a new hunter 'advocacy' group

[twall13]

I just emailed the guys over at the Huntbackcountry Podcast to ask their take on things. I actually proposed they do another podcast with the guy asking him to explain his position and his nonprofit so we can hear it directly from the source. From everything I've read I can't say I want to support anything associated with this guy but I'd sure like to hear it directly from the source with a host who will grill him on all the holes in his ideas.

 

[sneaky]

That'll never happen. I emailed them and told them I didn't want to hear anything from that turd on their podcast lol. I doubt they would grill him on anything anyways.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[twall13]

You are probably right, I think some other podcast hosts would be better suited to that task and it will probably never happen. Either way, they know I'm not happy with what I've read about him and his non profit.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

 

[Riplip]

I was a member of the MTI program for their workouts. I enjoyed some of the programming, but cancelled my membership after I read the article.

Hi Brian,
We’re always trying to improve everything we do at Mountain Tactical Institute, and would really appreciate your feedback on why you decided to cancel your subscription.
Not trying to win you back. We just want to improve.
I'd really appreciate any criticism or feedback you could offer. Please reply or email me at rob@mtntactical.com.
I will personally read your reply, and if requested, help in any way I can.
Thank you. Best of luck with your training.
Respectfully,
Rob Shaul
MTI Founder

 

[sneaky]

I hope you let him know exactly why you canceled.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[sneaky]

FWIW, I got an email back from Mark with Hunt Backcountry podcast. He said they will not be covering any of his Mtn Pursuit organization for the very reasons that many of us have already brought up in this thread. Didn't say that they aren't going to release the fitness podcast that they've recorded recently though. Guess we'll see.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[whereisfredbeckey]

From what the article said I'm disappointed in the overall stance by Mr. Shaul. Maybe there is more to what he's aiming to do, but I was struck that the goal seems to be optimizing hunting per his credo. While I don't confuse ethics and law - it seems there is a little room for all of us.

In general I wonder why there are so many organizations and why existing ones can't already address issues that all hunters are concerned about.

 

[ODB]

From what the article said I'm disappointed in the overall stance by Mr. Shaul. Maybe there is more to what he's aiming to do, but I was struck that the goal seems to be optimizing hunting per his credo. While I don't confuse ethics and law - it seems there is a little room for all of us.

In general I wonder why there are so many organizations and why existing ones can't already address issues that all hunters are concerned about.

I think your second pgf is answered by your first: “hunting per his/their credo.”

I also think a lot of people start .orgs as fun little tax shelters. Being a .org seems to give you cultural capital and it infers you have good intentions; as if the .org designation is a bulwark against doing he wrong thing...”we’re non-profit, you know...” it’s often wielded like a sword...

 

[ODB]

" says a Jackson bowhunter who wants to make hunting more ethical."

I want to make hunting more ethical by forcing everyone to adhere to my standards and what I feel is acceptable.

Correct. This misguided soul buys into the idea that you can legislate ethics or morality. Ethics is meta-litigious...laws merely indicate the lowest form of acceptable behaviour, not the highest. You want to raise ethics?? Provide a sound reason TO raise ethics, educate people as to why that is preferable and convince them to behave that way in the future. Threatening laws like “no long range shots,” makes your fellow hunters potential narcs. This is a version of the panopticon, which was deemed cruel and unusual. This guy needs to keep thinking...

 

[Netherman]

I can only echo others comments on the problems with legislating personal ethics, but his shot distance position makes me think of my favorite TR quote from his book Hunting Trips of a Ranchman.

"I am a great believer in powder-burning, and if I cannot get near, will generally try a shot anyhow, if there is a chance of the rifle’s carrying to it. In this way a man will now and then, in the midst of many misses, make a very good long shot"
- Theodore Roosevelt

Interesting to see how differently things were seen back then.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[jmez]

From what the article said I'm disappointed in the overall stance by Mr. Shaul. Maybe there is more to what he's aiming to do, but I was struck that the goal seems to be optimizing hunting per his credo. While I don't confuse ethics and law - it seems there is a little room for all of us.

In general I wonder why there are so many organizations and why existing ones can't already address issues that all hunters are concerned about.

Because these organizations and causes require money. Inevitably a few large donors provide the bulk of that money. The groups then become a mouthpiece for those large donors. Leaving the membership behind.

Sent from my moto z3 using Tapatalk

 

[NVVAHunt]

I think your second pgf is answered by your first: “hunting per his/their credo.”

I also think a lot of people start .orgs as fun little tax shelters. Being a .org seems to give you cultural capital and it infers you have good intentions; as if the .org designation is a bulwark against doing he wrong thing...”we’re non-profit, you know...” it’s often wielded like a sword...

This right here. Good chance he is doing it for financial benefit of himself and his future donors. The tax game a hell of a thing and running a non profit is a one of the more popular ways to play it for people who have enough money.

As for him wanting a more restrictive cap on out of state tags because he ran into other hunters on PUBLIC LAND and instilling his ethics on everyone else because he thinks he has some moral high ground, I say go **** yourself.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[mtnprst]

All - I'm the "Punk" and "Tool" and other things who founded Mountain Pursuit and am sorry, just seeing this, or I would have responded back in January. I just started a thread for feedback - so you'll get another shot and I'll do a better job of replying.

 

[Ty208]

So then, whats your deal? Your stance is pretty conceded. Pissed NR hunters are in “your spot”? Dictating shot limits? People acting like unethical assholes is one thing. Every group has its shitheads. But, who are you to generalize “us” as a whole? My understanding is your a new hunter. I’m not. And, all my years hunting, I’ve seen guys blow 100 yd shots more than 5-600. Good for you mannin up here. We would all love an explanation. What say you?

 

[mtnprst]

I posted a new thread about Mtn Prst and our positions this afternoon, but the rokslide monitor pulled it.

Ty619 - I've been hunting for 39 years - 43 years if you count gopher hunting with .22. I've been bowhunting for 5.

400m Maximum Shot Distance proposal is based on Fair Chase, Non-Hunting Public Perception, and Regulatory issues:

(1) Fair Chase dictates that the game have a chance to detect the hunter, and if detected elude him. Any technology or any other factor which tips this scale in favor of the hunter is unethical.

According to the Wyoming G&F Department, the ability for ungulates to detect hunters outside of 400 yards declines dramatically. (See their white paper on technology and hunting here)

The long shots we see on youtube today did not occur in the 70s and 80s. Today's shooters are not better than shooters back then. The difference is technology. Today's rifles, loads, range finders, ballistic meters, etc. are all technological improvements, and they have allowed hunters to make these longer shots - outside the distance game can detect the hunter. Technology has tipped the scale in favor of the hunter.

Mountain Pursuit is not alone here. The Boone & Crocket Club questions extreme range hunting in their Hunt Right: Hunt Fair Chase initiative here.

Idaho attempted to restrict long distance shooting with a 1993 regulation, still on the books, limiting hunting rifle weight to 16 pounds. At that time long distance rifles were big and heavy, but in the years since, the technology has improved and the weapons have become lighter.

2) Non-Hunting Public Perception - The non-hunting public has consistently supported fair chase, subsistence-based hunting (eat what you kill). The issue with long range shots is the animal is correctly seen as having no chance of detecting the hunter - just see the negative comments on youtube movies of long shot highlights. Extreme range hunting turns the non-hunting public against hunting.

3) Regulations - This year the Wyoming G&F Department struggled with how to address the increasing technology in hunting - both archery and rifle - and it's not the only state struggling with this. It's Mountain Pursuit's view that it will be impossible for the rule makers to keep up with the technological advances in terms of rule making to ensure fair chase. The regulations will always be behind. Maximum shot restrictions automatically accommodate for these technological improvements, saving the rule-making authorities the need to continually update regulations to keep up with these technological improvements.

See our full position on Maximum Shot Range Restrictions HERE.

 

[mtnprst]

I just emailed the guys over at the Huntbackcountry Podcast to ask their take on things. I actually proposed they do another podcast with the guy asking him to explain his position and his nonprofit so we can hear it directly from the source. From everything I've read I can't say I want to support anything associated with this guy but I'd sure like to hear it directly from the source with a host who will grill him on all the holes in his ideas.

Sir - sorry for the delay in getting back to you on this. Hunt Backcountry actually interviews us for a podcast in early January, but have decided not to air the interview. Recently I was interviewed by The Mountain Journal - HERE.

 

[twall13]

I posted a new thread about Mtn Prst and our positions this afternoon, but the rokslide monitor pulled it.

Ty619 - I've been hunting for 39 years - 43 years if you count gopher hunting with .22. I've been bowhunting for 5.

400m Maximum Shot Distance proposal is based on Fair Chase, Non-Hunting Public Perception, and Regulatory issues:

(1) Fair Chase dictates that the game have a chance to detect the hunter, and if detected elude him. Any technology or any other factor which tips this scale in favor of the hunter is unethical.

According to the Wyoming G&F Department, the ability for ungulates to detect hunters outside of 400 yards declines dramatically. (See their white paper on technology and hunting here)

The long shots we see on youtube today did not occur in the 70s and 80s. Today's shooters are not better than shooters back then. The difference is technology. Today's rifles, loads, range finders, ballistic meters, etc. are all technological improvements, and they have allowed hunters to make these longer shots - outside the distance game can detect the hunter. Technology has tipped the scale in favor of the hunter.

Mountain Pursuit is not alone here. The Boone & Crocket Club questions extreme range hunting in their Hunt Right: Hunt Fair Chase initiative here.

Idaho attempted to restrict long distance shooting with a 1993 regulation, still on the books, limiting hunting rifle weight to 16 pounds. At that time long distance rifles were big and heavy, but in the years since, the technology has improved and the weapons have become lighter.

2) Non-Hunting Public Perception - The non-hunting public has consistently supported fair chase, subsistence-based hunting (eat what you kill). The issue with long range shots is the animal is correctly seen as having no chance of detecting the hunter - just see the negative comments on youtube movies of long shot highlights. Extreme range hunting turns the non-hunting public against hunting.

3) Regulations - This year the Wyoming G&F Department struggled with how to address the increasing technology in hunting - both archery and rifle - and it's not the only state struggling with this. It's Mountain Pursuit's view that it will be impossible for the rule makers to keep up with the technological advances in terms of rule making to ensure fair chase. The regulations will always be behind. Maximum shot restrictions automatically accommodate for these technological improvements, saving the rule-making authorities the need to continually update regulations to keep up with these technological improvements.

See our full position on Maximum Shot Range Restrictions HERE.

So how do you propose they enforce the rules you want? For the record, I'm not in agreement with you but want to hear how you think these regulations would be helpful in any way.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

 

[mtnprst]

Correct. This misguided soul buys into the idea that you can legislate ethics or morality. Ethics is meta-litigious...laws merely indicate the lowest form of acceptable behaviour, not the highest. You want to raise ethics?? Provide a sound reason TO raise ethics, educate people as to why that is preferable and convince them to behave that way in the future. Threatening laws like “no long range shots,” makes your fellow hunters potential narcs. This is a version of the panopticon, which was deemed cruel and unusual. This guy needs to keep thinking...

Multiple hunting regulations across most states regulate Fair Chase ethics now including wanton waste and destruction regs, follow-up shot , restrictions against laser sites, restrictions against night hunting and the use of artificial lights, restrictions against crossbows during archery seasons in most western states, etc.

 

[KurtR]

Were is the loss of funding made up?

 

[mtnprst]

This right here. Good chance he is doing it for financial benefit of himself and his future donors. The tax game a hell of a thing and running a non profit is a one of the more popular ways to play it for people who have enough money.

As for him wanting a more restrictive cap on out of state tags because he ran into other hunters on PUBLIC LAND and instilling his ethics on everyone else because he thinks he has some moral high ground, I say go **** yourself.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Idaho is currently soliciting public comment on a new rule which would allow it's fish and game commission to restrict the number of non resident OTC tags because of complaints by residents of overcrowding. This issue has also been raised by resident hunters in Colorado. It's a growing issue amongst many western state resident hunters.