Home Forums Hunting & Shooting General Big Game When hunting became shooting

hunting industry would get to where breast implants would become a deductible business expense

I bet he was in full camo too. Just like those guys in Texas in their air conditioned shooting houses shooting over timed feeders at hormone enhanced trophies.

mtmuley,

Of course it does.

So where do we draw the line? Or is there really one? mtmuley

You may be correct but every time I read that question I wonder if the number of lost and wounded animals isn't higher from bow, crossbow and handgun hunting than it is for long range rifle hunting. But somehow folks see bow hunting as right and a just pursuit and long range rifle hunting as less ethical and less effective. The modern bow hunter tends to be equipped with more techno gadgets than most rifle hunters it seems. I think if the gadget increases your effectiveness, go for it. Just my thoughts, not trying to butt heads with anybody.

Bob

Bob, your comment that more game is wounded at close range than at long comes up every time anyone mentions misses by long rangers. It is both true and misleading.

Vastly more hunters shoot at game at routine ranges and therefore, their total number of wounded animals is undoubtedly greater than the number wounded by a relatively small number of long rangers. Howerever, the percentage of animals wounded per hunter is a more true measure of long range wounding.

Also, the logic is a bit skewed: wounding critters at short range does not make it OK to wound them at long range. Jeffry Dahmer buried victims in his back yard but that isn't an excuse for the Green River Killer even though he dumped victims a long ways from his house.

Though we do not know numbers, I join JG and others in believing that a relatively high percentage of animals shot at are wounded at long range. In one week I found three unrecovered dead elk shot at long range in the wide marshes around Golden BC. The shooters were not as good as John Burns--- but most of the wannabes who shoot long aren't.

You have my tolerance to shoot at anything at as long a range as you want. However, no matter how heated and vehement the denials, physics and reality inexorably increase probability of wounding at long range. I can live with that reality and have killed two elk at greater than 600 yards. If you want to back off a couple of ridges you get a shrug from me, adimiration for phenomenal gear and skill, and disbelief of the usual long ranger claims of never wounding animals.

One of the most interesting parts of the Spanish philospher Jose Ortega y Gasset's famous essay "Meditations on Hunting" is where he suggests that any time sport hunters (and he was one) use their technology to bypass the normal defensive instincts of game animals, then what they do ceases to be hunting.

Ortega y Gasset was a very avid hunter, and wrote "Meditations on Hunting" in the 1930's.

As it pertains to me, the above is complete BS and doesn't apply.

So where do we draw the line? Or is there really one? mtmuley

Also, the logic is a bit skewed: wounding critters at short range does not make it OK to wound them at long range. Jeffry Dahmer buried victims in his back yard but that isn't an excuse for the Green River Killer even though he dumped victims a long ways from his house.