Home Forums Hunting & Shooting General Big Game Extreme Long Range Shots?

First, I don't feel the need to change your opinion, so don't try and put words in my mouth or attribute motives to me that aren't there. I'm just trying to show anyone reading this that your opinions are not backed up by facts.

There’s no tactful way to say this, so I’ll just cut right to the chase—you are as FOS as a Christmas turkey. You try to say “I choose not to respond to him” but anyone who can read can see that you’ve been responding (and arguing) all along, you continue to respond and argue in this post, and you continue to respond and argue in the two posts after this. You’ve tried to back up your opinion with facts, but every time you’ve tried to make a point I’ve shown that it doesn’t stand up to simple logic. So then you want to say ”we’re not arguing, we just have differing opinions.” What a crock of horsesh**.






To get within long-range distance? I thought we were talking about hunting, not sightseeing.

Getting within range is only part of hunting. Unless you can come up with a definition of hunting that does not include making a shot and killing an animal (or at least going out with that as the goal) it’s an inescapable fact that long range hunting takes a lot of hunting skill. Making the shot and killing the animal is an integral part of hunting, no matter how many times you try to exclude it.

And once again, not everyone hunts for “the thrill of the close-range stalk.” Some people just want to put meat in the freezer, and if a long-range shot is the most efficient way to accomplish that, who are you to tell them that their reasons for hunting are not as valid as yours, and that they’re not hunting?




This part of your post is really offensive, because you’re implying that I’m being narrow-minded, and that I don’t care about the future of hunting. Nothing is further than the truth. Responses are below.

1) It’s narrow-minded to say that a certain style of hunting is “not hunting” just because it doesn’t fit your concept of what hunting should be, or doesn’t give you what you want out of a hunt. There are many valid reasons to hunt that don’t involve “the thrill of the stalk.” But to your point, why don’t you name some actual biological or policy ramifications of long-range hunting, instead of just throwing out those terms in a red herring emotional appeal? Go ahead, name some.

2) Another red herring. I’m very familiar with this concept and I teach it to new hunters in our Hunter’s Ed. Course. Game populations were decimated at the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th centuries, but since then they’ve recovered and no species in North America has been decimated or even threatened by regulated sport hunting. The laws you’re referring to work by limiting the number of animals taken, and in western states that’s accomplished by tag allotments. And it makes absolutely no difference in population management whether a hunter with one of those tags takes his animal at close range or long range. But I may have been wrong when I called this a red herring—it’s a platinum herring.

3) You may not go into the conversation lightly, but you do go in armed with misconceptions. But to the point, why don’t you cite some of the biological and legal ramifications of long-range hunting that were deliberated in these commission meetings?




Yes, everyone is entitled to their opinion. Some people are of the opinion that Barack Obama has been an outstanding president, and Hilary Clinton will be even better. They’re also entitled to their opinions. That doesn't mean they can back up their opinions, and it doesn’t mean they’re not F.O.S.