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

[Travis Bertrand]

If we keep breaking out in all of these subcategories of hunting, it makes us weaker as a hunting community. Who cares how someone hunts as long as they are hunting and doing it ethically.

 

[William Hanson (live2hunt)]

The problem lies with where do you draw the line of when it is no longer fair chase or no longer hunting period? No one takes a stab at that, but at some point someone has to define it. Sam? Ryan? Anyone?

I assure you if we do not push to define it ourselves, government bureaucrats will.

 

[MattB]

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.

If you think an animal has the same ability to use its senses to evade a hunter at 100 yards as 700 yards, I will concede the point.

It seems you are most focused on the equipment used for the shot and are diminishing - or more specifically ignoring - the skills used to get into position to take the shot in the first place.

 

[jmez]

This thread is typical with society's thinking in general nowadays. Technology is only bad and unfair when it something you don't use. Anything you use or agree with is justifiable. Any modern bowhunter deriding others methods as unfair or too "technologically advanced" is simply laughable. Any modern "hunter" doing the same is laughable. How does one use the technological advancements available in their chosen method and scoff at others for doing the same?

What is fair chase? Is there such a thing anymore? You want fair, go build your own equipment by hand and match wits with your quarry on their terms and levels. That's fair. Otherwise get off your high horse trying to impose your definitions on others. I'm strictly a bowhunter. Have been for years. If someone has the skill, equipment and desire to shoot something at 1000 + yards, that's pretty neat. I'm glad they have an outdoor pursuit they are good at and that they enjoy. I have no desire to base my pursuits or the pursuits of others based on what non hunters think. They don't like or approve of any method, be it 10 yards or 1000. The people in the middle don't care so much about fair. They don't hunt, they don't understand fair. They care about humane and ethical kills and utilizing the animal.

 

[Sam Millard]

The problem lies with where do you draw the line of when it is no longer fair chase or no longer hunting period? No one takes a stab at that, but at some point someone has to define it. Sam? Ryan? Anyone?

I assure you if we do not push to define it ourselves, government bureaucrats will.

I think the "fair chase" thing isn't really definitive. If I sit still downwind of a buck, it doesn't matter if he's 50 yards or 500 from me. I've taken away his ability to detect me. Our brains are the greatest tool we have, not the toys. Technology will always progress and humans will always use it. I think you guys have been duped into thinking we use it more than everybody else and that somehow we just get out of the truck and can kill anything we can see because of it. I am going to walk in tomorrow morning and "try" to get a shot on a mature muley buck from 400-1200 yards, but I can assure you it's up to him much more than me or my technology.

If the definition is that the animal has a "reasonable chance to escape", it certainly applies to how I hunt, whether near or far. It's my job to take that away from him He has a much better chance at 1200 than 200 yards!

I think B&C should stuff it. Antis don't like anything we do and non hunters don't care as long as they don't hear about it. So far, all I hear is B&C running their FB mouths. I helped fight Prop 2 in Idaho back in 1996. They were trying to kill the spring bear hunt as well as hound and bait hunting. We barely won (in Idaho!!!). It divided hunters because the vast majority of them didn't participate in the methods under attack. It was classic divide and conquer. I just expect it from HSUS, not B&C!

 

[Ryan Avery]

Matt, I have found it much easier to hunt/kill animals(mostly Elk) with a bow than with a LR rifle. So maybe that's the problem.

 

[lonedave]

As a realtive newby to this siteI really hesitate to post on this topic. Let me also say I have no beef with any legal method of hunting as I'm sure they all have or have had a place. I don't hunt the same areas as others just as they don't hunt the areas I may frequent. Every piece of land is different. Where I may have several square miles or several hundred square miles to hunt, some may only have permission on a 5 acre plot. I have a hard time believing you can't get closer than 800 yards from an animal, but I've probably not ever been to that location either, so I really can't be 100% certain.

I've often thought about this topic of hunting animals-vs-shooting animals and in my mind the one technology that seems to be the dividing point to me is range finding technology. I know there have been many methods that hunters have used to approximate ranges for years, but using lasers to pinpoint the exact range to the animal would be the point that would make or break most anyone in the long range arena. Again, I realize there are some very good judges of long range, just like there are those guys (or gals) that just plain have the ability to shoot and hit at those same ranges. I tip my hat to those folks. Is it hunting? You bet. They are using their talents to hit at long range just like I'd use whatever talent I may have to hit the same animal at much closer ranges with whatever weapon I happen to be using. The item that I come back to is the laser ranging device that allows a lot of us (myself definitely included) to hunt at ranges that are really beyond our abilities.

I'm sure there has been the same debate going on for much longer than laser range finders have been around, but for me, this one tool would be where I'd make the distinction between hunting and shooting. That's just me though. I would say one other thing. As we continue to loose more and more hunting ground every year, we hunters are being crowded more and more, so either lease dollars or technology takes over and what areas are left make us fight one another more and more rather than who we should really be fighting. I believe we as hunters need to take a good hard look at technologies and take a stand at some point. I think like it or not, we'll all have to decide with our collective gut, what is acceptable and what isn't.

Sorry for my somewhat long winded post, but this subject has perplexed me for quite a while and continues to do so. Now back to your regularly scheduled show!

Dave

 

[jmez]

So when we buy a tag, spend thousands of dollars, numerous hours, etc, etc, etc. Are we doing that to go hunting or are we doing that to go "shoot" an animal?
Hunting vs shooting. If it is all about the hunt and not about shooting, killing, harvesting, whatever you like to call it, why not save the tag fee and take a camera? For some, it is about the shooting. For those, they are far more comfortable killing animals than those trying to justify how "hard" their chosen method may be.

You get within 30 yards of an animal with modern archery equipment, make no mistake, that is shooting, not hunting. Yeah but you got within 30 yards didn't you? If you can't pick out a tree that a whitetail deer is going to walk by at thirty yards or less over the span of three months, then you, well then I've got nothing for you. Is that hunting and fair chase? Yes, and yes, it is also easy and takes little to no effort.

 

[Sam Millard]

As a realtive newby to this siteI really hesitate to post on this topic. Let me also say I have no beef with any legal method of hunting as I'm sure they all have or have had a place. I don't hunt the same areas as others just as they don't hunt the areas I may frequent. Every piece of land is different. Where I may have several square miles or several hundred square miles to hunt, some may only have permission on a 5 acre plot. I have a hard time believing you can't get closer than 800 yards from an animal, but I've probably not ever been to that location either, so I really can't be 100% certain.

I've often thought about this topic of hunting animals-vs-shooting animals and in my mind the one technology that seems to be the dividing point to me is range finding technology. I know there have been many methods that hunters have used to approximate ranges for years, but using lasers to pinpoint the exact range to the animal would be the point that would make or break most anyone in the long range arena. Again, I realize there are some very good judges of long range, just like there are those guys (or gals) that just plain have the ability to shoot and hit at those same ranges. I tip my hat to those folks. Is it hunting? You bet. They are using their talents to hit at long range just like I'd use whatever talent I may have to hit the same animal at much closer ranges with whatever weapon I happen to be using. The item that I come back to is the laser ranging device that allows a lot of us (myself definitely included) to hunt at ranges that are really beyond our abilities.

I'm sure there has been the same debate going on for much longer than laser range finders have been around, but for me, this one tool would be where I'd make the distinction between hunting and shooting. That's just me though. I would say one other thing. As we continue to loose more and more hunting ground every year, we hunters are being crowded more and more, so either lease dollars or technology takes over and what areas are left make us fight one another more and more rather than who we should really be fighting. I believe we as hunters need to take a good hard look at technologies and take a stand at some point. I think like it or not, we'll all have to decide with our collective gut, what is acceptable and what isn't.

Sorry for my somewhat long winded post, but this subject has perplexed me for quite a while and continues to do so. Now back to your regularly scheduled show!

Dave

You are 100% correct that the LRF has been the most useful tool for the LR hunter, but...guys around here were shooting elk from ridge to ridge (800-1000 yards) years before the average person had access to them. These guys would scout out openings that other hunters would push the elk through and shoot to them to figure out how to zero for it, then when opening day came they staked out the openings. The LRF didn't enable us, but it certainly made LR hunting MORE ethical by providing exact yardage to the animal rather than a SWAG according to previous data accumulated by actually shooting to the hillside.

I gotta tell ya, I've seen and heard about way more piss poor shots with wounded and lost animals from shots taken under 200 yards than the long ones we take. Are we going to say rifle hunting is unethical or not really hunting at all?

 

[mtnwrunner]

The problem lies with where do you draw the line of when it is no longer fair chase or no longer hunting period? No one takes a stab at that, but at some point someone has to define it. Sam? Ryan? Anyone?

I assure you if we do not push to define it ourselves, government bureaucrats will.

Well, once again, it's back to the problem/definition----what is long range hunting?? I'm actually beginning to hate the term. I am a hunter, period. I am a shooter, period. As the old saying goes, "another man's floor is another man's ceiling." One person can hit a target at 500 yards and another person can't. One person can pass shoot ducks, another one can't. One person can shoot a 6 inch group with arrows at 70 yards, another person can't.
As has been said before, it is all up to the individual. The one question that I can answer for sure is that if I take a shot at an animal at 1000 yards, it is hunting. I've done my homework, sweated my ass off, done my research, practiced my skills, and lived for the moment all year long. Yup, it's hunting.

Randy

And for live2hunt----I'm sure glad you ain't a cowboys fan

 

[tipsntails7]

So when we buy a tag, spend thousands of dollars, numerous hours, etc, etc, etc. Are we doing that to go hunting or are we doing that to go "shoot" an animal?
Hunting vs shooting. If it is all about the hunt and not about shooting, killing, harvesting, whatever you like to call it, why not save the tag fee and take a camera? For some, it is about the shooting. For those, they are far more comfortable killing animals than those trying to justify how "hard" their chosen method may be.

You get within 30 yards of an animal with modern archery equipment, make no mistake, that is shooting, not hunting. Yeah but you got within 30 yards didn't you? If you can't pick out a tree that a whitetail deer is going to walk by at thirty yards or less over the span of three months, then you, well then I've got nothing for you. Is that hunting and fair chase? Yes, and yes, it is also easy and takes little to no effort.

Jmez I think you make a couple of interesting statements but for me shootig or the kill does not define a hunt. Yes I love shooting animals, and I really love eating them but I've come back from several outings with out game and had some o my best memories to date.

As far as your bit about stand hunting while I personally don't like it, it takes a lot more effort then just picking a tree. Each discipline has a set of skills that are required. Tree Stand hunting is much much more about preparation and patience, patience I don't have to be honest. I've taken 2 Blacktails from a stand in oregon and it was probably the 2 worst days in the field for me. It's boring to so in a stand over and over again for hours on end. But it still takes a skill level, LR shooting I would imagine focuses much more on making the shot and becoming proficient with their weapon that's not to say they don't have to be good hunters but it is less important then the ability to shoot their weapon. Spot and stalk archery requires the ability to get close among other things.

All these disciplines take the same skills they just Vary in importance of proficiency but to say that one discipline of hunting takes little to no effort is exactly what people do to the LR huntin crowd when in actuality neither are true.

 

[tipsntails7]

Matt, I have found it much easier to hunt/kill animals(mostly Elk) with a bow than with a LR rifle. So maybe that's the problem.

Ryan would you say that could be biased because of your geography and on obviously the time of year at which you hunt them with each weapon?

 

[Matt W.]

Hunting, ethics, methods; lots of debate here.. But, if it is legal we need to band together as hunters.

I am all for folks who practice to cleanly take an animal, whether it be 10 yards or 1000 yards. I've seen some AMAZING long range archery shots (Rebeca Francis's Dall Sheep for one). For me I'm limited because of my equipment and skills. For those that practice and pursue a passion I am excited for them, whether it be a smoke pole, a bow, a crossbow, or a LRH rig. As hunters we need to ban together to promote hunting, not pick apart methods.

Some folks don't agree with bear baiting or chasing cougars with dogs. As such it is now illegal in a lot of areas and the ability to "manage game" has been hurt. My family has been hunting near Okanagon, WA since the 1950s. The area we hunt was productive, but not known for monster bucks. However, cougars, wolves, and bear have moved in and the Mule Deer are scattered and greatly reduced. Laws that made chasing these predators illegal have a dire consequence for their prey.

Ethics in hunting are hard, we each have an ideal view of our passion, its hard to understand someone who views our shared passion differently. There are so many ways to hunt, many that seem odd to others. Growing a food plot, using game cameras, baiting, chasing with dogs, multiple weapon options, using a guide vs. DIY, the list goes on and on. A community divided is a community doomed to fail, as hunters we may not understand others method, but we should recognize their passion. We have to stand together, if we don't the antis will chip away at our rights one inch at a time. Embrace and support all legal methods of hunting, then use your opinion to choose the way you personally want to hunt. United we stand, divided we fall.....

 

[carpssublime]

I believe this all comes down to preference of the hunter. I myself would rather try and close the distance with my bow, however, I still get the rush when using my rifle. Every one is going to have their opinion regarding the topic and that opinion will be the correct one to each individual. I personally don't feel the need to back my opinion to anyone and will respect what other hunters believe in, whether I agree with them or not.

 

[BroodBuster]

The way I see it LRH is a self regulating endeavor. The pikers aren't successful as the idea of LRH is a whole lot easier than the execution.

I took up bow hunting because, here in Wa, gun season is so short and crowded that I felt luck was the number one reason for success. It just didn't feel like I was hunting deer being deer but rather deer running from one gunshot to the next. Whereas the LHR crowd is definitely hunting deer being deer. It doesn't hurt my perception of them being that I really only run into the LRH deep in the wilderness. Logging roads and LRH just don't go together.

Now I've met a few clueless LRH hunters but not nearly as many as I've met bow hunting.

As with all folks in America it's much better to judge one at a time rather than judging the group. Anyone who judges a group is a pea wit in my mind

 

[bigeasygator]

It boils down to different strokes for different folks I guess, and that right there is the problem because it's about impossible to find common ground. We all have our limits, whether it be our skill, the technology we employ, or the ethics and morals we each hold. I see both sides, and struggle to come to terms with all of the points on either side of the fence, and most of that has been shaped by my personal experience.

Most of my hunting lately has been elk hunting (I get to do a trip or two a year). I'm 3 for 3 on rifle hunts (longest shot being ~200 yards) and 0 for 5 on bowhunts (despite all of the technology on my bow). I can tell you if I could shoot out to 1,000 yards my shot opportunities would have increased about 10 fold on elk -- I really struggle buying the argument that it's easier to kill something closer in than it is further away (assuming skill and technology are leveling the playing field at the various distances). This last week I had a second season rifle hunt in an OTC unit in CO. Conditions were tough and we struggled to find elk. We could walk up a fairly easy trail that looked across a canyon and see elk coming out of the timber feeding onto the opposite hillside. If we all could shoot 1,000 yards we would have all punched our tags -- but for me, it wouldn't feel like hunting. The elk that we did shoot we hiked up the aforementioned opposite hillside, through deadfall, found a position, and waited quietly as we knew we were well within the animal's comfort zone and needed to remain sharp so they didn't sense us -- for me that was hunting. Everyone of us has our own definitions.

The struggle with organizations like B&C, P&Y, and even to some extent Eastman's, is that they are trying to maintain a level playing field for all involved as well as driving for some type of common experience for their customer base. As other's have said, you have to draw the line somewhere. These organizations are trying to measure our ability to find, elude, and harvest game and to do it in a way that is comparing apples to apples. Again, where that line should be set is difficult to establish but there is merit in establishing it. I think all of us would say it's not really sporting to locate an animal with a drone, set up a weapon on some adjustable firing system a mile away, and then pull the trigger with the click of a mouse. I think all of us would also say that we don't need to be armed with a spear wearing nothing but a loin cloth to truly test our merits against the animals we chase. Use those two as extremes -- a "fair chase" hunting experience lies somewhere in the middle. I don't fault people for trying to define that.

 

[boom]

Some choose to get skilled at the long shots. Some choose to hone their skills at getting up close for the short shots. I get it. We shouldn't judge.

I do smile at some of the awesome camo I see on long range huntings shows. I'd wear whatever. Stay comfy.

 

[_Nick_]

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.

I think MattB states my general position quite eloquently. The issue is about 'fair chase' not whether it's unethical to take long-range shots on an animal. I enjoy the idea of maintaining some component of fair chase, seemingly like MattB. I don't plan on supporting any limits on long-range hunting as its currently practiced, though.

That said, norsepeak, we have to be careful in how we categorize the purpose of hunting. Hunting is indeed a management tool. But I would argue that management is not the purpose of hunting. The purpose of hunting is to enjoy the pursuit of the game and for hunters to put meat on the table. The reason I'm careful not to distill hunting down to merely management is that there are lots of other ways to manage game populations, none of which include hunters in the picture. Many anti-hunting organizations would love to see hunters replaced by these alternative management tools. If we aren't careful to specify why hunting itself is important, then the reintroduction of extirpated predators or the use of birth control on animal populations can serve largely the same function (see the management of Bison on Catalina Island).

So, to me, hunting is about the pursuit and ethical harvest of animals. Long range hunting leaves a little to be desired on the 'pursuit' front, as the 'fair chase' is somewhat diminished (see comments about jumping jacks above). However, in the hands of a capable shooter, it is certainly a way to ethically harvest animals and as such should remain legal, in my opinion. Poor archers wound animals, just like poor shooters, whatever the distance.

My $.02

 

[jmez]

Jmez I think you make a couple of interesting statements but for me shootig or the kill does not define a hunt. Yes I love shooting animals, and I really love eating them but I've come back from several outings with out game and had some o my best memories to date.

As far as your bit about stand hunting while I personally don't like it, it takes a lot more effort then just picking a tree. Each discipline has a set of skills that are required. Tree Stand hunting is much much more about preparation and patience, patience I don't have to be honest. I've taken 2 Blacktails from a stand in oregon and it was probably the 2 worst days in the field for me. It's boring to so in a stand over and over again for hours on end. But it still takes a skill level, LR shooting I would imagine focuses much more on making the shot and becoming proficient with their weapon that's not to say they don't have to be good hunters but it is less important then the ability to shoot their weapon. Spot and stalk archery requires the ability to get close among other things.

All these disciplines take the same skills they just Vary in importance of proficiency but to say that one discipline of hunting takes little to no effort is exactly what people do to the LR huntin crowd when in actuality neither are true.

I think that most hunters try to minimize the killing part of what we do. When we buy a license, we aren't paying for the right to hunt game. We are paying to kill game. You can hunt 24/7 365, you can only kill a couple months out of the year. We set up our schedules, vacations, finances etc based on the months where we can kill the animal. In that respect it doesn't make much sense to say the kill or killing isn't the defining point.

I know myself and a lot of outdoorsmen spend a lot of time in the woods year round. I enjoy being out there. I enjoy it more when I have the opportunity to kill an animal. I'm not out near as much in the off season, I don't prioritize to near the degree that I do in the season. I don't go out and "hunt" animals to just get close to them in the off season. Some may do these things to the same degree as they do in the season but I'd be willing to bet that number is extremely small.

 

[idelkslayer]

The purpose of hunting is to kill an animal for its meat and therefore any method of doing that is "hunting". Modern game laws prohibit certain methods that were viewed as acceptable in times past. Long range hunting is hunting but I also believe there is a distinction between long range shooters who use animals as targets and long range hunters. The long range hunter goes into the mountains prepared to kill an animal from 0 to x number of yards in accordance with his skill level. The long range shooter goes "hunting" with the goal of killing an animal at a certain range or greater. Sometimes I hear in conversation a hunter saying that he has the goal of killing his elk/deer at 500/800/1000 yards or greater that year. (I have heard some guys brag that they originally ranged an animal at closer than their goal distance and actually moved further away from the animal before taking the shot so they could say it was at x distance)To have that attitude is not hunting it is using an animal as a target.

However, the man who increases his shooting ability to be able to make shots out to 1000 yards and then goes into the mountains not with the goal of making a long range kill but only the ability to do so if the situation dictates it is much different.

So, in my opinion the distinction has less to do with the distance involved and more to do with the reasons behind the shot.

I grew up hunting the panhandle of idaho and I can attest that shots are usually either very close or very far, there aren't many places that offer that intermediate range. Having the ability to take a longer shot if needed could be the difference between success and failure.

The question of whether or not it is possible to get closer seems to be the other point of debate. Many are contending that if you can get closer you should get closer. I do not consider myself to be a long range hunter I practice out to 400 yards and all but one of my 30 or so big game animals have been killed inside of 300 yards and all but 3 of those were killed inside of 200. That being said, if I have an elk broadside at 200 yards I'm going to take the shot whether I could close the distance to within 100 yards or not because I know that I will make the 200 yard shot. If you have a deer dead to rights at 100 yards but you could move to 70 yards, should you? Is is unethical if you take the 100 yards shot when you could have gotten closer? I don't think anyone would say it was unethical or not hunting. If a long range hunter who is proficient out to 800 yards sees an elk at 700 yardsbut could get closer to say 500 yards should I expect him to move those 200 yards closer, especially given my 200 yard vs 100 yard scenario above?

Those arguing in favor of long range hunting need to give up the arguement about knowledge of their load and hours of practice and how many hundreds of rounds they fire in preparation. The knowledge and practice required to consistently hit your target at long ranges is not a hunting skill it is a shooting skill that translates well to certain hunting situations.

Again My opinion is that what matters is the attitude of the hunter, is he just trying to be prepared for when a situation requires a long shot or is he out to break personal range records? The former is hunting the latter is practicing on live targets.