have bears and cougars in back yards and playgrounds and they are decimating the deer and elk herds. If we are not strong the next thing outlawed could be shots over 100 yards.
HARPERC
Well-Known Member
Ditto Washington. We have transitioned from setting seasons, to enacting arbitrary technical violations such as Idaho's 16 lb law. Or writing tickets because there isn't a whistle on the boat for emergencies.
It's an old story to me-Here is a bunch of fools that don't get 200 yards from a road talking of limiting my shots to 500 yards. Classic I can't do it nobody should mentality. What's that Michelle Obama statement "somebodies piece of the pie is going to get smaller". A thread here somewhere asking what's the best cartridge to fit the regulations of his state. These aren't idle ramblings or spirited discussion, it's precursors to regulation. BC not allowing LR entries fine, but that won't be enough, they'll want turrets, or VLD type bullets banned.
Where were they when serious issues like wolf management needed leadership, and organization. Like has been said they took my hound away, and as predicted a cougar took up residence in the middle school a half mile from my house.
Clubs are defined by mission statements and values based objectives. Not every club mirrors the interests of everyone. Understandable. However, one should be cognizant of the location of your home flag before making values based statements that don't necessarily reflect the values of the constituents occupying your home state.
B&C's recent position statement relies heavily on defining the terms "intent" and "long-range." B&C does not define a specific range or criteria when defining long-range. Not having a clear definition to a key term in a values statement leaves the meaning of the term open to vast interpretation.
Intent. The statement, "Long-range shooting, it's not the distance, it's the shooter's intent." B&C has made several correlations if a hunter does not close the distance to a game animal, irrelevant of the hunter's skills and harvest probability, and elects to harvest the animal without closing the distance that hunter is no longer hunting but rather something else.
B&Cs flag is centered in Missoula, MT. According to B&C's current position statement, the vast majority of hunters I have had the opportunity to interact with are now classified by B&C as not hunters but something else. A 300+ yard shot is fairly common in MT. Distance could have been reduced in all of my hunting experiences to include all of those harvests I have witnessed. In reality, virtually in all hunting situations distance can be reduced. Thus, the current position with B&C dictates all of the enjoyable MT hunting experiences are not hunting experiences rather "something else experiences."
Back to your question. Montanans are irritated with outside influence dictating how Montanans should hunt, how they should manage their wildlife, and now how they should close the distance before putting game on the table. Wolves, proposed gun control, and now an organization (once considered a friend to Montanans) dictating how a Montanan should hunt ethically.
Montanans, conservationists and loving supporters to the hunting heritage, are organizing to send B&C a message. NOT IN OUR STATE.
The Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks is an official scoring partner of the B&C club. This private to state relationship currently exists due to little to no resistance from Montana sportsman and sportsman organizations. B&Cs recent position statement places this once uncontested relationship at jeopardy. What message would be sent to B&C if enough Montana sportsman organizations and "hunters" petition the MTFWP to remove their state to private relationship with B&C, a NOT IN OUR STATE response to outside influence? After all, what business does a state agency have to do with a private organization without support?
Very well said!
Attachments
![a9cc6155-f27f-4013-830a-373fa278ce92_zps44fa0f82[1].jpg](https://r2d2.www.longrangehunting.com/attachments/33/33224-adfc4d2abb486d7fcb90f2c80ad64b75.jpg)
D
Deleted member 46119
Guest
Yes, it's a big deal..
vikingsniper
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2014
- Messages
- 82
Unofficial Gun Addict (UGA)
Well-Known Member
I suppose that if you look at this on a grander scale, what if the NRA took this stance... and if the general populace takes this stance. Rules, regulations, & laws are created based on what politicians believe the general populace are going to support.
Every cog matters, and if this idea of intent and the vilification of long range hunting takes root, new regulated guidelines for hunting could and likely will follow in time.
There was a day when I was a teen that everyone I know had a gun in their car. Being from a small rural community, it wasn't even seen as an issue. Heck, you could even take your gun to school... I did... to the wood shop in order to refinish the stock of one of my rifles. Guys at the local merc used to sit and have coffee in the morning with pistols strapped... And no one was concerned.
Today.... same town, rarely do you see a gun even in the trucks around town. If you walk around town with a pistol on your belt in plain view, the cops are going to be there in no time flat, because somebody has made a call and is nervous. And if you have a gun in your car on School property, you've committed a federal offense, with some very severe penalties.
I think all that's being said is that these kind of blanket statements about LRH do influence people, and should be guarded against by those who don't want to see this ability disappear.
