Eastman's takes a stance on long range hunting as well

[William Hanson (live2hunt)]

Here is the article

http://blog.eastmans.com/long-range...mail&utm_term=0_aec388f646-3d5dccd9f9-9557477

 

[mtnwrunner]

Well, I guess the next time we see the Eastman's, they'll be giving up their compound bows and DIY'ing in their loincloths and obsidian spears..............
They've been opposed to the long range aspect for awhile----maybe they are just bad marksman. In any case, I get tired of defending long range huntng. I'll take someone any day who shoots thousands of rounds a year, studies ballistics, can tell you what their load is off the top of their head over some normal Joe who reaches into the back of the closet 3 days before hunting season who may or may not go out and shoot a couple of rounds.

Randy

 

[7mag.]

I have zero problems with someone proficient in long range shooting, who takes ethical shots. It's the jackwads that think they can shoot 800 yards because they bought a "special" rifle and optics, that piss me off. Having the right equipment is only part of long range hunting. Practice, skill, knowledge and judgement are equally important.

 

[Sam Millard]

I am a hunter and a shooter...why can't you be both?

Hunters around here were shooting elk across canyons long before the planes hit the WTC. What we do and what snipers do aren't the same, even though some of the equipment crosses over (both ways). That is certainly nothing new.

 

[Ryan Avery]

Looks like Eberlestock is also against LRH according to Glens comment on that blog.

 

[Sam Millard]

Looks like Eberlestock is also against LRH according to Glens comment on that blog.

I just read that. It appears he has lost his mind Really? As a company they don't advocate long range hunting?

 

[William Hanson (live2hunt)]

I think long range shooting is super cool and the time and devotion and money you guys take to develop the skill level is to say the least impressive. One day I hope to become proficient in long range shooting though I have no idea if I'd ever try to take an animal at that range because for me right now I like being up close and personal with them but that could change over time.

The point I get from these long range hunting stances are you have to draw a line in the sand somewhere because at some point in time it ceases to be hunting and starts to become just killing with super high tech gear. It takes an incredible amount of skill to take a clean long range shot from a helicopter but is that hunting? Most would say no. What about using drones? Again most would say no. How about shooting from the comfort of your home by clicking a mouse when an animal comes into view (it's happened and was quickly shut down)? Certainly not. How about thermal imaging gear? All of these things take the hunt out of hunting. Now I know that these are fairly harsh comparisons but the point is there has to be lines drawn delineating what is considered fair chase and what isn't or without a doubt technology will be abused. Now I certainly mean no offense to all of you that hunt using this method and do realize the skill involved. It is really no different than limiting technologies used on bows, which all States do to some degree.

 

[Sam Millard]

So then I would like a simple answer to a simple question. What about long range hunting isn't "hunting"?

 

[djsmith46]

Alright guys, please correct me if I'm wrong but I thought I was watching an Eastman's show on one of the outdoors channels today. The dude took a 250 yard shot at a mule deer at a slight incline. He clean missed the shot. Then subsequent to missing he was asking if he was high or low. My thought was, he should be asking what the true ballistic range was and double checking his adjustments. So if this was in fact an Eastman's show maybe they're taking a stance because some of these dudes are crappy shots.

On the other hand if this wasn't an Eastman's show maybe this is precisely why they're taking a stance, because a lot of guys don't know what they're doing and its bad for the sport. I personally love the long shots some of you guys take like Sam Millard, I think its inspirational. And no I didn't read the article, I rather spend my time reading all of your opinions.

 

[Ryan Avery]

I hunt right up until I shoot with all my weapons!

 

[JG358]

So then I would like a simple answer to a simple question. What about long range hunting isn't "hunting"?

Hell if I know. From what I hear, killing an elk at 70yds with a bow isn't bow hunting either.

 

[William Hanson (live2hunt)]

I never said it is not hunting. It is not for me to decide for a long range hunter if it qualifies as a hunt and as long as it is legal, to each their own. I was simply expressing my take on these stances that hunting organizations are taking. In answer to your question though Sam, most people I know would define hunting as "actively pursuing game" and the more technology advances the less actual pursuit takes place and instead it becomes more and more just killing. It's a sorites paradox and long range hunting is apparently on the cusp of what the majority are comfortable calling hunting because these organizations are starting to speak up.

 

[MattB]

So then I would like a simple answer to a simple question. What about long range hunting isn't "hunting"?

This question reminds me of Potter Stuart's comment regarding the definition of pornography, which distilled down is "I know it when I see it." In terms of defining what is and is not hunting, I think we need to consider the question in terms of fair chase with the emphasis on the word "fair". In that context, I think a framework for the definition needs to take into account an animal's ability to flee based on its senses and instinct. But my personal opinion is that if our prey cannot invoke its senses in its defense, it becomes shooting. Case and point, I have read of kills on this site where the hunters could stand up, do jumping jack, and probably even yell without alerting their prey. That isn't fair chase hunting.

Before folks respond, understand that from my perspective that doesn't necessarily make it unethical nor drive me to push to restrict it via regulation - it just fundamentally changes the nature of the pursuit.

 

[Ryan Avery]

This question reminds me of Potter Stuart's comment regarding the definition of pornography, which distilled down is "I know it when I see it." In terms of defining what is and is not hunting, I think we need to consider the question in terms of fair chase with the emphasis on the word "fair". In that context, I think a framework for the definition needs to take into account an animal's ability to flee based on its senses and instinct. But my personal opinion is that if our prey cannot invoke its senses in its defense, it becomes shooting. Case and point, I have read of kills on this site where the hunters could stand up, do jumping jack, and probably even yell without alerting their prey. That isn't fair chase hunting.

Before folks respond, understand that from my perspective that doesn't necessarily make it unethical nor drive me to push to restrict it via regulation - it just fundamentally changes the nature of the pursuit.

That could also go for the tree stand hunter 30 feet up a tree with a scentlock suit and a ozonics genorator with a slider or 7 pins on his bow.

 

[Rick Leathley]

This question reminds me of Potter Stuart's comment regarding the definition of pornography, which distilled down is "I know it when I see it." In terms of defining what is and is not hunting, I think we need to consider the question in terms of fair chase with the emphasis on the word "fair". In that context, I think a framework for the definition needs to take into account an animal's ability to flee based on its senses and instinct. But my personal opinion is that if our prey cannot invoke its senses in its defense, it becomes shooting. Case and point, I have read of kills on this site where the hunters could stand up, do jumping jack, and probably even yell without alerting their prey. That isn't fair chase hunting.

Before folks respond, understand that from my perspective that doesn't necessarily make it unethical nor drive me to push to restrict it via regulation - it just fundamentally changes the nature of the pursuit.

Very well said!

 

[William Hanson (live2hunt)]

That could also go for the tree stand hunter 30 feet up a tree with a scentlock suit and a ozonics genorator with a slider or 7 pins on his bow.

It could certainly go for bow hunting technologies as well and it does which is why there are limits on what is permitted. For example a bow attached to a stock of any sort is not permitted in most states during archery seasons without special circumstances. Colorado limits bow hunting technology that is non electronic because of the "unfair" advantage electronics could give, even things as simple as lighted nocks.

I've heard the analogy of tree stands many times and I assure you that hunters get winded or spotted far far more often than at a mile away or even 1/4 mile away, so that is not a fair comparison. By the way I hunt from the ground 95% of the time so I am not defending my way of hunting.

Yes we as hunters push the envelope to get advantage over our prey but to what end? If someone could be flown to the top of a mountain and be given a gun that has the technology to hit its mark at 5, 10, 15 miles with little training or effort on the part of the shooter, would that be hunting? Where is the line drawn?

 

[MattB]

That could also go for the tree stand hunter 30 feet up a tree with a scentlock suit and a ozonics genorator with a slider or 7 pins on his bow.

To be clear, you are suggesting that, in the situation you described, "the hunters could stand up, do jumping jack, and probably even yell without alerting their prey?"

 

[Elkfitness]

Hell if I know. From what I hear, killing an elk at 70yds with a bow isn't bow hunting either.

That's funny right there!

On a more serious note. Whether it's 7yds,70yds or 700yds, there's skill involved. It's all hunting to me. I hunt with a recurve, compound, and rifle. It's hard to get within 7yds of an animal, make a 70yd bow shot on a relaxed animal or make a 700yd rifle shot. I think those that have issues with long range shooting are uninformed, but still comment. They may have seen or heard about a shot by someone not competent, have a bias and just want to get a point across. All it does is divide.

 

[Ryan Avery]

I think we need to stop fighting and dividing each other on LEGAL hunting methods period!

live2hunt, I think its a very fair comparison! You are trying to use technologies to kill an animal.

I think its easier to kill elk with a stickbow than a LR rig where I live. Sam and I had my uncle 800 yards from a bull elk yesterday for 3 hours. There was no way to get closer and we didn't get a shot. So it's not like you see a animal and it deads. Where I live there is a LOT of hunting in LRH!

 

[WyoBowhunter21]

I feel and this is my opinion that long range hunting could be considered 200 yards. It's in the eye of the person behind the scope to decide what his definition of long range may be. A guy who has never shot farther then 100 yards may think 300 yards is long range but a guy who regularly shoots 750 at the range is going to think 1800 yards is long range. I am just dabbing into long range shooting to better my long range hunting. For me, long range is 700 yards. So I will practice further. I believe there is a place for it in this world. Now eastmans may need to take a stand on hunting ranches when they say they are hunting public land.