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

[MattB]

Whether it's 7yds,70yds or 700yds, there's skill involved.

That is absolutely a true statement, and I personally liken a 70 bow shot to a 700 yard rifle shot in terms of the skill required to make the shot. But the comparison ignores the notion of fair chase hunting, as it doesn't take into account the ability of the game being pursued to elude the hunter - that is the crux of the difference in terms of what meets the regulatory definition of "hunting" and the notion of "fair chase hunting". Simply put - our prey does not have the same ability to use its sense to elude the hunter at 7, 70 and 700 yards - and that should rightly be factored into the equation.

 

[realunlucky]

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.

I don't really see your comparison. If an animal ran from every predator that got within 1000 yards it wouldn't have an fat reserves to make it through winter. I don't hate but there is a line that we shouldn't cross. Even when your proficient the margin of error increasing dramatically as the distance increases. I assume that's part of the draw of long range everything has to be right to make the shot which is what draws me to archery. I've took shots much shorter than that, that I had no business taking. I agree that's if its legal have at it but to me sometimes pushing the edge makes you fall off

 

[Ryan Avery]

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?"

Don't know Matt never done it. But is seems like your taking away some of that animals senses.

 

[mtnkid85]

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.

Best I've seen it explained, matt your right on.

 

[William Hanson (live2hunt)]

I can say from experience if you move wrong or to quickly in a stand or the wind is wrong, you will get busted. From 1/4 mile+ away, not so much. Also climbing a tree is hardly technology, the chair you sit it up there may be but the technique is not. The very same technique could be accomplished easily with a stand. Could any of you LRH hit a mark at 1000 yards or more without the technology?

 

[MattB]

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

I see hunters trying to draw definitional distinctions between the regulatory definition of "hunting" and the definition of "fair chase hunting" - I do not see anyone fighting.

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

You are comparing situations that use technology used to kill an animals, but are completely ignoring the notion of our game's ability to flee based on its own senses. I do not mean to be impolite, but your position seems to totally ignore the relationship to game as a component of the hunt - while that is the very crux of the distinction I am trying to draw.

 

[Sam Millard]

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.

When I first started hunting, I simply took my rifle or bow for long walks in the woods. With time and experience, I learned more effective ways of hunting that increased my odds of getting a clean shot on an animal (while a hunt can be defined as successful without a kill, we would be kidding ourselves if we say killing is not the intended outcome.) I gradually adopted a blend of still hunting into an area where I could take a stand on the ground and watch an area, thereby letting the animal come into the kill zone. I've killed a lot of deer and bears under 50 yards using this method. When I started taking my daughter (who was 4 at the time) with me deer hunting, I found stands where I could walk with her undetected and watch an area 200-300 yards away, so she could fidget and ask questions, while still getting to see animals. I killed a few more animals like that. Now I've extended that distance to stands where I can shoot at the distances people are bitching about and calling it "not hunting".

The funny thing is, I'm hunting exactly the same way, but I've placed a bigger burden on myself to kill the animal once I spot it. Killing at those shorter distances is easier...much easier!

I would admit that I have seen more animals since I've taken up the long range rifle, simply because I set up in areas where I can see more, but it certainly hasn't increased my kill ratio! The difference between shooting an animal at 50-100 yards and taking the shot at 600-1200 is so profound, it would take an article to explain why and how. Killing up close is easy, killing at distance is the challenge...not the other way around.

All the gadgets and technology in the world won't replace experience, persistence, and skill. I don't watch any of these TV shows that keep getting mentioned, but I'm starting to get the impression they are selling long range hunting as simply buy this rifle, drive up, put down your sammich, and kill that elk a mile away. There are members on this forum who have hunted with us who can set that straight.

As far as jumping up, yelling, and doing jumping jacks, who the hell would do that? I've stopped animals with my voice at 800 yards and watched elk watch me at 1200 yards.

 

[William Hanson (live2hunt)]

I see hunters trying to draw definitional distinctions between the regulatory definition of "hunting" and the definition of "fair chase hunting" - I do not see anyone fighting.

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

You are comparing situations that use technology used to kill an animals, but are completely ignoring the notion of our game's ability to flee based on its own senses. I do not mean to be impolite, but your position seems to totally ignore the relationship to game as a component of the hunt - while that is the very crux of the distinction I am trying to draw.

X2 I fully agree with both statements. I was not fighting. We can have differing opinions and still be on the same side.

 

[Ryan Avery]

MattB, I understand what you are saying.

Live2hunt, are you sitting up there with a stickbow? You wheelie shooters have more technology in your hand than my LRKM!

 

[Sam Millard]

I can say from experience if you move wrong or to quickly in a stand or the wind is wrong, you will get busted. From 1/4 mile+ away, not so much. Also climbing a tree is hardly technology, the chair you sit it up there may be but the technique is not. The very same technique could be accomplished easily with a stand. Could any of you LRH hit a mark at 1000 yards or more without the technology?

Which technology, specifically?

 

[tipsntails7]

I have to agree with Ryan on this, I may not be Into the long range thing ( only because of lack of funds) but I'm not going to look down upon someone who is hunting In a legal manor. I also think what Eastman did bringing in a mil sniper to talk but makes him look like an ass. Nothin is war, people that have been in war make that very very clear if you take the time to listen. Last time I checked Bambi is not going to shove an RPG up my ass if I wing him.

I'm also blown away by Glen Eberle. Strange that a man who bases a ton of his packs off the fact they can carry a 50 cal.

Peoples lack of skill with their chosen weapon is what results in unethical shots being taken whether that be at 50 or 500 yards.
I think this stigma comes from people's percieved lack of woodsman ship that is required from the LR hunting. It's not nearly as simple as walk out there and pound away.

 

[velvetfvr]

I don't think it's unethical, because obviously some people take it seriously, train, and use the right equipment almost insuring lethal quick fatal shots. Just like me for archery, I make sure I am good enough to effectively take a game animal at 80 yards. This means pulling heavier poundage, shooting a heavier arrow, COC head, and practice with thousands of arrows through varying physical situations. I make sure I practice the unthinkable and work on the little things, and if I can be comfortable and hit what I aim at out to 80, I feel fine to take the shot.

I don't have a beef with people doing it because the technology is there to provide a high success in the right hands.

What I have a beef with is I believe hunting is trying to get relatively close, which is getting inside an animals personal bubble and outsmarting them. I don't feel long range hunting does that. But that's a personal opinion, not fact and people should take it with a grain of salt. I believe it's up to the hunter, you just can't tell people they can't hunt a certain way in most cases.

 

[Ryan Avery]

Matt, I am not talking about this particular thread and fighting. I am talking about hunter attacking hunters on their method of legal hunting. Crossbows where the hunting whipping boy for awhile, now LRH is. We have much bigger enemy's out there!

 

[William Hanson (live2hunt)]

Which technology, specifically?

Honestly I have no idea. I don't know what equipment you use and it would be Greek to me if you told me. However could you use the same techniques and accomplish the same shots on game with 50 year old equipment? What about 100 year old? If not then its technological advancements that make those shots possible. Where those advancements are, I am quite sure you know better than I.

 

[William Hanson (live2hunt)]

Matt, I am not talking about this particular thread and fighting. I am talking about hunter attacking hunters on their method of legal hunting. Crossbows where the hunting whipping boy for awhile, now LRH is. We have much bigger enemy's out there!

See we can agree

 

[Sam Millard]

Honestly I have no idea. I don't know what equipment you use and it would be Greek to me if you told me. However could you use the same techniques and accomplish the same shots on game with 50 year old equipment? What about 100 year old? If not then its technological advancements that make those shots possible. Where those advancements are, I am quite sure you know better than I.

Well if that's the criteria, most of us wouldn't even be able to get to the area to hunt in the first place!

50-60 years ago, my relatives were using surplus military rifles to shoot elk and mule deer at distances that were quite longer than 50 years before that.

 

[norsepeak]

what is the purpose of hunting? Hunting is a management tool to ensure proper population dynamics based on harvest rates and several other factors. So the question then comes down to the ethics of the kill. So in my opinion, if a person is capable of harvesting an animal quickly and humanely at long ranges, then fantastic, you have accomplished the goal of hunting and got to play with your fancy toys, had a fun experience and put some pure protein on your families table. Great job. On the other hand, if a person is unable to accomplish a quick, humane kill and anything more than 100 yards, then that person should have enough respect for the animals they pursue to not take a shot any longer. I can't dunk a basketball, so I don't try...but I have spent a lot of time and money studying ballistics, reloading and shooting at very long ranges that I feel comfortable taking longer shots at game and so far I have been very successful at it. So I guess my point is that it should be up to the individual shooter to TRUTHFULLY evaluate their own abilities and have enough respect for the quarry to make the judgement call when the time comes to take the shot or not.

 

[MattB]

Don't know Matt never done it. But is seems like your taking away some of that animals senses.

As a hunter, you don't have a sense as to how a game animal would react to you do jumping jacks within archery range while being in a treestand 30 feet off the ground? Pardon me if I find this comment perplexing.

Matt, I am not talking about this particular thread and fighting. I am talking about hunter attacking hunters on their method of legal hunting. Crossbows where the hunting whipping boy for awhile, now LRH is. We have much bigger enemy's out there!

Agreed that no one is fighting on this thread, but I disagree with the notion that all the methods being discussed on this thread are "hunting" using a more pragmatic definition of the term (with the notion of "fair chase" taken into account).

 

[William Hanson (live2hunt)]

I don't have a problem with LRH and do not believe it to be unethical but at this point in time it's not for me. I could think of far far worse past times, for example I could be a Cowboy's fan *gag*. Sorry I threw up a little there.

Seriously though there are some truly skilled marksmen on here and whether I consider taking an animal at those kind of distances fair chase or not is irrelevant. We all make our own choices and it is not my place to tell someone else they are not a hunter because of my beliefs. I have to live within my code of ethics, no one else.

I didn't mean for the thread to go this way but it always seems to. You LRH guys are so over sensitive . I was just posting new info on the subject.

 

[Ryan Avery]

Matt, I'm a very perplexing person Yes, I'm probably going to get busted. That doesn't take away from the fact that people are killing lots of animals at close range because of Technology. People want to make LRH out to be cheating. But if you look at a modern day bowhunter what part of that is Bowhunting? Is it their mechanical devise with a slider sight guided by a laser rangefinder that allows 100 plus yard shot. The way I see it far more bowhunters are not really bowhunting than LRH are not hunting.

That said I really don't care how you "hunt" as long as it's legal.