Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 991 through 1,005 (of 1,025 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • James HarveyJames Harvey
    Member
    Post count: 1130
    in reply to: long shots #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.

    James HarveyJames Harvey
    Member
    Post count: 1130
    in reply to: long shots #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.

    James HarveyJames Harvey
    Member
    Post count: 1130
    in reply to: Macaulay Library #49441

    Thanks Mike, that is really neat.

    James HarveyJames Harvey
    Member
    Post count: 1130
    in reply to: long shots #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 🙂

    James HarveyJames Harvey
    Member
    Post count: 1130
    in reply to: Gettin' Out… #45298

    Great pics mate, thanks for sharing.

    James HarveyJames Harvey
    Member
    Post count: 1130
    in reply to: Glove vs. tab #44360

    I’ve always poo-poo’d gloves, but my wife was insistent that she get one recently, and being the selfish consumer husband that I am, I decided if she gets one so do I. I love it. It’s a damascus doe skin glove and it feels great. I think my already overworked peanut brain has a little more to think about on the release now, but there is a nice ‘feel’ to it, and I’m looking forward to not stressing over dropping a tab in the bush 😛

    James HarveyJames Harvey
    Member
    Post count: 1130

    (whispers) There is a deer… right behind you!

    Hah, nicely done mate. Rabbit stew!

    James HarveyJames Harvey
    Member
    Post count: 1130

    Prairie Prowler and others – I don’t like crossbows, where I’m from they’re legally restricted and controlled in the same way as firearms (I think for the sole safety reason that they can be ‘loaded’ and consequently can be unintentionally discharged).

    The vast majority of arguments I see made against xbows would be equally applicable to traditional v compound bows as well. Which is an argument already lost in the public sphere of debate. The non-hunter (read legislator) doesn’t seem to care about all the arguments that we seem to find self evident.

    Honestly, in all the reading I’ve done the only argument that I’ve read that is not a rehash of the anti-compound bow debate is that a bow must be drawn in the presence of your quarry, where a xbow does not. I think the gravity of that difference will be very much lost on the non-hunter.

    I don’t envy you guys having to fight this battle at all. But I think all the arguments I’ve seen made are pretty well doomed to failure from the start, if for no other reason than historical precedence.

    Just one more peanut opinion to consider.

    James HarveyJames Harvey
    Member
    Member
    Post count: 1130

    That Roycroft get up looks great. I will be giving that a go!

    James HarveyJames Harvey
    Member
    Post count: 1130
    in reply to: What if …? #41813

    WICanner wrote: I guess they think there are extra ‘points’ given for long range shots. As I said before, it’s a feather that they want to place in their cap.

    I think you’re spot on. My little peanut mind likes to break up hunting into two broad skill groups: Marksmanship and Woodcraft. One takes considerably more effort than the other to apply, and the lazy hunter is inclined to prove his marksmanship over his woodcraft. I shouldn’t be too judgemental though, because I used to be the lazy hunter and it’s hard for me to differentiate between my matured interest in woodcraft and the growing admission that I’m an ordinary marksman.

    I still think there are worse things than a long shot though. The other day I watched a video on youtube of ‘bowhunters’ plugging away from a treestand at pigs and deer that were nicely framed by the tripod legs of a large feeder. It was honestly one of the most sickening things I have seen in a while.

    James HarveyJames Harvey
    Member
    Post count: 1130
    in reply to: What if …? #38904

    WICanner wrote: One can argue specifics on individuals, but the trends in ‘bowhunting’ are undeniable.

    My bowhunting experience is less than a decade old so there will be many here who have a better idea of trends than I do. I recently read ‘Hunting With the Bow and Arrow’ by Saxton Pope. He and his hunting companions seemed to regularly take shots at animals at the limits of their range. Is it possible that hunting ethics is a never ending battle against the risk taking, glory hungry drives of young men? Particularly young men who have come from a non-hunting family, so have had no childhood education in the matter?

    I introduced myself to bowhunting (and hunting in general) when I was about 20, after watching ‘Deliverence’ of all things. I took some wildly unethical shots with my shiny new compound bow. The virtue of being a terrible shot was the only thing that saved me and my prey from having to live with the results. I wouldn’t characterise my younger self as generally unethical or risk taking. Just an ignorant young man who had spent a childhood reading about Robin Hood splitting shafts at 100 yards.

    I’ll tell you the real flaw in the character of that younger man though. He thought rather than investing time into developing woodcraft and talent with a simple new tool, he could invest money and buy talent and craft with a fancy new tool. That there is probably the moral failure underpinning the later unethical practices.

    Apologies for my wandering mind, but perhaps a slightly different perspective to that normally found here?

    James HarveyJames Harvey
    Member
    Post count: 1130
    in reply to: Winter Range #38857

    Smithhammer – my little man has a delightful little Zebra hat in that style, gives him quite an exotic feel 😛

    James HarveyJames Harvey
    Member
    Post count: 1130
    in reply to: Winter Range #38153

    AlexBugnon wrote: Ausjim,

    Aaah, munchkins! They make the best targets, but hard to hit, since they don’t stand still, and you can’t stop’em with a fawn bleat!!:lol::lol:

    Alex,

    That’s why the great hunting gods gave us Sesame Street. Ethical shots on toddlers. 😉

    James HarveyJames Harvey
    Member
    Post count: 1130
    in reply to: Winter Range #37763

    I don’t have a winter range but it is rather flooded in my little part of the world at the moment, so many roads are cut and I’m forced to shoot at home. I made this little 10m range today.

    I’m shooting for Dumbo up the back. Tell you what, the little munchkins make it hard to get a clear shot, its like put put golf.

    Incidentally, my arrow doesn’t seem to be shooting real straight, if anyone has any tuning tips they’d be appreciated.

    James HarveyJames Harvey
    Member
    Post count: 1130
    in reply to: What if …? #36237

    Steve – I don’t dispute much of what you have said above. The pesticides issue is largely irrelevant however. The evidence that synthetic pesticides do not cause cancer is circumstantial, but here it is in a nutshell. Per mass of pesticide, naturally occurring varieties have been shown in all tests available (Ames tests on bacteria and rodent tests) to be equally carcinogenic as synthetic pesticides. Americans in an ‘average’ diet apparently consume approximately 0.09 mg of synthetic pesticides daily. They consume approx. 1500mg of natural pesticides daily. There is no suggestion that the natural pesticides cause cancer. Beyond the ‘boogy man’ that is ‘synthetic chemicals’, there is no suggestion that that miniscule percentage of dietary carcinogen intake is causing it either.

    It is worth noting I’m not talking at all here about industrial exposure. Someone who works in the ‘pesticide production plant’ may do well to take care.

    Steve Graf wrote: The problem with your challenge is that it is hard to prove something like this without a study which includes people not exposed to the food. Which is impossible. The argument you make is the same argument that the sludge dumpers make: “Prove that putting sludge on fields is bad” and the climate change deniers make “prove the CO2 causes global warming”

    I am shamefully ignorant of sludge dumping Steve so can’t make any comment. As far as global warming is concerned, to prove CO2 causes global warming is an experiment so simple it can be and is conducted by school children. You simply use a smaller system than our atmosphere and introduce CO2. It’s called a greenhouse. You can do the same thing with natural and synthetic chemicals. It’s called the Ames test.

    Steve Graf wrote: But here’s a quote from your rebuttal : “we are far more likely to get cancer from eating “healthy” foods than from eating at a fast food restaurant” So I challenge you. Eat only at a fast food restaurant for a year and see how you feel (if you are still alive).

    Steve, you have either misunderstood or taken that quote out of context. The author was saying that given there is roughly equal amounts of carcinogenic chemicals in ‘healthy’ and ‘fast’ food and we eat more ‘healthy’ foods, that is statistically more likely to give you cancer than the occasional ‘fast’ food.

    Honestly though, it seems like we’re talking about two different things. I’m simply discussing the merits of synthetic vs natural pesticides. You are more broadly discussing diet choices. And I agree with you whole heartedly. High calorie diet is a much greater risk increaser for cancer than any pesticide. So let us agree that you can easily kill yourself eating from the supermarket. But I would suggest that has to do with the choices you make buying from there, rather than anything inherently nasty in industrial agriculture.

    I would contend that if you ate a diet of similar content from the supermarket (mainly vegetables and unprocessed meats) you would be equally healthy.

    Finally, I apologise for highjacking a bowhunting thread. I’ll accept anything more you have to say Steve, but I think I’ve said my bit 😛

Viewing 15 posts - 991 through 1,005 (of 1,025 total)