long shots

[David Petersen]

#6039

Recently, in another thread, we cussed and discussed the current trend toward taking ever-longer shots with hi-tech “archery” gear. I noted that the current issue of the biggest “bow”hunting magazine has a banner on its cover proclaiming: “50 yard shots every time? 7 tips to make it happen.”

Clearly, bowhunting isn’t alone in the long-shot fad. The following letter was sent today by Valerius Geist to a Boone & Crockett committee that he and others are hoping will outlaw super-long shots in the B&C book. Although it’s about guns, as we read through we can see how totally parallel it is with our bowhunting situation. It’s a very long letter so I’ve shortened it some. The bold-faced part is Val’s and the red parts, if they show up here, are bits I hilited for emphasis. Now, to all the other erosive forces of hi-tech “bow”hunting we must add the media and industry-pushed craze for super long shots, and the general militarizing of hunting. How I wish P&Y would follow suit and ban book entries that were taken at extreme and unethical distances. But having approved high let-off compounds they kicked the ball in the wrong direction and I doubt we have much hope. Of course it would be hard to enforce, but at least it would keep the honest people honest and force the liars to lie even more Much to ponder … from Dr. Geist, below:

As you are aware, Daniel A. Pedrotti Jr., Chair of the Hunter Ethics Sub-Committee of the Boone & Crockett Club, issued a statement critical of extreme long-range shooting of big game. It was a most commendable act, and I called Dan to congratulate him on it. Also, Wayne van Zwoll has been counseling against extreme long range shooting, but in a diplomatic way that nevertheless left no doubt. I am, consequently including both Dan and Wayne in this e-mail. We agreed today that the Club can play an educational role and needs to address the issue further, as there are matters pertaining to excessive long range shooting I have never seen mentioned. Yet these are pertinent issues. If successful our Club will dampen current enthusiasm for such shooting, which appears to be gaining traction, apparently encouraged by arms, bullet and scope manufacturers as well as films on youtube and in the media.

Dan Pedrotti, correctly, pointed out that such extreme shooting has nothing to do with hunting, a point made more indirectly by Wayne. There is a danger that a fine and demanding shooting sport, long range target shooting, by targeting living wildlife, turns into an ugly blood-sport that gives hunting a black eye. … I have a big problem with extreme long-range shooting, for even if one is well versed in it, disciplined and able to control the variables one can control, there are variables one cannot control.

Foremost among these — and it can be a problem at much less than extreme ranges — is the bolting away or tuning of a big game animals between squeezing the trigger and the arrival of the bullet. … There is no way to control for the game moving between the release of the shot and the bullet’s arrival.

And then there is wind! … Snipers on the western front probed wind conditions and even chanced detection by shooting at distant water puddles. As I noted, one cannot take “sighting shots” shooting at game animals. There is, consequently, a large residue of uncertainty of a first shot hit when shooting at extreme distances.

And so you take a chance, at 723 yards, “Bang,” and the elk runs off on three legs, hind leg trailing. … Had you closed to 200-300 yards you would most likely be celebrating a fine one shot kill instead of having to go find a wounded animal – if you are an ethical hunter, that is! … How many “living targets” move off wounded? How much game do extreme long distance shooters leave behind to rot or feed the coyotes? … Moreover, wounding animals imposes on other hunters. On my last antelope hunt, before I was to leave Alberta, I was hoping for a fine trophy buck and had such in my glasses when a volley of shots behind me made me spin around. A pair of hunters in a half ton truck had opened up on a distant herd, then raced off without further ado. And limping behind the herd were two small bucks each with a dangling front-leg. When there is unclaimed wounded game it is imperative to put it out of its misery. And then there is no option but to tag it. I tried to hunt one of the two bucks, but he dashed off at ever increasing ranges till lost in the distance. Upon returning I flushed the second wounded buck who had taken cover in the sage. I dropped him. Those two hunters, if one could call them such, robbed me of my hunt for a trophy. That was nearly two decades ago and I have not been able to return to pronghorn hunting since.

Let us celebrate long range target shooting as a fine sport, but let us hone our skills hunting and not take unnecessary chances on living big game.

Sincerely, Valerius GeistProfessor Emeritus of Environmental Science

As you are aware, Daniel A. Pedrotti Jr., Chair of the Hunter Ethics Sub-Committee of the Boone & Crockett Club, issued a statement critical of extreme long-range shooting of big game. It was a most commendable act, and I called Dan to congratulate him on it. Also, Wayne van Zwoll has been counseling against extreme long range shooting, but in a diplomatic way that nevertheless left no doubt. I am, consequently including both Dan and Wayne in this e-mail. We agreed today that the Club can play an educational role and needs to address the issue further, as there are matters pertaining to excessive long range shooting I have never seen mentioned. Yet these are pertinent issues. If successful our Club will dampen current enthusiasm for such shooting, which appears to be gaining traction, apparently encouraged by arms, bullet and scope manufacturers as well as films on youtube and in the media.

Dan Pedrotti, correctly, pointed out that such extreme shooting has nothing to do with hunting, a point made more indirectly by Wayne. There is a danger that a fine and demanding shooting sport, long range target shooting, by targeting living wildlife, turns into an ugly blood-sport that gives hunting a black eye. … I have a big problem with extreme long-range shooting, for even if one is well versed in it, disciplined and able to control the variables one can control, there are variables one cannot control.

Foremost among these — and it can be a problem at much less than extreme ranges — is the bolting away or tuning of a big game animals between squeezing the trigger and the arrival of the bullet. … There is no way to control for the game moving between the release of the shot and the bullet’s arrival.

And then there is wind! … Snipers on the western front probed wind conditions and even chanced detection by shooting at distant water puddles. As I noted, one cannot take “sighting shots” shooting at game animals. There is, consequently, a large residue of uncertainty of a first shot hit when shooting at extreme distances.

And so you take a chance, at 723 yards, “Bang,” and the elk runs off on three legs, hind leg trailing. … Had you closed to 200-300 yards you would most likely be celebrating a fine one shot kill instead of having to go find a wounded animal – if you are an ethical hunter, that is! … How many “living targets” move off wounded? How much game do extreme long distance shooters leave behind to rot or feed the coyotes? … Moreover, wounding animals imposes on other hunters. On my last antelope hunt, before I was to leave Alberta, I was hoping for a fine trophy buck and had such in my glasses when a volley of shots behind me made me spin around. A pair of hunters in a half ton truck had opened up on a distant herd, then raced off without further ado. And limping behind the herd were two small bucks each with a dangling front-leg. When there is unclaimed wounded game it is imperative to put it out of its misery. And then there is no option but to tag it. I tried to hunt one of the two bucks, but he dashed off at ever increasing ranges till lost in the distance. Upon returning I flushed the second wounded buck who had taken cover in the sage. I dropped him. Those two hunters, if one could call them such, robbed me of my hunt for a trophy. That was nearly two decades ago and I have not been able to return to pronghorn hunting since.

Let us celebrate long range target shooting as a fine sport, but let us hone our skills hunting and not take unnecessary chances on living big game.

Sincerely, Valerius GeistProfessor Emeritus of Environmental Science

[james gilmer]

#47245

Recently I complained to a well known internet bow hunting personality about his taking a 52 yard shot to kill a giant whitetail ( this was one he had been chasing for 5 years and wounded previously). I was just trying to voice my concern about what an example he was giving to his audience. His reply was that he was totally justified because he practiced long shots! No regard what so ever for the animal or in my opinion what archery hunting is about. I am sad to say that i think the majority of those afield ( any weapon) have no understanding and little regard for ethics in the field.

[Troy Breeding]

#47262

Alot of good reading in that first post.

Troy

[lyagooshka]

#47314

Here’s my $0.02 yet again about this… I do not have the “premium” package on my cable that includes the out-of-doors channels. Once a month I stay in a hotel on my Army weekend, and I watch the hunting shows to pass the time. There is actually a show pretty much DEDICATED to shots STARTING at 400 yards. One of their videos online is “Taking a 700-Yard Shot” (I left out the show name, PM me if interested, but I won’t just give them free press). So… this is what a bunch of stick-n-string folks are up against, but it’s worse (IMHO).

Let’s look at Hollywood. Plenty of “sniper” and “seal-team” movies and shows. Know of any recently that are called “ethical bowhunter” (Dave, I assume your movie is not out yet)? Who does the average person want to emulate? Who has the “fun”? Who gets the chicks (sorry to the women reading this)? Can you see where I am headed?

Here I am an impressionable person with limited experience. I can buy a longbow from someone for $500-$1,000, wait 6-12 months to get it, need to match my arrows, practice out the wazoo, learn to hunt/stalk/etc, and then MAYBE get a 10-15 yard shot.

OR

I can spend the same amount on a .308 or .446, sight it in and sit in a nice warm tent sipping hot-cocoa while waiting for something to move anywhere between me and the next time zone.

Not everyone makes the second choice, but many do. Again, I said it in another thread, but I truly feel that we as hunters (not just trad or even archers) need to define “hunting” and “success”. Not just to ourselves, but to the public at large. We need to identify ourselves, or others (who don’t know a thing about it) will do it for us. Then, and only then [IMHO] can we begin to change things.

Instead of high-fives after a 700 yard shot, I would love to see some host of a TV show say “How bad of a hunter do you have to be that you couldn’t get closer than that? I just killed one at 12 yards a week ago in archery season. What the H…?” It would be refreshing, but it wouldn’t sell much advertising time, now would it? Now we reach the core…

Granted, some species cannot be taken certain ways. Fine, but seriously, as long as this kind of stuff is rewarded, and as long as the only way to have a “successful” hunt is to kill something, there is little we will be able to accomplish. Doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try, just means we have our work cut out for us. Again, IMHO as always. Be well.

Alex

😕

[David Petersen]

#47355

Alex — forgive me if you’ve already explained and I missed it, but what the hey does lyagooshka mean? I much prefer Alex. 😀

By whatever name, IMHO, that’s the best post you’ve put up. Thank you. The real problem with hunting has always been within us, not without. Only recently have we begun to recognize and act on that realization. Of course, once again, it’s not the weapon of choice (other maybe than filthy x-guns) that sets us apart from within, but how we use it. I see zip diff between a rifleman taking a 700-yard shot and a “bow”hunter takin a 70-yard shot. Both are motivated by the same deep subconscious insecurity. Meanwhile, my experience is filled with superbly ethical rifle hunters, for example much of the leadership of BHA (though trad bowhunters have always been strongly, even disproportionately, represented there). 20 yards with a bow, 200 yards with a rifle (and the latter, only then with a rest and high-odds shot), that’s my personal ethical rule, based on very long experience with what works consistently and what works only sometimes. But to replay an old tune, what worries me even more is the realizatgion that what “hunters” do is a pure reflection of what Americans have come to value. To use Riddley Walker speak, “We be in Big trubba.” But hey, let us rejoice that we here are among the number who are not in denial but at least admitting our weaknesses in public and attempting to help by example. Or so he says.

[lyagooshka]

#47392

Lyagooshka is transliterated from Russian. It means frog. I was always fascinated how snakes and scorpions and spiders get all the fear-mongering, while a small yellow frog, no bigger than an American quarter has enough poison to kill thousands of people. Ok, so maybe not the best explanation (and might explain a thing or two), but that’s my story and I’m sticking to it.

I was born in the former Soviet Union, but my family moved here when I was still young, so I don’t remember much from over there, especially about hunting or the outdoors. I do still speak the language though, so sometimes I have user names that keep some folks guessing.

But anyone can feel free to call me anything they want. Truth be told, all of my family and (Russian) friends call me Sasha, which over there is the diminutive for Alexander (my given name). Over there, it is unisex and much more common than Aleksi or the like (I don’t believe there is even an “Alex” outside of English-speaking places). Anyway, hope that helps. Be well.

Alex

😀

[Alexandre Bugnon]

#47401

excellent read!

[Ralph]

#47416

I agree. I learned my lesson, as stated in the “other” thread, a long time ago and I hope people take heed.

[WICanner]

#47455

Good post Dave, thanks for sharing. I am happy to see the gun side of hunting standing up to protest the same problem that we have in common. I am getting a little discouraged by the mentality of what constitutes an ethical shot. 🙁 The distances are getting stretched by technology, but in reality, still limited by the quarry as noted. Live hunting doesn’t involve paper or foam. People just don’t get it.

[bearbowbob]

#47466

R2 wrote: I agree. I learned my lesson, as stated in the “other” thread, a long time ago and I hope people take heed.

When I was growing up I watched a lot of Westerns and always thought the Indians were smarter than Cowboys. They had the ethics but lacked the numbers to win. Just goes to show the good guys don’t always win, they were better teachers though even if portrayed poorly. They understood nature well.

[Goraidh]

#47469

A couple days ago I Googled “Bowhunting Moose” because once again, this year, I’m in the moose lottery here in Maine, and am hoping to finally get a permit. I watched a video of a guy shoot a moose at 52 yards in Ontario, I think. Man, that is such a stupid shot to take on such a rugged animal. You guys are right, many shooters take stupid risks (at the animal’s expense) when they could just learn to hunt and get up closer to their target. The ethics that you and I learned from our fathers and grandfathers seems to be lost on many people today. Really saddens me.

Jeff

[Stumpkiller]

#47495

One of the reasons I like traditional archery is because it is up close and personal. Here in the east I have no problem positioning myself where 10 to 20 yard shots are about all that is offerred. The cover tends to be where whitetail are during the daylight hours.

I have varmint hunted and distance shots still interest me and I have great respect for them. But arrows are slow and game moves. I believ 22 yards is the furthest I have ever attempted and collected a whitetail with a bow. Most are in the 12 to 18 yard range (I shoot as soon as that “magic” 18 yard/20 paces distance is met).

Then there are stumps. I take 80 yard shots on stumps because I love the way arrows fly and stumps are already dead.

[Stumpkiller]

#47508

An interesting aside – I like to read the old archery articles and books. One fairly well know bowhunter related how he had to return to camp after expending all 12 arrows that he had in his back quiver on one buck at a distance I wouldn’t attempt with my flintlock rifle! Ethics are very subjective and somewhat fluid.

[wolfkill220]

#47606

This is a hard post to respond to .As I believe what is ethical or not is something that is in all of us .It becomes a very personal matter to decide.I will say my longest shot is a 785 yard called head shot on a coyote.Now before everybody berates me on that it was done with a custom built precsion rifle .I practiced and shoot that rifle two to three times a week .And as the our military snipers do I have a notebook that recorded every shoot I ever took with that rifle.In it is data of distance wind temp time of day and so forth.Is it a shot That I think anybody can take no .But that is in part the reason I dont rifle hunt much anymore and went to bowhunting first with a compound and now with a longbow.Also the same reason the only hunting mags I read now are Traditional bowhunting And tradarchers world.I choice to go the hard way and push myself than go easy.

[lyagooshka]

#48043

Wolf,

I don’t think anyone will berate you, nor do I think you are the only one. Thing is, like any bell curve, there are outliers. Also, like a bell curve, those outliers are the exception and not the standard. You did it the right way. But how many others do? I am sure there are many, but I would wager there are many more that are of the “so you just go 3 clicks right if they’re 400 yards, right?” Let’s face it, a weapon is a weapon. I’d rather see you with a rifle than a “slob” with a recurve/longbow. You made a good shot. What went into that shot is experience and practice. Or military has snipers and sharpshooters taking (and making) shots at 400-800 yards on a regular basis, sometimes at moving targets. I don’t think anyone thinks it’s impossible. Plus, you had a rifle made for that. It’s wasn’t an off the shelf eye-catcher. If I had the money and a place to use it, I would love to have one (I believe a MT company makes some quality rifles, but I am sure there are many others). But I wouldn’t use it to hunt, just to plink at 1,000 yards. Why? Because I can. Anyway, I’m hitting the “mute” button on me now. Good shot. Practice paid off. Seems there’s a lesson there, and not just for archery/rifle/etc. Be well.

Alex

8)

[skifrk]

#48113

I think what is happening as that as technology expands possibilities then you get shows on TV that support these long distance shots as being realistic. There was even a whole rifle hunting show a few years back that was dedicated to long distance hunting in the west. They even had a website where you could send in your scope and they would modify to work like theirs for long distance. SO I think once again while we preach to the choir on here about ethic shots and right decisions it is sometime hard to be heard above the din of multiple others on TV advocating and making look cool long distance hunting or unethical shots.

Wolf will not berate you at all but glad to know you worked to make the shot and were successful. I have shot long range rifle but have no interest in using it for hunting since it feels like there is no challenge.

[David Petersen]

#48121

As the discussion among B&C leadership on long distance shooting and ethics continues, this just came around. For those not familiar with the North American Model of Wildlife Management, there’s an article in TBM (Feb/Mar 2012) … I particularly like the final sentence, below:

Another item that may be of value to our discussion is the fifth principle/pillar of the North American Model.

#5 Non-frivolous Use – Certain species of wildlife can be legally killed under strict guidelines for food and fur, in self-defense, or property protection.

Conservation is defined as “wise use without waste.” Laws will be in place to restrict casual killing, killing for commercial purposes, wasting of game, and mistreating wildlife.

Val is more a scholar on the Model than I am, but just the names “Non-frivolous use, long range shooting, and turning big game species into targets” seems to connect. This might also help to elevate the conversation to a higher meaning, which is what successful educational opportunities are made of.

Keith Balfourd

Director Marketing

Boone and Crockett Club

[T Downing]

#48159

I know I am preaching to the choir here but I felt compelled to add…Whether its 700 yard rifle shots or 70 yard shots from bows, the animals deserve better than to take any risks. Long shots by any weapon, no matter how accurate, becomes far more risky than close shots. Its that simple. Our archery forefathers had to learn through trial and error. As archers we should be better and more disciplined than our predecessors because they taught us clearly what not to do. The best rifle hunters I have ever come across are cats that are such good hunters that they don’t have to take long shots. I really believe in my heart that I would rather be good/disciplined in my shot selection than lucky. Forget luck…Killing an animal humanely and honoring the challenge of that is far better than being lucky.

[wolfkill220]

#48228

I did not post to advacate long range shots .But what makes a long shot a long shot as I stated in my other post is the skill level there for me to make that shot yes.Do i have the convedance that I can make that shot yes.But I will be the first to point out that 95% of the rifle shooters have no busseness shooting past 200 let alone a shot like that.I would say that Mr Asbell or petersson maybe Mr.Conrad Have the skill level to take a thirty yard shot on a animal .To me that would be a long shot .Know I am not saying anything bad about any of those guys .I hold alot of respect for those guys.It is the bow makers and hunting mags that push the distance out there .That is why I have gone to trad equipment over my compound.Just the same scopes are coming off the rifles and be replaced with iron sights.last season I had several times if my compound was in hand then I would have meat in the freeze But that just means I have to push myself to be a better hunter.:D

[CareyE]

#48230

I believe todays succeed at any cost mantra is the driving force. Some mnay of the outdoor shows have to have a kill on camera.You are not a ‘real” hunter unless you get something. Personaaly, I like them close. To me the closer they are for a shot means I did my job as a hunter.

[David Coulter]

#48419

Interesting post. I met a few and know another fellow who is active in long range hunting, so called, out in the north-central PA area. These guys shoot heavy, I mean 75-100 pound, rifles mounted on a heavy bench and they are moved with the turns of knobs. These guys set up on one side of a ridge and shoot to the other ridge, usually 1500 or so yards away. One guy on the rifle, one or two spotters, and a crew on the other ridge to move deer or bear into the field of fire and track down the hit and wounded ones. I asked one of these guys, “just what exactly are you aiming at?” “Center mass,” was the answer. How’s that for precise?

I do have a great respect for precision and the skill it takes to build such a rifle and hit a target at a great distance, but to use animals for your target in this case is truly repulsive. dwc

[Jason Wesbrock]

#48451

dwcphoto wrote: I do have a great respect for precision and the skill it takes to build such a rifle and hit a target at a great distance, but to use animals for your target in this case is truly repulsive. dwc

Much agreed!

[Col Mike]

#48497

Dave–nice rudder. Defining hunter and success seems to me the key issue. My uncle (taught me trad. bow hunting) said it this way–a good hunters point will hit the deer before the feathers clear the bow. He then looked at me and said–enjoy every minute you are out there–that is the hunt.:D

Semper Fi

Mike

[David Petersen]

#48507

Mike — For all the many and extreme convulutions that I and others introduce to this ongoing good discussion about hunting ethics and weapons choice, etc., you have just nailed it in the heart in so very few words: traditional bowhunting is the best hunting because it’s about getting close and being sure before you pop the cap. And getting close and being sure, by minimizing risk and chance, are the height of ethical hunter behavior. No “Hail Marys” wanted, as that is not our mission or goal. I guess (I’m obviously indulging in a bit of neo-Freudian self-analysis here) that my unsalvable pain in this arena of life arises from the fact that all hunters don’t share an appreciation for “doing it the hard way.” Which, for us recovering (to use AAA-speak) Marines equate the hard way with the best way. :lol, no matter our losses. But seriously, all hunting ethics discussions must begin and end with respect and, yes, love for the animal as our foremost concern, with personal dignity and self-respect a close second. If not so, then we are willingly if mostly blindly relinquishing the high ground and our harshest critics’ arguments are strengthened. Nobody promised us a rose garden, eh? Semper Fi, young man. 😛

[stalkin4elk]

#48634

Some big name trad guys named Hill and Bear shot some ridiculous distances and bragged their fair share. Then the wheels of time turned and such shots became unethical. Maybe the wheels will turn again with enough noise against shuch acts.

We have a sizeable local crowd of long range shooters both gun and bow. What both have in common is you can’t always even see the impact so you are clueless about results at such distances. I have done enough long range practice,guns and bow, to KNOW not to attempt those shots at game.

[wolfkill220]

#48697

I think for some it is the full circle deal.Rifle hunting lost its appeal for me on the most part because of my skill level that I achevied .So I started bowhunting but i was missing something still was missing now that I am out with trad gear . I found that missing part .Same reason that I no longer teach hunter ed. I did not like that there was no real part in our classes on ethics .

[James Harvey]

#48797

I have a flair for stating the obvious, so I’ll begin by apologising if the following is so obvious as to be painful. But no one else has said it so here goes 😛

In recent history, the long shot by the sniper has been a much publicised and glorified achievement. And rightly so. But that achievement is not a fine performance of marksmanship in a vacuum. That is an unseen soldier reaching far across a battlefield and touching an enemy. The result, whether the enemy is killed, maimed or simply scared away falls somewhere on a sliding scale of success.

But hunting an animal is in no way a battle. A recreational hunter taking a shot on an animal at the wavering limits of his skill is a shameful act (I speak from experience). Quite different to stretching out as far as you can to effect a battlespace, taking the chance of gifting an animal with mutilation for the sake of your own petty ego is nothing short of cowardice . There are perfectly decent targets to prove to yourself how far you can reach out with a weapon, be it a bullet or an arrow (or a crossbow bolt). A living, breathing animal, living it’s life is no such target.

To be honest, I have never heard or read what I consider to be a wholly justifiable argument for recreational hunting. But there is certainly no justification for using an animal as a testing ground for the limits of your marksmanship.

I am happy to face disagreement, I am in possession of an overflowing, flood like lack of wisdom. But there is my little peanut brained contribution to an otherwise stimulating discussion 🙂

[Wexbow]

#49264

ausjim wrote: …To be honest, I have never heard or read what I consider to be a wholly justifiable argument for recreational hunting…

Jim, that’s an interesting statement but I think the difficulty lies in the word recreational – it can be hard to justify any recreational act beyond that it fills a void in our existence. Have a read of Gregory Clark’s article in the Dec/Jan issue of TBM for an interesting take on what I’m referring to.

[paleoman]

#49510

David Petersen wrote: Mike — For all the many and extreme convulutions that I and others introduce to this ongoing good discussion about hunting ethics and weapons choice, etc., you have just nailed it in the heart in so very few words: traditional bowhunting is the best hunting because it’s about getting close and being sure before you pop the cap. And getting close and being sure, by minimizing risk and chance, are the height of ethical hunter behavior. No “Hail Marys” wanted, as that is not our mission or goal. I guess (I’m obviously indulging in a bit of neo-Freudian self-analysis here) that my unsalvable pain in this arena of life arises from the fact that all hunters don’t share an appreciation for “doing it the hard way.” Which, for us recovering (to use AAA-speak) Marines equate the hard way with the best way. :lol, no matter our losses. But seriously, all hunting ethics discussions must begin and end with respect and, yes, love for the animal as our foremost concern, with personal dignity and self-respect a close second. If not so, then we are willingly if mostly blindly relinquishing the high ground and our harshest critics’ arguments are strengthened. Nobody promised us a rose garden, eh? Semper Fi, young man. 😛

I share the same “unsalvable” angst! I have always enjoyed employing muscle and determination as the source of much of my satisfaction. When talk turns to quads and tech I just shut down and mentally leave the discussion…what pride is there in sitting on yer arse and imposing yourself on the landscape….boy could a guy get on a podium…that said I suspect at least 1/2 of it is a general personality issue in that I need to be seperate from the ” crowd” in a sense. I wonder if the Myers Briggs personality test was applied to the trad crowd if we wouldn’ t all come up pretty similar?

[James Harvey]

#49615

Wexbow wrote: Jim, that’s an interesting statement but I think the difficulty lies in the word recreational – it can be hard to justify any recreational act beyond that it fills a void in our existence. Have a read of Gregory Clark’s article in the Dec/Jan issue of TBM for an interesting take on what I’m referring to.

Hey Wex,

I don’t mean to justify it as a pass time that adds value to my life or anything like that. I meant an ethical justification. To pursue an activity whose end could very well be the death of a wild animal.

I have had this discussion in my head several times. How do I justify killing the animal? I could just as easily stalk with my camera as with my bow and take that kind of shot instead. I don’t need the meat. I have never come up with a satisfying answer to that. That intellectual void doesn’t stop me from doing it, it simply exists.

As an aside, in Australia it’s usually illegal to hunt native fauna of any description. All introduced species here are broadly catalogued as ‘pests’ however and are fair game. The most common justification I hear here is that we are providing a conservation service by eliminating pest species. The irony of a European driving a car along a highway to reach ‘the wilderness’ and there kill a pig or buffalo and justify it as removing an introduced pest that is damaging our fragile ecosystem is a bit too much to swallow IMHO.

[sinawalli]

#50246

Up close and personal is the one of the main reasons I got into archery. I suffer from “CHS”. I’ve read lots of stories on other hunting forums about folks killing animals with 100 yard bow shots! Really? As for rifle shooting, well that’s another story. If you look on the back of a box of ammo, and read the balistics, you will see that after 400 yards, most bullets, fall right off the chart. So to walk up to a animal, and think” Ah, that’s about 350-400 yards away”, is strictly a guessing game, and usually results in a miss (good thing), and worst case a wounded coyote feeder!Very good article Dave! Thanks for posting!

[paleoman]

#50356

Maybe I missed something but what does “CHS” stand for?

[lyagooshka]

#50370

If it’s anything like CRS (Can’t Remember %*%^&), I would assume it’s “Can’t Hit %*^$&”. Or I could be wrong. Be well.

Alex

😆

[Bruce Smithhammer]

#50371

paleoman wrote: Maybe I missed something but what does “CHS” stand for?

“Can’t Hit…er, uh….Stumps?“

[David Petersen]

#50469

Numbskulls!Don’t you know nothin’? CHS is Close Hunting Syndrome. 😛

[lyagooshka]

#50474

Thank you Doctor!

😆

[Ralph]

#50476

I feel better now, my wife is wrong. She told me “you cain’t help stupidity darlin’, it’s natural for ya”.

[paleoman]

#50664

paleoman wrote: Maybe I missed something but what does “CHS” stand for?

Ok…a big “der der der” to me!

[James Harvey]

#50667

Just ran across a website of a self advertised ‘shooting and hunting expert’ who runs marksmanship courses. The site is littered with phrases such as “1000 yard guarantee or your money back”, “never pass up your trophy again”, “{this rifle/scope} is ready to shoot 1000 yards right out of the box”.

I watched some of this guys videos and to be honest, he and his ‘crew’ seem to be proficient with their weapons and application. He is landing tight groups at 1000 yards in various conditions, and applying all that to the animals he shoots as well.

But man, I am, in some regards, a professional shooter and work with professional shooters. I really reckon there is no way you can effectively teach anyone to shoot tight enough groups at 1000 yards in just 2 days to then ethically let them loose on animals with the intention of stretching out that far. It is not as simple as grouping very tight at 100 yards and extrapolating that out to 1000. There are many more variables coming into play, that only experience can really account for.

There is (brief) ethical discussion on his site as well. As is so often the case, he takes the same point I consider a negative and argues it is a positive.

“One of the good things about Long Range Hunting is we can move into these areas without the animals even knowing we are here. We can pinpoint them from a long ways away, get setup and take the shot. The 1,029-yard shot was a relaxed shot for me and a relaxed shot for the animal. He wasn’t all wound up.”

I find something in that valid. It is great he can kill an animal and minimise it’s distress. But as has been discussed here and I feel likewise, that closing into the animals sensory range is a key part of the ethical hunt. From the animals pov, better distressed and alive then calm and dead.

Finally consider the implications of a people able to atv or dirt bike through rugged terrain, set up a hide on top of a feature and reach out for 1000 yards around. I suppose if your motivations for hunting are as simple as making a living animal dead, this course would be great. I like to think there is more to it than that.

[Bruce Smithhammer]

#50709

“One of the good things about Long Range Hunting is we can move into these areas without the animals even knowing we are here. We can pinpoint them from a long ways away, get setup and take the shot. The 1,029-yard shot was a relaxed shot for me and a relaxed shot for the animal. He wasn’t all wound up.”

Bull. If one is hunting effectively – staying downwind, concealed, etc. then the animal is no more “distressed” @ 150 yards than it is at 1000 (or 20 yards, for that matter).

That silly argument is just what an absurdly long-range “hunter” tells himself to try and rationalize it.

[sinawalli]

#50813

You are all correct!! Can’t hit **it!!

[BuckyT]

#51277

The way I see it is very simple.

There are people who are lazy, unprepared, and should not be afield hunting with any kind of weapon…..

I actually found this phrase from the article amusing.

“There is no way to control for the game moving between the release of the shot and the bullet’s arrival.”

The statement above holds true for every shot a trad bowhunter takes on game.

When I started traditional bowhunting, besides wanting more of a challenge in the woods, I wanted to get away from the constant bickering from different groups of hunters…

I’m to the point in my hunting career now where I want more simplicity and less drama. No matter what weapon I take afield with me.

I started traditional bowhunting in 2011. I aquired my recurve that March. I shot almost everyday, trying my best to get prepared for the upcoming deer season in September.

When the season rolled around, I thought I was prepared..

I started off by missing a dandy 6pt at 15yds…… Next I wounded a doe at 15yds….. She started to turn right when I released………..Look up at the bold quote……..,

Then………….to top it off, I missed another doe…. I shot a limb instead………….

I’m sure some guy that can shoot a mosquito’s eyball out at a 1000yds everytime, would have some fun with my episodes above…

My point is, that damning a style of hunting as a whole, because of a few folks that give it a bad name, or simply have a bad day in the field, isn’t right…………..

I thought getting into tradtional archery was going to distance me from such views…

[Bruce Smithhammer]

#51384

In my opinion, it is far too easy to excuse all sorts of questionable behavior with the argument that “we hunters need to stick together.” This can, and sometimes does, border on dangerous group-think. Without a doubt, we are stronger as a larger user-group than as smaller, fractured voices. No question about it. But all too often I see conversations like this get squelched by the notion that we should never be questioning or criticizing within our own ranks. I whole-heartedly disagree.

We, as ethical hunters, should most definitely should be questioning the ethics and tactics that all hunters use, provided it doesn’t come across as mere divisive ranting, but instead as constructive questioning of whether or not we are holding ourselves – all of us, regardless of what we hunt with – to exemplary standards.

It is also important to realize that “ethics” are not entirely individual, or purely subjective. Individual ethics are merely one level. There are also group/societal levels of ethics that most of us agree on as well. There are all sorts of examples of this – the accepted notion within our society that hunting with poisoned broadheads is not ethical, is but one. I’m merely bringing this up because I frequently hear that “ethics are a personal thing,” and this is clearly not entirely true.

In addition, I believe that, in the public’s eyes, we are seen to positively model a higher level of responsibility and self-monitoring when we make it clear that we truly are concerned about ethics, about fair chase, and about preserving the traditional values of hunting.

It is undeniably true that we are much stronger together. But ‘strength in numbers’ should never be used as a tactic for excusing behavior that does not respect the animal, that seeks to remove traditional challenges with excessive technology, and/or that places the shooting above the hunting. After all, the shooting range is the place for those more focused on the former than the latter.

And it is vital that we, as traditional bowhunters, turn that same questioning spotlight on ourselves equally. I believe that as a sub-user group, we actually do a pretty good job of this comparatively. And that we can look at the practices of the past, and generally agree that we do not want to go back to 100 yard, “Hail Mary” shots on wounded game that subsequently disappears over the hillside. This is positive progress, imo – and it came from questioning ourselves, our motives and fair-chase inspired, self-imposed limitations.

[lyagooshka]

#51726

BuckyT wrote: My point is, that damning a style of hunting as a whole, because of a few folks that give it a bad name, or simply have a bad day in the field, isn’t right…………..

Bucky,

I hear you and agree, but (IMHO) the issue is what I bolded and underlined above in your quote. I am new to trad archery, but I have been around hunting for a long time. Other than teaching hunter ed, I also have several WCOs and DWCOs (Wildlife Conservation Officer / Deputy WCO) as friends and in my Reserve unit with whom I chat about hunting and the like on a regular basis. I wish the slobs were not multiplying at an exponential rate (I am sure I am exaggerating, but the movie “Idiocracy” does come to mind).

Point is, I do not like to paint anyone with a broad stoke of a brush. Not X-Bow hunters, rifle hunters, Game Preserves or even ATV users (sorry Dave, but you even say something similar in one of your books). But I do see a trend. As you might have read in some of my other posts, the reasons I started to hunt at a late age are many. But one of the biggest reasons I went to traditional equipment is to distance myself from the “trends” I was seeing. Those include greed-ridden, over-hyped companies putting out inferior products with no regard for anything but the bottom line. It includes the increasingly popular view that “success” must equal a kill. It also includes a total avoidance of woodsmanship in lieu of newer fancier gadgets.

Again, please don’t get me wrong. First, I don’t feel I am above anyone. If I ever do, I will hang up the bow and move on to golf or something. I have something to learn from the seasoned veteran as well as the novice. I also don’t balk at technology. If I am planning a road trip, I take out the GPS with turn-by-turn directions. I don’t reach for a map and compass. Thing is (at least for directions), I am very good at map reading. If the satellites fall from the sky, I will find my way to any place that’s on a map (thank you U.S. Army). I don’t think the same can be said for many people picking up that rifle and taking those 700 yard shots. They don’t have the basics, and go straight to the fancy gadgets. Then, when the proverbial you-know-what hits the proverbial fan, they have nothing to fall back on. Hand any true hunter any weapon, and they will still be able to hunt.

Again, this is all In My Humble Opinion. I know there are always the exceptions, but they are becoming fewer and fewer, at least from what I have been seeing. Be well.

Alex

😀

[Fallguy]

#52904

I have run into the long shot mentality also. I teach the Bowhunter Ed course in Minnesota and people are curious when they see I hunt with a long bow. They ask what my effective range is when hunting. I tell them under 25 yards. Many times I get the follow up response of “unless it is a trophy buck then you would shoot 35 or 40 yards right?” I always ask why would you take a chance at wounding a B&C buck and not a doe. Do huge antlers calm you?

[BuckyT]

#52985

lyagooshka wrote: [quote=BuckyT]My point is, that damning a style of hunting as a whole, because of a few folks that give it a bad name, or simply have a bad day in the field, isn’t right…………..

Bucky,

I hear you and agree, but (IMHO) the issue is what I bolded and underlined above in your quote. I am new to trad archery, but I have been around hunting for a long time. Other than teaching hunter ed, I also have several WCOs and DWCOs (Wildlife Conservation Officer / Deputy WCO) as friends and in my Reserve unit with whom I chat about hunting and the like on a regular basis. I wish the slobs were not multiplying at an exponential rate (I am sure I am exaggerating, but the movie “Idiocracy” does come to mind).

Point is, I do not like to paint anyone with a broad stoke of a brush. Not X-Bow hunters, rifle hunters, Game Preserves or even ATV users (sorry Dave, but you even say something similar in one of your books). But I do see a trend. As you might have read in some of my other posts, the reasons I started to hunt at a late age are many. But one of the biggest reasons I went to traditional equipment is to distance myself from the “trends” I was seeing. Those include greed-ridden, over-hyped companies putting out inferior products with no regard for anything but the bottom line. It includes the increasingly popular view that “success” must equal a kill. It also includes a total avoidance of woodsmanship in lieu of newer fancier gadgets.

Again, please don’t get me wrong. First, I don’t feel I am above anyone. If I ever do, I will hang up the bow and move on to golf or something. I have something to learn from the seasoned veteran as well as the novice. I also don’t balk at technology. If I am planning a road trip, I take out the GPS with turn-by-turn directions. I don’t reach for a map and compass. Thing is (at least for directions), I am very good at map reading. If the satellites fall from the sky, I will find my way to any place that’s on a map (thank you U.S. Army). I don’t think the same can be said for many people picking up that rifle and taking those 700 yard shots. They don’t have the basics, and go straight to the fancy gadgets. Then, when the proverbial you-know-what hits the proverbial fan, they have nothing to fall back on. Hand any true hunter any weapon, and they will still be able to hunt.

Again, this is all In My Humble Opinion. I know there are always the exceptions, but they are becoming fewer and fewer, at least from what I have been seeing. Be well.

Alex

😀

Good Post Alex.

😉

[Author]

Posts