Listen to guides when loading for big game

[fngTony]

The root problem is honestly a generational one. Guys in (or close to) the Boomer generation sometimes don't understand the information age. What they see as wisdom dispensed from sages on high, we see as 'yeah, whatever', because we've had access to so much information over so much time - the internet has been in the hands of the masses for 30 years now - that we're no longer impressed. The advice in the OP might have been worth its weight in gold in 1958. Now? It's just not. What the OP regards as cherished wisdom, we see as an unverified single data point - AKA, an anecdote. And people don't have patience for it, particularly on a forum known for aggregating such data, and doubly so when the OP tried to sort of low-key soft-pitch an idea that contradicts what has been fleshed out with an absolutely massive amount of real-world data here as if his very shaky and unreliable n=1 data (anecdote) point from an unverified secondhand source trumped that mountain of data. It doesn't. There's a lot of downsides to the internet but nobody wants to go back to the dark ages of needing to ask 'experts' on opinions for everything when we could instead have mountains of data at our fingertips and be able to draw educated, reliable conclusions. OP is asking us to ignore literally thousands of pages of documentation of bullet successes and failures (even failures where the animal was still recovered anyway and the actual failures can be quantified in meaningful terms, not just speculated) in favor of his secondhand anecdotes. Then, worse, he wants us to assume that any guide we might talk to is as smart as his guide that has all that experience with shale-armored goats. Then when people confront him about it he starts the name-calling and personal attacks, then when staff steps in and ask everyone to stop, he continues the name calling:
View attachment 968929It's downright bizarre and contrary to the reasons I joined this forum. If people want to gather 'round and pool their ignorance let them do it elsewhere.
Also, to the point of the last post above mine, posted while I was typing this:

No, it is not a shame that the guy was called out. It would have been a shame *not to*.

Definitely some generational differences. I’ll add that while we’re in the Information age we are struggling to process the speed and quantity of it. We struggle to accept that there can be a spectrum of truth within a given subject. We are also leaning towards a dismissive first mentality likely as a defensive mechanism against information burnout. I say that towards society in general not specifically to this thread or subject.

 

[Macintosh]

Guides are human, just like anyone else, and have the same variation in focus, mindset, attention to detail, ability to understand and articulate ideas, etc as every other profession. Not everyone is interested in the nuance of exploring every facet of a topic if they have a way that works. Tons of people have a lot of experience and yet make inaccurate conclusions, just as one example based on attributing what they see to something correlated, but not causative. I worked in a very technical field for 2 decades and worked with and trained literally hundreds of climbing and ski guides, many of whom had not only lots of experience but also formal education and certification in that field. They all offer something to their clients, but that does NOT mean they all have a scientific mind or that they are detailed or curious enough to know whether what they are seeing is because of factor X or factor Y. I have been privy to dozens of conversations with competent and highly respected guides in their field, who didnt have even a basic understanding of the nuance of how their equipment worked (behind the scenes, not the practical application of the equipment) and why it worked the way it did (or why it didnt). Consequently they can easily and commonly do end up making conclusions that are simply false, and easily proven so.
That does NOT mean they are giving clients advice that will result in a bad outcome. It simply means that “their way” is not at all the “only way” to achieve that good outcome. Their job is to facilitate that good outcome, and there are many paths toward that objective. Sometimes the nuance of one part of that objective gets lost or un-noticed in the long list of topics needing to be addressed.

I dont think this is new or controversial info. I do think if a legit guide tells you that “this is the way”, there is an extremely high likelihood it will work. What I DONT think is a valid conclusion all the time is to assume thats the ONLY way to achieve the same outcome, or to always blindly listen to WHY they think that is the way.

 

[BCDJR]

The root problem is honestly a generational one. Guys in (or close to) the Boomer generation sometimes don't understand the information age. What they see as wisdom dispensed from sages on high, we see as 'yeah, whatever', because we've had access to so much information over so much time - the internet has been in the hands of the masses for 30 years now - that we're no longer impressed. The advice in the OP might have been worth its weight in gold in 1958. Now? It's just not. What the OP regards as cherished wisdom, we see as an unverified single data point - AKA, an anecdote. And people don't have patience for it, particularly on a forum known for aggregating such data, and doubly so when the OP tried to sort of low-key soft-pitch an idea that contradicts what has been fleshed out with an absolutely massive amount of real-world data here as if his very shaky and unreliable n=1 data (anecdote) point from an unverified secondhand source trumped that mountain of data. It doesn't. There's a lot of downsides to the internet but nobody wants to go back to the dark ages of needing to ask 'experts' on opinions for everything when we could instead have mountains of data at our fingertips and be able to draw educated, reliable conclusions. OP is asking us to ignore literally thousands of pages of documentation of bullet successes and failures (even failures where the animal was still recovered anyway and the actual failures can be quantified in meaningful terms, not just speculated) in favor of his secondhand anecdotes. Then, worse, he wants us to assume that any guide we might talk to is as smart as his guide that has all that experience with shale-armored goats. Then when people confront him about it he starts the name-calling and personal attacks, then when staff steps in and ask everyone to stop, he continues the name calling:
View attachment 968929It's downright bizarre and contrary to the reasons I joined this forum. If people want to gather 'round and pool their ignorance let them do it elsewhere.
Also, to the point of the last post above mine, posted while I was typing this:

No, it is not a shame that the guy was called out. It would have been a shame *not to*.

Your comments are at the root of the problem on this site when trying promote a civilized discussion. You use the term “ CALLED OUT” if that language doesn’t sound confrontational then I don’t know what does. Then you and others make cartoons trying to ridicule him. Do you and others think these cartoon posts make you look reasonable and mature? Everyone should have an opinion and we all should be willing to listen. But remember it’s your opinion and should not be used to attack others….perhaps to position your point within the context. You finally comment ….” People pool their ignorance….elsewhere not here” . That shows your personal ideas of superiority. So unless you pony up some bucks and buy this site you are going to have to see a lot of ignorant folks posting questions and comments….me included!

 

[alexnelon]

Guides generally spend so much time dealing with clients who don't know how to tie their boots without help that they (the guides) develop a subconscious expectation that each new client will also be a clueless bumpkin who needs to be hand-held every step of the way.

Expecting incompetence leads them to make suggestions, especially on equipment, that leave the most possible margin for error.

That's why "300 WM, bonded bullet, 200 yards or less" is the fudd creed.

 

[sndmn11]

As far as the OP posting what he learned…..no way in hell I would do that in any depth…it just opens up the haters once again to jump on his comments again.

I'd love to hear what you have learned. I haven't seen anyone jump on comments in a hateful manner when they are presented objectively. Especially when there is any sort of attempt at testing. If you present it objectively, I can understand your experiences easier, add them to my own, add them to what I understand from others, and then some days am smart enough to come to my own conclusions.

 

[Chris in TN]

Your comments are at the root of the problem on this site when trying promote a civilized discussion. You use the term “ CALLED OUT” if that language doesn’t sound confrontational then I don’t know what does. Then you and others make cartoons trying to ridicule him. Do you and others think these cartoon posts make you look reasonable and mature? Everyone should have an opinion and we all should be willing to listen. But remember it’s your opinion and should not be used to attack others….perhaps to position your point within the context. You finally comment ….” People pool their ignorance….elsewhere not here” . That shows your personal ideas of superiority. So unless you pony up some bucks and buy this site you are going to have to see a lot of ignorant folks posting questions and comments….me included!

You're calling me out for using the phrase 'call out'. lol. That's hilarious.

Also, cartoon photos are funny. Humor is a mechanism for defusing awkward or tense situations and you're darned right I did so at OP's expense, because he was the exact person who caused the issue. He posted something absurd. People called him out on it and he went off on a rant about them - not him, the guy who started the thread, but the people pointing out his error - playing into the hands of anti-hunters and so on. Then he went on to justify this by saying something along the lines of 'if you come at me with a campfire I'll start a forest fire'.

What you fail to grasp here is that the OP started the thread, then started the escalation (campfire --> forest fire, in his own words). So at that point posting funny images (and if you didn't find that goat picture funny we can't be friends because you have no sense of humor) is a way to defuse the thread, give people something to laugh at and by doing so give the OP a subtle hint that maybe his shale-goat story isn't going to go as well as he thought and, if he were the sort of guy who picks up on hints, he could have walked it back. But instead of picking up on the hints (and there were a lot of them), he doubled down, and continued to do so, even continuing to insult us (assuming we're democrats? lol) even while talking to staff.

There is no reason on earth to ignore such cognitive dissonance. There's benign ignorance that can be ignored, but when the guy starts attacking people - then continues it with no self-awareness whatsoever - frankly, I'm at a loss for why he wasn't banned or the thread wasn't locked. It's just bizarre to see. I'd expect it on other forums. And if having some sort of standards makes me guilty of having 'personal ideas of superiority'......I'll bear that guilt if that's what you want to call it. Iron sharpens iron, or, in this context, maybe shale sharpens shale. OP walked in here kicking around a lot of rocks. He started throwing them at other posters here:

W

Post in thread 'Listen to guides when loading for big game'

Sunday at 8:25 AM

This is weak. You threw it out there. So tells us what these experts say.

Listen JFK69 - send me a private message and I will tell you all I know. The problem with these forums is some are not intelligent enough to know that fighting over which bullet is best, which gun manufacturer is best, which bow is best, which broadhead shoots the best, which animal is the hardest to hunt, etc. etc. is that it divides the hunting community. Do you know who that benefits? The anti hunters and those against the second amendment. Rather than telling me, someone who is likely on your...

• WVELK

• 

....with his 'one of your three brain cells' comments.

At that point, his entire schtick became indefensible. It would have been simply, morally wrong, not to call him out. Period.