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

[dotman]

Why qould anyone want further government restrictions applied?

 

[William Hanson (live2hunt)]

Why qould anyone want further government restrictions applied?

I do not but it will happen whether we want it to or not.

 

[mtnwrunner]

I can't answer either of those questions as I am proficient with neither weapon. I could tell you what limits most compound bow shooters should be limited to but that's another subject. I've asked the LRH on here and they seem unwilling to give an answer to reasonable rational limitations on long range hunting so when shtf and rules are made should I take the "not my circus not my monkeys" approach because what's the point of sticking together as hunters then when they need help while now they just close ranks and don't wish to attempt a viable solution. Do I think LRH is unethical, absolutely not. Do I think the majority of the world will see it as unethical, yep.

live2hunt, I cordially invite you out to the state of Idaho the first week of June 2015. You are welcome to join our group of LR shooters and hunters on our annual week long rockchuck hunt. I think that maybe once you get behind a quality rifle and a group of guys that know what they are doing, you might just be enlightened somewhat and then after that, your question on what is "reasonable rational limitations" may change. It is absolute great practice and the farmers love it. And I'll answer your question that you pose to the LR guys. What is reasonable to me is WHATEVER distance that I can make a killing shot. My longest shot on a big game animal so far has been 762 yards. I passed up a 1187 yard shot this year on an outstanding mule deer due to the wind. If it wasn't for that, I would have very comfortably taken it and killed it. Every situation has its own limitations.

Randy

 

[Mark]

There isn't a thing any of us can do to appease an anti-hunter. Their agenda is to shut us down. I tend to ignore their ideals and agenda and I'll elaborate on that.

There is no reason for us as to ever consider anti-hunters as a reasonable group because they will stop at nothing short of putting us out of business. They don't want us to hunt differently, they want us to stop hunting all together. Thankfully, most agree that they are nothing more than a group of extremists that place a higher regard on animal life than they do human life. The only exception is that they hold a higher regard for their deep pocket celebrity poster children who financially support them. Without them they would have to get real jobs. Sure, they're well funded by those celebrities, but their politics and radical solutions are too extreme to be taken seriously. We're fortunate in that we have [mostly] reasonable people running the states wildlife programs.

The group of non-hunters that are mostly reasonable people are who help us stay in business. They don't really care what we do and they have a reasonable understanding of the wildlife management ecosystem that we are a part of. There are far more of them than there are hunters and animal rights extremists combined.

When hunting companies and hunting organizations put out statements on their stance for the current cause it does nothing more than divide us and bring unwanted negative attention to the non-hunters. I could not care any less about Easton's opinion, P&Y stance/opinions/rules and asterisks, or B&C stance/opinions/rules and asterisks. There will be fallout for their written stance and I won't support any of them financially or otherwise. I know they'll all do fine without my meager donations, but I won't support a hunting community that effectively turned their back on me to appease the enemy. There are plenty of people that are in Easton's, P&Y and B&C's folds that could easily be called hypocrites for their written stance vs. their unwritten stance.

In my humble opinion, the worst enemy we're facing is exposed right here in this thread; hunters against hunters.

Hunters as a whole should not encourage more rules and regulations on how we hunt. When the time comes that others want to push their agenda on us, we should unite and fight as one group of hunters rather than divided over weapons choice or the distance that we choose to shoot. It shouldn't matter to us as a united group what distance we choose to take a shot and what weapon we choose to hunt with. We share a common interest and we better cover each other's back. If we don't, our way of life is going to become further restricted and pretty soon we'll put ourselves out of business. Dig in your heels and fight as a cohesive group or we may all lose.

 

[charvey9]

I grew up rifle hunting and long range shooting. 300, 600, 1000 yards, and have done some open F-class competition. Its fun, and takes a lot of skill as a shooter to make a shot at those distances. I think you can be both a good hunter and a good shooter, but there is no denying that some of the challenge in hunting wild game is removed as you get farther away from your target.

I'd like to think that a good hunter would take that skill advantage as a shooter and use it as an opportunity to challenge themselves in other ways. Going farther, hunting longer and into more remote areas that equipment would not allow them to successfully hunt before. While I believe this is true for some, it certainly is not for the majority.

However, there is no way around it. Equipment will continue to make all forms of hunting easier to some degree. Eventually it comes down to the individual, what level of challenge they want to experience while hunting, and what their ultimate goals are. There will always be debate, but difference of opinion is not a bad thing. Peole can disagree on topics without the world coming to an end.

On a personal level, I gave up rifle hunting for the most part several years ago. Last animal I harvested with a rifle was a 180 yard chip shot on a blacktail, and although it was a nice buck and a lot of work getting it packed out it left me feeling a little underwhelmed. I can shoot very well at long ranges, and came to the conclusion that harvesting with a rifle left many of the things I loved about hunting out of play. I have been a bow hunter since, and although success has not been as high I do feel better about my time in woods. All that being said, I'm sure I will rifle hunt again in my life when I feel the other challenges justify the need for me.

I love shooting and even have an FFL, firearms are part of my life. I will never tell another person how to hunt, however, I tend to agree with the statements the BCC. Couldn't have said it better myself that distancing yourself from the animal "effectively eliminates the natural capacity of an animal to use its senses and instincts to detect danger, and demeans the hunter/prey relationship in a way that diminishes the importance and relevance of the animal and the hunt."

 

[jmez]

Then you have the guy who tips his arrows so that he doesn't have to shoot well, in fact so he could intentionally take bad shots and still kill his game. The latter would surely put hunters in a bad light quickly and the antis would have a ton of fuel against bow hunting period.

You absolutely do not set up any rules regulations, restrictions based on this logic. This guy does not care. This is the same guy that is going to put the the poison tips on his arrows regardless of any law that says he can or can't. This guy is not going to change. Having laws in place won't change him and if he is putting hunters in a bad light either way.

The giving the antis fuel argument is also a wash. You are giving the antis fuel because you are a hunter. You are giving the antis fuel by participating in a hunting forum. You are giving the antis fuel by killing animals within the laws using a moral code. You are giving the antis fuel because you kill animals, period. The antis should require no consideration or thought. One thing will please them, ending all hunting and all animal use, period. If you aren't willing to go to those lengths then forget them in the argument.

 

[jmez]

Why qould anyone want further government restrictions applied?

Good question. Sadly, it seems about 90% of our society nowdays looks for big brother to do their thinking for them.

 

[William Hanson (live2hunt)]

live2hunt, I cordially invite you out to the state of Idaho the first week of June 2015. You are welcome to join our group of LR shooters and hunters on our annual week long rockchuck hunt. I think that maybe once you get behind a quality rifle and a group of guys that know what they are doing, you might just be enlightened somewhat and then after that, your question on what is "reasonable rational limitations" may change. It is absolute great practice and the farmers love it. And I'll answer your question that you pose to the LR guys. What is reasonable to me is WHATEVER distance that I can make a killing shot. My longest shot on a big game animal so far has been 762 yards. I passed up a 1187 yard shot this year on an outstanding mule deer due to the wind. If it wasn't for that, I would have very comfortably taken it and killed it. Every situation has its own limitations.

Randy

I'd love to take you up on the offer and maybe I will. I will have to see how the year pans out.

There isn't a thing any of us can do to appease an anti-hunter. Their agenda is to shut us down. I tend to ignore their ideals and agenda and I'll elaborate on that.

There is no reason for us as to ever consider anti-hunters as a reasonable group because they will stop at nothing short of putting us out of business. They don't want us to hunt differently, they want us to stop hunting all together. Thankfully, most agree that they are nothing more than a group of extremists that place a higher regard on animal life than they do human life. The only exception is that they hold a higher regard for their deep pocket celebrity poster children who financially support them. Without them they would have to get real jobs. Sure, they're well funded by those celebrities, but their politics and radical solutions are too extreme to be taken seriously. We're fortunate in that we have [mostly] reasonable people running the states wildlife programs.

The group of non-hunters that are mostly reasonable people are who help us stay in business. They don't really care what we do and they have a reasonable understanding of the wildlife management ecosystem that we are a part of. There are far more of them than there are hunters and animal rights extremists combined.

When hunting companies and hunting organizations put out statements on their stance for the current cause it does nothing more than divide us and bring unwanted negative attention to the non-hunters. I could not care any less about Easton's opinion, P&Y stance/opinions/rules and asterisks, or B&C stance/opinions/rules and asterisks. There will be fallout for their written stance and I won't support any of them financially or otherwise. I know they'll all do fine without my meager donations, but I won't support a hunting community that effectively turned their back on me to appease the enemy. There are plenty of people that are in Easton's, P&Y and B&C's folds that could easily be called hypocrites for their written stance vs. their unwritten stance.

In my humble opinion, the worst enemy we're facing is exposed right here in this thread; hunters against hunters.

Hunters as a whole should not encourage more rules and regulations on how we hunt. When the time comes that others want to push their agenda on us, we should unite and fight as one group of hunters rather than divided over weapons choice or the distance that we choose to shoot. It shouldn't matter to us as a united group what distance we choose to take a shot and what weapon we choose to hunt with. We share a common interest and we better cover each other's back. If we don't, our way of life is going to become further restricted and pretty soon we'll put ourselves out of business. Dig in your heels and fight as a cohesive group or we may all lose.

My point was not worrying so much about the antis but rather the non hunters that would have their opinions swayed by antis with the appropriate argument. Also as far as more regulation, I didn't see any of us in disagreement with Alaska fish and game banning the use of drones yet that is more regulation. You speak of sticking together as hunters which is all fine and good as long as it is on a subject that we agree with or on a hunting method that affects us right? Make no mistake conservation is regulation, whether by oneself or by state imposed laws. Without regulation our deer herds were decimated and elk hunted to extinction through most of the country. There has to be a middle ground where lines are drawn and rules are established without being overly burdensome or hunting methods get pushed to the point of abuse and the law of commons takes effect.

You absolutely do not set up any rules regulations, restrictions based on this logic. This guy does not care. This is the same guy that is going to put the the poison tips on his arrows regardless of any law that says he can or can't. This guy is not going to change. Having laws in place won't change him and if he is putting hunters in a bad light either way.

The giving the antis fuel argument is also a wash. You are giving the antis fuel because you are a hunter. You are giving the antis fuel by participating in a hunting forum. You are giving the antis fuel by killing animals within the laws using a moral code. You are giving the antis fuel because you kill animals, period. The antis should require no consideration or thought. One thing will please them, ending all hunting and all animal use, period. If you aren't willing to go to those lengths then forget them in the argument.

I respectfully disagree. You don't set speed limits for the guy that drives 70 miles an hour anyway, you set them for the one that drives 100. Laws are meant to rein in the extremists.

 

[jmez]

Speed limits don't deter the guy that drives 100. He's going to do it anyway. The extremists don't follow the law.

Laws are in place to have a means to punish extremists.

 

[Justin Crossley]

I do not but it will happen whether we want it to or not.

It will as long as we have "hunters" saying some of the things you're saying. I'm really starting to wonder if you're just trying to divide everyone.

 

[Mark]

It will as long as we have "hunters" saying some of the things you're saying. I'm really starting to wonder if you're just trying to divide everyone.

There comes a time in a healthy debate where one should concede, or at least agree to disagree. I hope that time comes sooner rather than later.

 

[Bribow]

Let's see how you "long range" guys feel about what we witnessed in Colorado 2nd season this year. We had the displeasure of meeting one of the 2 owners of Red Rock in the backcountry on a ridge. A brief discussion lead to us telling him we were going after a buck below for my buddies son. He said ok and off he went with his camera crew. Some time later shots started ringing out from the other side of the knife ridge. Here was Red Rock owner shooting at a buck from 1320 yards!!! After 5 shots, the buck slowly walked away. Mr Red Rock..HE WALKED AWAY ALSO..NEVER WENT TO CHECK FOR BLOOD!!!!! Sickening! He could have easily closed the gap to 700-800 yards. It was pure ego and about nothing but selling guns! At that distance the bullet wouldn't have even opened up. Luckily he did walk away because had he come back there likely would have been a fight on the ridge. Ironically, I and another buddy were talking to the other partner and planning to buy two of their guns. NOT NOW!

Completely unethical behavior and we plan to let spread the word as far and wide as possible!

 

[jmez]

Why would you associate what happened with the "long range" guys? I have witnessed countless acts of completely unethical behavior by firearms hunters. Should I then randomly come on a website and automatically group you in with those "gun hunters?"

 

[Rick Leathley]

I would hate to see legal limits. It should all be about personal choice. How how you want with what you want.

That said I think most reasonable people agree the LRH is not fair chase. That not to say LRH isn't without effort. You shoot a bull from a thousand yards 5 miles into the back country you still have to pack that animal out. You still had to attain the ability to shoot that far.

If B&C wants to exclude LRH from their records I think that's fine and if a B&C entry is important you can choose what distance to shoot from.

 

[MattB]

Rick, agreed.

I am not so sure that B&C wants to exclude anything, but more suggesting hunters should exercise self-restraint under existing hunting regulations lest the non-hunting public decide to subject us to more stringent laws/regulations to limit/prohibit hunting activities deemed unethical or not fair chase. Unfortunately, we are seeing more and more public/politician-contrived legislation that is totally outside the of DF&G/DNR's regulations that impact hunting (e.g. CA bill that placed a prohibition on using hounds to hunt bear).

 

[boom]

I grew up rifle hunting and long range shooting. 300, 600, 1000 yards, and have done some open F-class competition. Its fun, and takes a lot of skill as a shooter to make a shot at those distances. I think you can be both a good hunter and a good shooter, but there is no denying that some of the challenge in hunting wild game is removed as you get farther away from your target.

I'd like to think that a good hunter would take that skill advantage as a shooter and use it as an opportunity to challenge themselves in other ways. Going farther, hunting longer and into more remote areas that equipment would not allow them to successfully hunt before. While I believe this is true for some, it certainly is not for the majority.

However, there is no way around it. Equipment will continue to make all forms of hunting easier to some degree. Eventually it comes down to the individual, what level of challenge they want to experience while hunting, and what their ultimate goals are. There will always be debate, but difference of opinion is not a bad thing. Peole can disagree on topics without the world coming to an end.

On a personal level, I gave up rifle hunting for the most part several years ago. Last animal I harvested with a rifle was a 180 yard chip shot on a blacktail, and although it was a nice buck and a lot of work getting it packed out it left me feeling a little underwhelmed. I can shoot very well at long ranges, and came to the conclusion that harvesting with a rifle left many of the things I loved about hunting out of play. I have been a bow hunter since, and although success has not been as high I do feel better about my time in woods. All that being said, I'm sure I will rifle hunt again in my life when I feel the other challenges justify the need for me.

I love shooting and even have an FFL, firearms are part of my life. I will never tell another person how to hunt, however, I tend to agree with the statements the BCC. Couldn't have said it better myself that distancing yourself from the animal "effectively eliminates the natural capacity of an animal to use its senses and instincts to detect danger, and demeans the hunter/prey relationship in a way that diminishes the importance and relevance of the animal and the hunt."

This is well said. I'm out!
It's all good. Fun and challenge is up to each of our own interpretation.

 

[Shrek]

The only asshats that are asking for regulatory action is other hunters. The absolute worst kind of people. People who feel the need to impose their ethics and personal standards on others. If it's legal then it's none of your business how and what they do. As long as their actions are not damaging the population then I'm fine with it. If you kill your dinner and decor at 5 feet of 5280+ feet it's not my business. Go punch your tag and stop worrying how other people punch theirs. You don't have to be their buddy but public statements and crying are not helpful to preserving hunting. Anti hunting types are not in the field and know absolutely nothing about what goes on except for what we tell them.

 

[WonkyWapiti]

One team, one fight! I hunt and I welcome all my hunting brethren in choosing their own ethical methods of hunting. I've killed animals with my bow, my muzzleloader, and my modern rifle. It is incumbent on every hunter to hunt within their own personal limits. All of us on this forum are all very passionate about our hunting lifestyle or we wouldn't be taking the time to post here. I have no doubt each of us can pick apart and give examples of ass hat behavior that has been witnessed using any hunting method. We need to police our own and continue to educate and mentor the less experienced among us.

I don't care if an animal makes "book" as my good buddy is really into. That's his thing and it's ok. I mounted a deer that some people wondered why I was mounting it and not waiting for a bigger one. To me it's about the memory and the hard work and celebrating that animal every day I get to look at it while it is hanging on my wall and that is why I had it mounted. It's all about the stories and the memories of hunting with my friends and my family. It's all about getting together at the end of the year for our annual hunter's Christmas party where I see all my old buddies and meet new people. The one thing that I've always found amazing is that no matter where I've gone and met a hunter I've always had an instant bond and have been able to have an awesome conversation sharing our experiences. There's room enough in the woods for everyone, well except for maybe my spot up at No'Tellem Creek.

One team, one fight!

 

[Mark]

That said I think most reasonable people agree the LRH is not fair chase.

I'm reasonable and I adamantly disagree with that statement. I guess that leaves me out of the "most" club.

 

[William Hanson (live2hunt)]

So are all you folks saying no regulation also saying we should drop the regulations against drones or all regulations for that matter? Really what is the difference between this and other methods currently regulated, other than this is the preferred method of your choosing? There are plenty of other regulated methods out there with just as much room for discussion as LRH.