Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters Sport hunting or LR

I�ll try to get back to you this evening with this info.

What animals/hunts/area fall under your rule system?

Big game as decided by the given state's game & fish commision, or whatever state regulatory agency decides such things.

Why?

Because T-Rex and Sasquatch unfortunately are not legal big game in most places that I know of.

If you're thinking along the lines of why coyotes and varmints are not included, well, that's a whole different ball of worms as far as the regulations governing game vs. non-game/varmint species, as well as how people feel about them.


What arbitrary range do you propose we limit all hunters too?

If such a rule were to be placed, it would be determined by these same agencies, and would depend on many local factors. For instance, Arizona would likely come up with a different maximum range than Vermont.

An interesting way to determine this might be a poll of what hunters considered their maximum effective range. Then determine a number using say, the median + 20% or something along those lines. Not saying this would work by any means, but just putting the idea out there. One thing I do know is that for every long range show which is eliminated from television, a new set of hot, large breasted Swedish twins decides that nude modeling is a great career path. So I'm all for it.

I will say this considering max range. I've been VERY few places on Earth where a person could not sneak up within at least 400-500 yards of an animal. It may not always be fun to get there, but it's usually doable. Now we can all bring up single instances where this wouldn't have worked, but there is always the option of waiting for the animal to move to more accessible terrain. Or eating a tag, which really isn't the end of the world.

How do you think banning rangefinders... or turrets.... or electronics would impact poor shots... at all ranges?

I think turrets are a fine idea. The electronics deal is a slippery slope considering the advances we are seeing in technology. This has been gone over considerably already, so I will just touch on it. Suffice to say, it's not going to be awfully long before turret spinners could be considered "old school". Sort of like writing your correspondence on a manual typewriter vs. a new MAC.

I mostly just threw the electronics ban out there as an idea, as rangefinders certainly help shooters at all distances. Laser rangefinders have sure made long range shooting a much larger industry, that's for sure.

What I was getting at there's a good chance of a line drawn in the sand at some point.

It may be pretty clearly cut, sort of like the almost immediate ban on internet hunting in a whole bunch of states that came out after the Texan tried to sell hunts over the 'Net. It may be much more subtle. We will see.

How do you think said ban would impact your state's (or all states) hunting based revenue stream?

I doubt very seriously there would be much difference in license sales. Do you know of people who would quit hunting if they had to get within a couple hundred yards of game? I don't. Another thing is that the long range crowd is a pretty small subset of overall hunter numbers.

An interesting way this could administered to increase revenue is to make a separate season for electronics. Or for any weapon allowed. Or something along those lines.

How do you think enforcement of these new laws would be conducted?

The same way regulations are enforced now, via Game Wardens, check stations, call-in violator numbers, etc.

The argument could be brought up that these rules aren't really enforceable, but that's the way it is with a whole bunch of extant game and hunting laws. If a guy really wants to get away with something, he probably will, at least for a while. But most of us try to do the right thing, and stick to the books as best we can.

- -

I mentioned this before but wanted to reiterate: As far as the close range or long range hunter taking poor shots and guys wounding animals at all ranges, I really feel that the blood on the ground/tag punched idea as well as a required shooting test would go a long ways in preventing such occurrences. These two would be the best ways I can come up with to help out the sport and ensure clean kills. They make much more sense for the hunting community as a whole (where it would do the most good) than the ideas mentioned in the above paragraphs, which would have the largest affect the long range guys.

If there is a downside to the blood/tag rule and the shooting test rule, other than having to pay someone to administer the tests, and maybe some tags going unsold because people couldn't shoot for schit, I don't really see it. Please let me know what you guys think of the downsides of those two rules in particular.

No, he just has a different opinion. It is a good discussion but we all will most likely not agree 100%. Discussions tend to be that way.



And it was outlawed, right. See how that works. Drones are going to be the same. Aerial scouting has been and should be illegal. It is just a matter of time before the Game and Fish Departments and State Legislatures get up to speed. Watch and see.

The line is actually pretty easy to see. Adding electronics to remove the "human element".

The some grey area would be trail cameras, which I suspect are here to stay, and Laser Rangefinders, which also are here to stay.

Firing solutions that are derived electronically and applied electronically will not stand up in the long run. It takes too much "human element" out of the hunt. Watch and see.

Not trying to get in a dog pile but just offering my opinion.

For example...
http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2012/07/19/could-guided-bullets-turn-average-joe-into-sniper/

You are a complete [bleep] Moron.

Just offering an opinion.

I know you have me on Pretend Ignore. That's why I said that

Billy.... thank you for taking the time to put that together... it clarifies things, a bit.

First. Why stop at big game? If we're applying human thought/emotion to animals ... then why not all animals. In fact, I subject that more people have a problem with 'varmint shooting' conceptually.... than big game hunting. Furthermore... anybody who doesn't think coyotes are the smartest critter they hunt.... must be hunting dolphins. People can understand that cow elk is some of the healthiest meat on the planet.... most of them can't understand how nuking 176 prairie dogs, with a high powered rifle (and laughing about it) is "environmentally conscious'. We can't stop at appeasing simply one sector of the general public.... we have to appease them all.... that means we can't shoot any of them.

I know for certain any state that imposes max range restrictions, rangefinder bans, or overly aggressive equipment limitations... won't see a dime from me.

Imposing a range limit would actually force everyone to carry and use a rangefinder all the time. Hey, wouldn't wanna make a great shot... only to find out you're 2 yards over the limit.... $500 ticket... that sounds fair.

We already have options to limit ourselves.... and restrictions placed inside those seasons to prevent technology from reigning supreme.

I can chose to restrict myself to archery equipment for elk. That means I'll live by the regs therein.... and I get primo hunting times because of that. A bonus for self-restriction is a long prime season.

I can chose to go Muzzleloader.... and live with those restrictions.

There's no need to make a nostalgia unit hunt too.... you run a rifle... you run a rifle. Nothing is stopping you from throwing on the Filson, grabbing the sporterized 03A3... and hunting your way. How about instead of telling me not to shoot outside 500... you enjoy hunting the way you want. If I kill a buck across a canyon, while you're making a sneak on it... then you'd have a legitimate beef with me, and my style. Until that happens... how about we give each other the benefit of the doubt?

I'd never wish for any further restrictions. Rather, I'd hope I learn from my poor decisions in the field... and pass that on first hand to those with whom I hunt. I'd much rather see a growing generation of hunters interested in shooting... than a shrinking generation of bickering old men.

What prairie_goat fails to grasp is that his solution solves nothing, yet further erodes our rights to hunt.

Distance does not define difficulty by and of itself. I killed an antelope with one shot at 777 yards. Put the bullet through the shoulders and drop it straight down. I once passed at shot at a very nice 6X6 bull elk at about 90 yards because I was breathing so hard that I could not hold the reticle on the elk!

Personal decisions and responsibility can't be legislated just as integrity, morals and honesty can not be either.

I enjoy being in the woods, seeing the animals, I see many more than I shoot. Hunting to me is about nature and being part of it, understanding the animals I hunt. Anything we shoot other than coyotes we eat. I am sure its a challenge to shoot something 1000 yards off, but I sure like seeing deer, turkeys, pigs, fox, coyotes, bobcat, armadillos, owls, hawks etc. at close range.

Interesting thread you lot have going here...I shall play if you do not mind.

Sport shooting to me is being able to shoot and kill what I want with not interference from anyone else...and long range shooting means I am going to have to walk closer.

Conversely...I am quite happy to allow others to have a differing opinion.

Couldn't 'Google Earth' et al be considered an electronic advantage too? How about handheld GPS, ain't that an electronic advantage? Computers? Cell Phones?

Jim Bridger didn't have any of that sheit either.

I do remember reading where Jim thought those trombone oculars were the boss. However, he mainly used them to keep tabs on Indians that wanted his hair.

I think this is an excellent suggestion, and may go a long way to both improving the average hunter's marksmanship skills and the public's perception of hunters as a group.

As to the loss of state revenue, that is easy- make the marksmanship test mandatory and the equal to the cost of the tag you want, if you pass the test you get the tag free. If you don't pass the test, you can pay the fee again and take the test again.

I would support this for all weapons and seasons, bow, gun, duck, etc. Make the test hard enough that it truely weeds out the incompetent shooters and give them opportunities where they may obtain instruction to improve.

The additional state revenue from failed and repeat tests should be earmarked to go to improving wildlife habitat and increased public lands/public access.

If I want to see nature, I go camping.

If I want to kill schit, I go hunting.


Travis

What level of skill does your test cover? Those in their prime re strength and visual? The disabled? Those who wiling to limit their shooting to closer range due to physical limitations? Or will you hold all to the same standard?

Good post

The test should be an objective measure of competence shooting. It has nothing to do with fitness or eyesight. No test will be perfect, but we agree that there should be a test to drive a car, and it probably should be harder than it is to get and maintain a license to drive.

A test that was designed to cause the least competent 25% to practice more in order for them to pass would be a good place to start.

Some municipalities have a shooting test that must be passed in order to get an urban bow hunting permit. I have read other countries have shooting tests that must be passed to get a license.

Having to demonstrate one's competence causes most people to reflect on their ability, and/or practice which generally would be good.

A shooting test?

[bleep] that schit.

You can't regulate stupid people. So don't try.



Travis

The bow hunting test in the parks around here have the purpose of limiting the number of hunters. A coordinated Monkey could pass it.

My sentiments exactly. I like to eat. I like to shoot stuff.