I thought you might find a bit of reflection in this piece.

When Hunting Became Shooting

By Gene Wensel


Since I became an official senior citizen, I�ve been accused several times of teetering somewhere between senility and wisdom. Someone now has to push almost seventy candles into my annual cake.
I remember when camo was only available in military issue or red and black checkered shirts; when deer camps all smelled like Hoppe�s #9; when four wheel drive vehicles were all Jeeps; when the color blaze orange had not yet been invented. There were no ATVs�..no snowmobiles. Snowshoes and treestands were all made out of wood. Luggage and bows did not have wheels. Boys built slingshots. Kids caught night crawlers and sold them with the help of a sign in the front yard. We played �Cowboys and Injuns,� constructed �forts,� both underground and up in trees. We had BB guns, shot tweety birds stone dead without eating them, did daily chores unpaid and rode bikes without helmets. We carried �milk money� to school every day. Boys fought without knives, and in our hearts we knew that all girls had �cooties.�
When I was still a teenager, I visited the Orvis rod plant in Manchester, Vermont. From a rack in the front of their factory store, I lovingly fondled a featherweight split bamboo cane fly rod. It was only 5 feet long (much shorter than most fly rods) and was made for a 5 weight line�. perfect for many of Vermont�s small trout streams. It wore an all cork handle and a reel seat of simple split rings. If I remember right, it weighed a mere 1 7/8 oz. It was a supreme example of artistic elegance and pure class. I wanted it very much, but the price tag on it said exactly $100, way more than I had to my name. Today that same rod sells for well over $2000.
Prices have changed. Times have changed. People have changed. Society has changed. We are now several generations removed from the farm but still need to grow things. Half a century ago, the term �politically correct� was nonexistent. �Boy scout� has taken on a whole new meaning, if you get my drift. Today�s youngsters spend all their free time in front of television sets, computers or at malls instead of out in the woods. Kids feel naked without their very own cell phone within reach. People previously known as �whippersnappers� now play violent video games or watch television when not texting or talking on their phones. Teens quit doing chores for under $50 an hour. They also carry charge cards. They don�t walk anywhere they can ride. No more roving lawn mower or snow shoveling jobs are solicited. Boys wear earrings and necklaces. Girls get boy�s names tattooed onto various body parts. Our �Commander in Chief� thinks he�s an emperor but looks and acts more like Steve Urkel than John Wayne or General George Patton. You get the picture�..

Our wind figuratively changed when hunting became an industry. In my opinion, it all started when television stole much of our free time. Interest in the �Big Three� hunting magazines soon waned. Television was King! So was Elvis. We had to endure live action bowling. Ed Sullivan offered us not only Elvis and the Beatles, but special talent acts like a guy spinning dinner plates on under-spined arrow shafts. We had Howdy Doody and a talking horse named Mr. Ed. I even watched Lassie right up until the episode where the kid got his foot caught in a huge bear trap, then sent his loyal dog rushing back to the barn with instructions to bring back a C-clamp. A dog smart enough to fetch a C-clamp? Gimme a break.
Television went through understandable growing pains. Then about twenty years ago, actual hunting shows were born, finding an uncomfortable niche right alongside Star Wars, horror films, I Love Lucy re-runs, fifty new sit-coms and soft porn. Never again did we have to watch Ozzie Nelson walk around his own home wearing a suit and tie when he had no apparent job. Mr. Ed went to the glue factory. Howdy Doody came down with mildew or dry rot, I�m not sure which, but the painted freckles fell off his face.
Today we�re offered full season, weekly TV episodes about people who catch turtles for a living, �exterminators� who don�t kill much except insects, gator hunters who seemingly talk with marbles in their mouths to the point TV producers have to subtitle whatever they say as if they�re speaking in a foreign language. The hunt for Bigfoot continues. One of these days sasquatch hunters might consider leaving a bunch of trail cameras out for more than a few days at a time. On the TV menu are weekly shows about driving trucks on icy roads, logging, towing vehicles, raising little girls with double chins, the trials and tribulations of �Little People,� the fine art of junk picking and hoarding at it�s worst. Five year old girls are painted up for beauty contests. We�re even treated to one about the perils of being a meter maid. Drama choices are endless! Had enough? Apparently not yet.
With hunting shows, celebrities seemingly came out of nowhere, all jockeying not for entertainment or educational value, but for pole positions of name recognition among their peers, potential sponsors and new followers. Our attention and interest were tested with lots of whispering, poorly hidden commercials, bad acting by people trying to be funny, and shameless, even embarrassing, high five whooping and hollering rants. It didn�t take long to realize far too many celebrity hosts and guest hunters have a very hard time differentiating love from lust.
Television hunting shows made hunting look easy, programming youngsters to expect success without ever really earning it and getting quickly frustrated when �it� didn�t happen soon enough. Commercialized gadgets were invented and promoted to eliminate much of the process. Hunters became �athletes.� Hunting became a �team sport.� People right out of puberty decided to go �Pro,� with deadly intentions but foggy direction, skipping any degree of apprenticeship or woodsmanship skills along the way. I continue to see six year old kids posing their best �bad ass� faces for hero photos. Kids young enough to wear pajamas with the feet attached are regularly seen posing behind trophy bucks. Youngsters who still get a lollipop whenever they sleep dry are shooting big game. Deer are now �whacked,� �popped,� or �smoked� from long ranges. Arrows became �meat missiles,� while bullets became �pills.� Just this morning I saw a photo of a bowhunter posing with his dead critter. On the horizontal rib cage of his prize sat an open can of beer. The words �awesome� and �That�s what I�m talkin� about!� have risen to far more than standard verbiage.
With the �help� of television celebrities, who often seem to think of themselves as somehow very special, hunting slowly but surely lost it�s romance. Our �music� increased in tempo but lost it�s rhythm. Many hunters don�t even get into the woods anymore. There is no story attached to 90% of the deer killed on television these days. �Just put me in a good spot� is all they expect. Traditional deer camps were sold�. or only used for poker, booze, smoking, or to test drive new girlfriends.
Hunting became shooting. �Bows� that look more like James Bond tools came to be known as �weapons.� Instead of trying to get as close as possible to big game, the challenge evolved to how far away one could �whack� a deer with either bows or guns�.it didn�t really matter. Just last night I watched a celebrity bowhunter �whack� his �biggest buck ever� (home grown to boot) from 56 yards. That buck deserved better.
Primitive black powder firearms grew into nothing more than single shot rifles without the brass, using pellets rather than powder, big scopes, thumbhole stocks, bipods, etc. I even saw a muzzleloader dude carrying two of them in case he needed a second shot! I made a mental note to myself: �There could be a market out there for double barreled muzzleloaders....maybe even repeaters.�
Pre and extended primitive �weapons� big game seasons, those fought hard for and established by none other than our bowhunting pioneers, were quickly infiltrated by hundreds of thousands of opportunists simply looking for an easier way to fill their entitled �extra� tags.
�Hunting� shows often display sniper talent. Now, before someone takes a bead on me, I want to admit I�ve always admired and respected long range shooting skills of snipers. I�ve bought and read stuff by and about guys like Carlos Hathcock, Chris Kyle, Simo Hayha, etc. But, when hunting is confused with long range shooting, one can�t help but realize sniper talent often emerges as little more than superb target shooting at live targets. Again, no disrespect to long range sniper skills, but in my opinion, anything over 400 yards is a whole lot more about shooting than hunting. The only real hunting part is spotting the animal from afar and stalking or crawling into position to set up for the shot. I might also mention here that I am an NRA �Lifer,� and by no means an anti-gun person whatsoever.
Back in the �Golden Age� of deer hunting, many if not most deer were killed with open sighted .30-30s. I once commented to my dad that a seemingly higher percentage of big bucks were taken in �the good old days,� even though total deer numbers were not nearly as high in that era. Dad pointed out the biggest reason was possibly because most hunters used open sights. Few carried, nor could afford, binoculars or scopes. Since shooting doe deer was not cool in those days, spikes and forkhorns with small antlers were not easily identified as bucks from long range, and so were not shot at. Huh�.
In long range shooting, with either gun or bow, the absolutely necessary and noble relationship between predator and prey is remarkably reduced or even eliminated. From greater distances, a game animal�s ability to even be aware of a hunter by way of their normal senses is reduced to all but worthless levels. Because of that fact, there is no longer any real connection with the animal, and therefore not much of a hunt. Elevated �shooting houses� set up on the edges of food plots are correctly named.
Many, if not most, modern hunters are opportunists. Fred Bear himself put that philosophy into motion with his �two season hunter� concept, which in truth was little more than a shrewd marketing plan, at least at the time. Most opportunists are essentially the definition of the word. They choose expediency over basic principles. A big problem surfaces when opportunists sacrifice principles. Opportunists not only despise failure, but most cannot handle it. They dislike eating tag soup, preferring to kill their game �the easiest legal way.� Going home with no blood on their hands apparently leaves a bad taste in their mouths.
Most opportunists don�t belong to much of anything, because many are simply users who don�t really care. There is a big difference in having an interest in something and being passionate enough about anything to really care.
Hunters need to encourage and embrace the challenge instead of the �kill at all costs� attitude. Risking an unfilled tag will require re-education of the general public to the sweetness of maybe accomplishing things a harder way, which is often also a simpler way. It becomes a values thing.
Slipping the crossbow mentality and justification into archery seasons under the disguise of it being a �more efficient weapon� (there�s that weapon word again) is little more than an opportunist�s excuse and a money driven marketing ploy. I had a hard time not laughing when an able-bodied neighbor of my brother lobbed off two of his fingers the very first time he took a shot at a nice buck with his new crossbow.
True disabilities aside, there is simply no reason to allow crossbows outside of gun seasons. When states dump the truly physically impaired requisite, we end up with 90% being mere opportunists. Once again, our biggest problem comes along when these opportunists sacrifice principles. Our deep outdoor passion should never be thought of as any sort of �entitlement,� which unfortunately is the way the majority of users interpret things today. In reality, opportunists might have efficiency, but they display very little class.
Using bows and arrows at ultra close range puts the hunt in hunting. Was a big buck shot from a vehicle hunted or simply shot? Was he an accomplishment to be proud of or closer to nothing but a victim? In truth, many �sport hunters� have little or no desire (or time) to honestly engage an animal up close and personal, instead following the simplistic philosophy that getting a job done the quickest, easiest way is the best way. This last sentence in itself is a sad reminder that the hunting process has been watered down to pathetic levels. We need to get back into the woods! Shortening the learning curve that comes as a part of any apprenticeship is not the answer. Hunting needs to once again become a �values� issue, accepting challenges but not pushing past them. Extending one�s personal range limits quickly takes our passion from the level of a challenge to that of a stunt, often justified solely by the fact they saw someone on TV pull it off once.
Respect for wildlife continues to diminish. Deer are not targets. We are not at war with wildlife. Product names need not imply death, destruction, fury, evil, or hatred.
Who could have predicted egotistical hunting celebrities would someday show up in tour buses and pickup trucks that look more like they belong in a parade? Who would have guessed that hunting celebrities would make statements like, �I wouldn�t think of going hunting without wearing Brand X camo.� Who �woulda thunk� broadheads would sell for $40 each and the hunting industry would get to where breast implants would become a deductible business expense?
Hunting, our beloved passion, needs to be redefined and fixed...reborn if you will.

For those not aware of by now, PBS has a brand new official �Preservation of Bowhunting Committee� to implicate and connect more real bowhunters with serious yet passionate people who already belong to PBS. I�m excited about this. Members of the Professional Bowhunters Society are among a very unique group, self-limiting their standards in equipment, techniques and values by their own free will. Their hearts, as well as their values, are in the right place. Self imposed rules of conduct can and should be shared, shown, and encouraged by wise, strong-willed people with good values. As things play out now, right or wrong is too often cast aside during the process of interpretation.
It has always fascinated me how flyfishermen can smoothly pull off crusading their passion and beliefs with mass acceptance. They have their very own organizations, seasons, stretches of water, their own magazines, TV shows, mail order catalogs, outfitters, etc. without seemingly offending other fishermen using bait, spinning rods or high tech gear. They express and even flaunt class right before the eyes of gill crushers with minimal opposition. How can they do that? One of the reasons is that fishing can be a non-consumptive catch and release pastime, while death is a part of hunting that cannot be avoided nor denied quite as easily.
I can�t help but ask myself why high-tech hunters, once they �master� their hunting tools, don�t naturally and instinctively realize such and revert to increasing personal challenge levels one way or another rather than pushing onward.
PBS will regain our identity only by embracing the journey�. selling the process rather than the product. There is nothing wrong with intensity, but we must express love of the hunt rather than lust for the hunt! Admitting and agreeing that there is in fact a problem that clear thinking could help is a step in the right direction, even if addressed one hunter at a time.
If you haven�t read or contributed to the multiple posted threads concerning the future of PBS as a voice to be heard, by all means join the conversation with opinions and ideas on our www.probowsociety.net website.
PBS is in the process of putting together a short film about our philosophies. Your help will be appreciated in any capacity. What the Montana Bowhunters Association has put together will give you an idea of a similar vision for and about PBS. I invite you to view the MBA�s video at www.mtba.org
Those in our circle have been talking about the dilemmas within modern hunting practices and the truth that there is a need to do something about them, but until now, the answers have been unclear. Translating these tasks to actions will be our biggest new challenge. We need to educate the masses to realize that at least right now, more of them are guilty than innocent.
In truth, this opinion article you are reading would never be seen published in any mainstream outdoor media because it would piss off multiple advertisers enough for them to jump ship. When principles face profits, the outcome is seldom positive. Outdoor media needs to first recognize the fact that currently they are part of the problem more than the solution.
PBS is a very unique group, one you should be proud of. It is not for everyone, but each of us reading these words know people who should belong to this organization but don�t. Our future is looking bright once again, mostly because it�s time to put the hunt back in hunting. Pass the word!

I agree with the way the hunting shows are headed, except for Meat Eater with Steven Rinella. I think that is a show that is headed back to the roots of hunting and why a lot of people do it, myself included. I think most of them are so edited that it's hard to figure out what is really hunting and what is staged anymore with most of those shows.

Excellent and well written.....even if I don't agree with quite ALL of it;just most of it.

But in general Wensel is right.Technology has taken an awful lot out of the "learning curve" when it comes to hunting.

A video that I would recommend to anyone here is My Alaska. It was shot up here before the state was a state. Some of it is controversial but that's how it was back then. Master Alaskan Guide Leroy Shebal made the video and it is top notch. One of the pilots in the video is the dad of a guy I have flown with here in alaska, and he is an exceptional pilot. I would highly recommend the video to everyone.

http://www.myalaska.com/

Pretty good stuff. Personally I blame the video industry. I know because I had something like 75 VHS tapes at one time. All sorts of hunting from all the big "Hunting Hero" types. I was lucky to get my start in hunting the old way. The video industry was just entertainment to me. What I think happened was it sent the message that you can "buy" success. If you hang enough cameras you will eventually bump into a critter in the woods. If you hang enough tree stands you can lay claim to enough real estate to encompass said critter. Of course your bow or rifle has to be the one used by your favorite Hunting Hero. Oh,and if you can catch it all on video you truly are a Pro. Hell,all you have to do now is hit the critter when it happens by. Here in the east it culminated in competition and posted signs. A Mine! Mine! Mine! society. My buck! My wood lot! All Mine! I was an avid bow hunter through the 80s and 90s before having enough of it all. I'd like to see tree stands outlawed here. Talk about ruffling feathers. Just say that in a group of limb clinging PA bow toters. I can because I bow hunt from the ground. Successfully too I might add. This the main reason I have to have a Rocky Mountain fix every chance I can. You can actually "hunt" in the mountains. You have to know the game. You can't cheat the wind,you have to know how to hunt it. Most of all you can't post 600 acres for your convenience. Bring you "A" game and have at it. Hunt! I haven't had my coffee yet,so I might be a little brusk. I won't apologize
for any of it though. The media has turned a tradition of hunting into a society of "shooters". I was there for it. Now I'm trying to teach my kids the old things the old way. In the woods. Not off some Wal Mart shelf. Sheese I need some cafine.

I have met Gene and Barry Wensel at PBS banquets and bow hunting in Iowa.I happen to agree with his stand on x bows in archery season.

Both great guys and good ambassadors to hunting. Really funny too.

Not A big fan of hunting shows but if you want to see a decent hunting video watch their October Whitetails.

Thanks will check that out. A friend of mine Who recently passed who was a bush pilot in Alaska in the 50's and 60's before he was a pilot for Alaska Air. Told a lot of amazing stories of Alaska back then.

Great article.

Thanks for posting that 4100.

I've always enjoyed reading Wensel's opinions and experiences on hunting. I agree with him the majority of the time even though he is speaking as a traditional archer and I'm the user of a scope-sighted-powder burner.

Good article. I can't find much of anything contained within with which I can disagree.

And I agree, the Meateater program I occasionally watch. At least he dresses his own animal.

The high school gym used to fill up with the hunting adventures of Wally Taber. Then Fred Bear came on the scene. Can't remember any Eastman Brothers movies, but it seems they were out there. Now things have progressed so that it is electronically sent to our homes or digitalized on plastic.

Nothing new here. Whitetails, Moose, Sheep, Pheasants etc have been getting killed and the act turned into a cash stream for over 50 years. The question is why are people like Wensel and many others offended by todays presentations?

Well for myself, there is only so much killing that can take place until it becomes offensive. Turn on the outdoor shows and it is a constant barrage of animal death. One show after another. One animal and on to the next, with graphic detail of the hit, death run, drt, etc. If you didn't catch it the first time you get a second chance in slow motion. Old fashioned on my part perhaps, but an animal deserves to die with more than a little respect and privacy. Hell chickens are given more respect in death than a Whitetail on one of the shows.

Nothing new to see here, just more of it.

First hunting celebrity I saw was Gene with his traveling whitetail show - early 80s Williston ND- sometime between Howdy Doody and Honey BooBoo. I'm an opportunist and happy to admit it. If the PBS grandpas want to knap flint more power to them.

Any way, any means

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/07/AR2005050701270.html

The only problem I have with this is that I seem to remember, in the "October Whitetails" video, it featured them shooting arrows at running deer, being driven by others. Can't exactly see the virtue or purity of launching arrows at running deer.

Gene has got his own exclusive whitetail managed farm, game cams, unlimited tree stands and very little to absolutely no pressure on his property. I'd wager he totes his fat butt out there on a quad too.

See what I'm drivin' at?

As said by a poster above, I agree with MOST of the original post.

I am an opportunist and a meat hunter with no apologies. I guess I just haven't "evolved" into the "higher levels" of hunting (there's 7 IIRC- I have a hard time not giggling over these...). And I'm not going to. Evolve that is..

I will usually kill the first available legal animal that gives me a clean shot - if bow hunting ever becomes advantageous to me here, I'll take it up seriously - it's a hell of a lot of fun. I have my certificate... and I am an opportunist. Otherwise, I'll stick to the rifle as more efficient.

I just ordered me a Leupold 800i range finder. That Bushnell 400 just doesn't cut it for the 300-500 yard common-shot range I find myself in up here on caribou on the open tundra. I can't eyeball range on flat country or open water worth chit- so yeah, I'm going to use some technology... The gun is capable, i'm capable, but I gotta know the range- no more "pecker shots"(previous post) for me. If the new range finder doesn't range(supposedly good to 500 yards on "deerhide" targets, I'm not taking the shot

That all said, I've been known to take a "cull" animal when there was a "better" one available at the squeeze of a trigger - the hunt's the same, the eating is the same, and the herd stock may be improved, or at least zeroed out.. Makes me feel good, so THAT makes my kill a "trophy".

Not that I won't take the biggest bugger available given a choice - it just depends on the situation. (A 600 lb yearling moose is a helluva lot easier to pack a mile or more than a 1500 lb. one... but if the 1500 lb one is the only choice available , or close to get-out.. - he's toast.)

I shoot females when legal and advantageous, too...

I'm real close to 70 too and I feel the same about what has happened to hunting.

I knew someone had to be watching them.

When we got cable one of the first things I did was schedule several TV hunting shows to be recorded. After watching a few I killed all the schedules and haven't watched one since.

They have very little to do with the way my partners and I hunt and the more "professionally" they are done the less so.

I like Gene a lot. I had coffee with him, his brother a their cinematographer few years back. We had superb conversation. My admiration and respect grew leaps and bounds that day. There is much to learn from them.

That article there is one of the best I've seen by anybody. He speaks much truth in it.

I think treestands are BS, but I'm sure that don't bother Gene any and it don't bother me any if he uses them.

It's going to be interesting here (Oregon) to see how our game commission handles the rangefinding/compensating scopes that are becoming vogue.

Presently no electronics are allowed our arms or bows. Obviously that is not the case though in many states, and with a few minutes of schooling one can be turned into an adept long range shooter.

Bump

Growing up a an Iowa farm kid in the 50�s, I experienced a lot of what Gene writes about. There weren�t many deer around back then (nowadays it is not uncommon to see more deer in one day than I did as a kid) and although there were no deer hunters in my family my brothers and I killed many a sparrow and crow, rabbit , squirrel and pigeon, with dirt clods to arrows to pellets to .22�s. I remember getting up before dawn (something I still do) to do chores and run the traps along the creek before the school bus came.

It wasn�t until after moving to Colorado that I started big game hunting, getting my first centerfire rifle, a 7mm RM in 1982 and my first animal, a spike elk, around 1984. Back then I didn�t hunt deer or antelope and, although I like antelope a lot for table fare (best of all, in fact), I�m still ambivalent or worse about deer which I consider to be targets of opportunity.

Daughter #2, who doesn�t hunt herself, has accompanied me on numerous hunts with her husband. Daughter #1 will be going on her first hunt this October when we head to Wyoming for antelope. Between my son-in-law, Daughter #1 and myself we�ll have 5 doe tags to fill and 2 days to fill them. A few weeks later Daughter #2, son-in-law and I will head out to hunt elk. Once again we have tags for the females, although I�ll buy an over-the-counter bull tag just in case.

For our hunts I use every advantage I can, including exploring the territories before we head out with topo and land ownership maps, talking to wildlife officers and extensive use of Google Earth. We will practice out to the limits of my local range, 600 yards even though my longest shot ever was last year when I took my cow at 400. In the field we�ll make extensive use of binoculars and my laser range finder. Although we�ll be wearing blaze orange, we�ll try to minimize our scent by rubbing sage into our clothes and hats and working the wind and we�ll try to minimize both our motion and noise. Normal stuff.

When it comes time to shoot we�ll be using handloads carefully developed for accuracy and rifle scopes with ballistic compensating reticles. If time and distance permit or require, the range will be verified by laser. After the shot pictures will be taken with digital cameras and the spot marked using satellites in space and handheld GPS recievers. We don�t use horses or ATVs so meat will be packed out on our backs or using a two-wheel game cart, depending on the situation and terrain. Soon after I get home the pictures will be posted online for distant family members and friends to see. The elk hunt will receive an length write-up that gets emailed to family members. At night we�ll sleep in the comfort of a trailer, replete with running water, a flush toilet, gas stove and oven, and electric lights. During the day we�ll ride around in a late model 4x4 F150 4x4 with automatic transmission and hubs, comfy seats, electric windows and a good heater. Many is the time I�ve listened to the Broncos while watching a piece of land, including last year when I got my buck within a few minutes of the game�s end.

We�ll hunt public land for the most part but I�ve found a rancher in WY that promised to let us on to shoot does, the more the better and he promised to introduce us to a neighboring rancher that feels the same. Although no trespass fees will be involved, I plan to compensate the ranchers in ways yet to be determined. The elk hunt will be public land only.

Times change and I have only two regrets in life. One is that I never got to go big game hunting with my uncle, the other is that I never went on a fly-in fishing trip to Canada with my father-in-law, although our families were up there together on two occasions.

There is a wheelbarrow full of antlers and horns in my barn. Long ago I stopped trying to add more to the pile. My goal while hunting is to enjoy the outdoors and enjoy the company of friends. Filling the freezer is a nice bonus and benefits the family as a whole. Whenever the freezers are full the excess gets donated to the needy, usually the Denver Rescue Mission. Although some people turn up their noses at taking does and cows, I�m quite happy to do so and I�m quite happy to use modern technology in the process.


{edited to add...}


"...my brothers and I killed many a sparrow and crow, rabbit , squirrel and pigeon, with dirt clods to arrows to pellets to .22�s."

And BB's by the thousands. Got two sparrows on the wing with my Daisy and later a pheasant on the wing with my Ithaca Model 49 .22.

Gene�s attitude reminds me of the resistance to in-line muzzleloaders by Colorado�s erstwhile black powder shooter�s organization (I forget the name) back in the late 1990�s. I had purchased a Remington M700ML inline and the next year the DOW outlawed it during �primitive season� in large part due to pressure from the muzzleloading organization. The claims were that the new inlines gave inline shooters a big advantage and the inlines didn�t have the right �look and feel�.
I won�t argue the �look and feel� issue � the inlines DO look and feel different. There is, however, very little advantage of inlines over the traditional �side hammer� designs that were newly required. I wrote several letters to the DOW about the topic including one where I provided documented evidence of recommended loads from the 1880�s that were hotter than those recommended by Remington for the M700ML. In an case, scopes were prohibited so there was no advantage in sighting mechanisms.

In accordance with the new laws I purchased a traditional side-hammer muzzleloader and in my letters to the DOW threatened to paint it red, white and blue with yellow racing stripes, mount fiber-optic sights, swap the trigger for a two-stage target trigger, replace the hammer with one made of titanium, replace the blued barrel with fluted stainless and make other changes that would definitely affect the �look and feel� that the muzzleloader organization thought was so important. There was also some discussion of the apparel I would wear, including blue jeans, Hawaiian shirts and blaze orange which, IIRC, was allowed but not required at the time.

The DOW argued they never considered the �look and feel� issue but I had proof from their web site which detailed minutes from their meetings in which it was discussed. They came to their senses the next year and once again allowed inlines. Bunch of damn liars and fools as far as I was concerned.

The technology of hunting is killing hunting in my opinion.

And hunting has become much more of a shooting sport than it ever was. If folks feel that's a good thing, well, be happy, but I'm not one of them.

+1

A couple of years ago I mentioned during a debate on another forum that I hoped hunting never became "an engineering problem." The guy I was debating with wasn't really offended, just puzzled, since he'd never really learned how to hunt before getting into long-range shooting. He'd learned his "hunting" from other shooters at the target range, who apparently never mentioned anything besides mil or MOA scope adjustments, which electronic wind-gauge to buy, what ballistic program to put in their cellphone, etc.

Apparently he'd never heard a word about actually HUNTING. Instead he understood the entire process as spotting some animal two ridges over and then figuring out how to whack it.

Just the other day I was talking to a guy about hunting and he immediately asked 'How many tee stands do you have setup?' to which I replied 'I don't have any, I hunt from the ground'. He looked at me like I had 3 heads.

That's far from the first time I've had that look. Apparently there are a bunch of folks that haven't a clue how to hunt unless perched in a tree.

One of your best posts, John, well thought and well said.

It will likely draw some flames from the defensive souls among long rangers, but most will be merely puzzled.

"Killing hunting" ??

There is no question that there is much more of a discrepancy in the level of shooting skill among hunters now than in the past, but how that is �killing hunting� ?

Learning to shoot well takes a lot of time and effort and some are not willing to put in that time and effort. The same can be said for physical conditioning.

Is it unfair that some guys here are able to travel further and faster than other hunters? It sure does up the success rate to be able to run up the mountain.



John,

In a way one could say hunting has always been an �engineering problem�. Somebody invented the spear then the atlatl then the bow and so on. We humans are always trying to get more reach.

That being said I have sure seen some animal killing that sure didn�t look like hunting to me. Some of it at long range but also some at conventional range.

I think the antler obsession is much more of a problem for hunting than LR shooting, but then a case could be made that I am a little biased in this discussion.

John, I don't really expect you to understand I guess. Your gig is whacking from two ridges over. Fine if you like it.

Personally, I don't care to and yet, I'm pretty sure I could w/o half the effort and money I spend to hunt like I do. It isn't about what "can do" that defines hunting for a lot of folks.

But be that as it may hunting is and will continue to be an "engineering problem" for a lot of folks and that will drive the game into the ground eventually for several reasons. The biggest one being that non-hunting folks will simply get fed up with it.

Ah well, I'll keep hunting my way, you keep hunting yours. With luck, hunting will last at least a little longer than me. Probably.

+1 to Steelhead and Mule Deer. Great posts. I'd love to see some real world stats on the misses/wounded animals vs kills in the long range crowd's world. We'll never know, but from the small sampling of hunters I see in our camps, 90% of them have no business shooting past 200 yards.

I really like the article in the OP. I agree with most of it.

The long range hunting discussion here is where I find some interesting arguments. I think most of the bias against killing something at "long range" is due to pure ignorance, laziness in developing the shooting part of hunting's skill, and lack of knowledge as to what is possible.

I've hunted everything I could since the day I was able to draw a sling shot. I bow hunt now and have a January mule deer tag this year. I've rifle hunted through it all. I know how to hunt to get close and I certainly know what hunting is. Shooting is a part of hunting and will always be a part of hunting.

With every weapon I shot or hunted with whether a sling shot, bow, shotgun or rifle, I wanted to be able to use it to its fullest capability to put something in the bag. After all, if I couldn't use it with the skill necessary to wring out its capablility, then I was the weak link in the system.

If a guy can learn to drive a shotgun properly, some incredibly long shots on targets and game can be routine. Same goes with steering a rifle. Most big game cartridges have more than enough steam to kill big game at 1000 yards. Why not learn how to use the tool to do what it's certainly capable?

Kinda like the Range Rovers I see around town that have never been in 4-wheel drive or even on a dirt road.

When I first set out to be as good as my equipment, I shot to 1000 yards, had great data and was ready for a prized mule deer hunt. I wanted to be able to kill something nice if I saw it and couldn't close the gap. Ended up killing a nice buck at 25 yards.

I've never gone out purpose to only take long shot, but if it's the only one I have, I know I can close the deal two ridges over.

Well said.

Great post 4100!

It's hard to make a good argument against anything you wrote.
I grew up in Illinois and remember my grandpa( born in 1893) saying he saw his first WT in 1958. The quest for trophys is a big part of the problem!!

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.

This shoulda been posted in the Bowhunting section...oh well...the Wensel Brothers are true characters without a doubt. And the PBS are a bunch of snobs! The MBA video is nothing more than a bunch of guys patting each other on the back. So what! Long range or short range hunting with bow or rifle is still hunting. I of course have my own beliefs and need not push them on anybody. I don't care if you hunt with a smoke pole, a stick and a string or a two pound trigger in your rifle with a 40x variable scope. The point here is you can't do it in France and in some other countries. We are lucky that our forefathers did some work to make it what it is today. The land of the free! You can hang from tree stands if you want heck if you want to be real risky..ride a bike without a helmet! I did it..crashed and I'm still here to tell about it. Things are gonna change, products are gonna be developed. Don't mean you gotta buy them and use them. And if long range killing ain't for you...you don't have to do it. I say each man or women for themselves.

I do believe though EVERYBODY should serve their country for a minimum of 4 years! And if not you have no right to scream for what's right or wrong. Because you have not contributed to OUR FREEDOM'S!

Mule Deer, that quote from Ortega y Gasset could encompass a lot of the gear we hunters use nowadays. And not just the longrange rifle stuff. 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

mtmuley,

Of course it does.

Yep a lotta pimp Daddies out there...

Just got to agree with this article, quit watching most of the "hunting" shows. Do still watch a couple of the predator shows like Les Johnson once in a while.

I watched a show just the other day with some dude in Africa, sitting in a blind over a waterhole, slinging arrows at [bleep] for a week straight.

No new technology, all he did was hang out in an enclosure over a water hole with a stick and string.

I'd sooner knit a frigging sweater than 'enjoy' that type of connection to my past...

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.

Hey.....not all of us down here hunt like that!

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

I have given this long range big game shooting business a lot of thought,and concluded that if I can't get it done with a 270 or 7 mag,and a 6X scope, I really, truly, am not interested...and have no problem watching something walk away that is outside my sphere of lethal influence.

I guess that in some ways and at some level, when it comes to big game hunting, I intuitively want to limit how much technology I am willing to bring to the game. I also think this is something everyone has to decide for himself after honestly assessing his own abilities.

I do think, however, that blasting rocks at 1200 yards with John Burns is a real hoot, though!

JG

I grew up hunting the hill country around Kerrvile and the brush country around Pearsol with my uncles. No tree blinds but did sit in a Mesquite tree or 2. I was mostly taught still hunting for deer. My reference was to the hunting shows:-)

You can draw all the lines you want, but ain't nobody going to pay attention. Hunting will not go back to what it was. It will not be long before adaptive optics and all the rest will do all the killing for you and then hunting will have progressed past being just a shooting activity like it is for so many now and will become simply a purchasing activity. You buy it, and press a button, everything else will be done for you.

Oh yeah, on-line hunting will be back too. You heard it here.

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 not wounding animals.

I always thought shooting was a big part of hunting.

OK
I also do not begrudge the long range shooter his game (pun intended). The problem is the wannabes. The LRS shows make it seem like if you buy the right equipment anyone can do it. The math may be precise but there is a lot more to LRS than the math. The wind must be doped just right and in the mountains it may be blowing in the opposite direction, and up or down at the point of impact.
On one show I saw a long range shot on a large mule deer buck. It had a narrow high rack with long tines and was walking through some leafless scrub oak. The deer ran off after the shot and the "hunter" said that it was getting dark and they would follow the trail in the morning. "Next day" we were told that they had recovered the trophy in some trees nearby. The mule deer shown had an ordinary WIDE rack with much smaller front and rear tines. Not the same deer, obviously the original deer ran off and another was killed for the "show". Never watched the show again.

I can only speak for myself about your post, so I will. As it pertains to me, the above is complete BS and doesn't apply. I would also bet that is doesn't apply to anyone who has a similar skill level and has worked to develop that skill as I have done.

From 400 to 1000 yards every animal I've attempted to shoot was killed and recovered

In contrast, I have lost 2 within 50 and whiffed on a nice buck at 200

Go figure...

So the use of spears and arrows and covering scents (like the natural picked-fresh sage I often use)camo of any kind, muzzle loaders, iron sights, glass sights, and in fact any kind of steel or synthetic or other engineered products means you are no longer hunting?

We may have more and better technology but I still see plenty of hunting going on.

I suppose it's what people consider hunting to be. As an accounting professor said after getting groans for telling a particularly corny joke, there's no accounting for taste.

Here when pressed hard deer tend to lay up in the middle of a section where they can see you coming from too far off. On one such occasion when hunting time was short I managed to get about 350 yards close, being watched most of the way. Got my deer and was pleased with my shot and congratulations all around. But it left me feeling flat as far as hunting ability was concerned. Have had more fun working/freezing my butt off to get close and coming up empty. Your mileage may vary, see first paragraph.

This discussion routinely degenerates into agitated denial of physics by long rangers, that physics does not apply to their ballistics. Right on schedule. Carry on.

Edited to add: good for you that you have not lost an animal hit at long range, and may your record continue without losing any.

I don't understand how you gleaned from my stating my personal experience that it was a "heated and vehement denial", but whatever floats your boat.

....that's "carry on" in Longrangese.

You fellows can hunt or shoot how you like, just be courteous enough to leave me to do my stalking on foot.

IMO that is one of the elegant things about hunting. We get to draw the line, mostly, for ourselves! The laws/rules in place allow a broad range of ways to legally hunt. You can choose any of them and as some here often say, "You only have to make you happy!".

One of the recurring arguments (and your primary one) against long-range hunting is the percentage of wounded animals. How can it then be "skewed logic" to point out that just as many are wounded at short ranges with archery gear?

One of the leading proponents of traditional archery hunting, the guy who "wrote the book," (TJ Conrads) says that traditional archers should be able to hit a vitals-sized target 80% of the time. That's a 20% failure rate, out of the gate, shooting at targets.

If rc or any other long-range hunting proponent quoted 20% as an acceptable failure rate, he'd be crucified.

The main reason this argument will go on forever (not directed at you) is that most hunters can't draw a distinction between "ethical" and a personal ethic.

I like the discussion about defeating the animal's senses through technology, but after pursuing large game with archery and muzzleloader equipment, I'd say a 250 yard shot is defeating the animal's senses with technology.

Most guys don't complain about a 250 yard shot though, because that's one they can make, so it's OK.

Just like anything else.... As soon as something is past someone's "personal comfort zone", it immediately becomes wrong and unethical.

I love to get close to critters. If I had it my way, I would never shoot big game over 100 yards. But I'll be damned if I'm going to watch an animal that I just hiked for 4 hours after walk away because I handicapped myself with my equipment and lack of practice.

What a bunch of babies. If you don't like someone's methods, cut it down and brag yours up. The premise that so much game is wounded at long range is unsubstantiated. One post claimed finding several dead animals that were wounded at long range. How would you know?

Sneaky people with primitive weapons seem to think they are better than long range shooters, just like bicycle riders think they are better than people with cars. They are both wrong. Long range shooters like to brag about their long shots, but I don't hear them telling everybody that they need to go to long range shooting.

We can all think back to the day when hunting was done with a black powder rifle and iron sights. You will also have to consider the fact that game was more plentiful and hunting areas were less crowded and urbanized.

I hate people that drive Subarus and vote Democratic. They are still Americans and even though the country would be better off without them, they still have a right to be here. The fractured aspects of hunting and what is accepted from one hunter to another is what gives the anti-hunting crowd the ammunition they need to destroy what hunting we have left.

Snivel snivel, whine whine, cry all you want, I am going hunting they way I choose and enjoy and I still belong to the NRA and support every aspect of gun owner's rights and hunting/fishing opportunities as much as I can so that it can be enjoyed by at least one more generation.

And that is one time when hunting becomes shooting.

But there are many other ways in which the whole "hunting experience" is being diluted with technology.

I don't think the argument about giving anti's ammunition holds water, becasue people use that to justify anything and everything. Plus, nothing that we do or don't do will change the way they think. Nonhunters (not antis are a different story.

In a lot of cases, game is MORE plentiful, much more plentiful, than it ever was. Yes, there is more competition for that game now, but the animals are often much more abundant than they ever were, and much more accessible too (effectively increasing their apparent abundances).

Competition for game spurs a lot of the drive for technological advantages to "get an edge" over the competition.

I'm guessing there is a reason a person doesn't carry only an 8 iron in their golf bag.

Repertoire

to me the satisfaction of shooting comes from how close i can get to the game not how far i can shoot them from.

I think if tanner (or anyone) has hiked 4 hours he is doing more hunting than alot of guys around here do in a year. And from his avatar it looks like he's doing it in the mountains. He IS hunting. What I see in my area is guys sitting in their pickup, on a hill top, drinking coffee, lobbing bullets towards anything they can see in their spotting scopes. They are not hunting.

If tanner has hiked 4 hrs he has hiked 4 hrs. Lots of folks hike for 4 days, never mind 4 hrs and they might not even carry a gun doing it. When is hiking - hunting?

But be that as it may, does 4 hrs of anything entitle someone to a bull, buck or bear? What difference does it make if he hiked or road and ATV or sat on his butt next to the road for 4 hrs?

Of course, I don't golf either. But if I did, I'd only use and 8 iron I'm sure.

Nobody mentioned anything about being entitled to game.... I've known from a young age that success is earned and not given, and that's precisely why I choose to have the ability to capitalize upon hard work in getting to an area where I may find a good buck/bull/ram/,etc....

I will firmly state until I die that being "out there" and sharing time with my Dad, brother, Sister, hunting buddies, and the Outdoors is easily more than half the fun-but it sure is more fun when you're walking out with a pack full of meat and a rack over your shoulders.

Yep, time and time again when discussion turns to historical game populations many scoff at the suggestion that in some cases today is better than 'the good old days'.

The answer to the first question is no, he still has to make the shot, at whatever distance. Then he's entitled.

If someone has to explain the answer to your second question, I pity you.

Seems hunting at some point always becomes shooting, else it's just walking around with a gun/bow whatever.

Pretty sure shooting doesn't have a defined range to qualify it as shooting. When one pulls the trigger at 25 yards or 500 yards they are still shooting.

Whitetails most definitely are probably more abundant. Antelope? Good chance their population has increased.

Elk? I doubt it from what I've read. Like the Buffalo their numbers on the plains was often incredible from the writings of those who passed through during that time.

Sheep and Mt Goats? Not likely from the old timers accounts that I have read.

Small Game? At least here in the East in my own lifetime, the numbers have decreased more than a little with time.

Turkeys? I think it was Lewis and Clark who reported unbelievable numbers East of the Missouri.


What native game animals other than Whitetails have a proven population increase over the numbers of the 1800's?

Yep...

Putting a number on "right and wrong" and "unethical" is foolish, IMO. I guarantee I don't have the stalking ability that guys that hunt whitetails in the eastern woods have, but I'm not about to call it unethical because I can't do it...

Next time you see us sitting in the truck stop by for coffee, we will let you gut shoot a few deer too Hell with spot and stalk, I like drive and shoot.

Right on Tanner.

Ruffed Grouse and Black Bear.

Give you Black Bear.

Check the historic 10 to 12 year peaks on Ruffed Grouse in Wisconsin and you will see a steadily declining scale.

Pigs, pheasants, around here, squirrels and bunnies.

Never knew that pigs and pheasants were native critters to the Americas. Learn something new everyday.

Minor point, but Pheasants are not a native game bird.

In Pa. squirrels and rabbits are way below historic numbers of the 50s and 60s. Combined with the fact far fewer hunters try and kill them.

Kudu numbers are higher now in the US of A then they were in 1801....

If you ban crossbows in archery, you ban compounds IMHO. I've no issue with either and hunt with all kinds, at my will.

I don't think the crossbow has ever given me and advantage that I couldn't have done with any of the other bows, but I like a bit of variety at times. ANd at times I don't have the time to practice as much as I should and feel I owe it too the animals to do the right thing.

Note I shoot the same distances with the crossbow if not less, on average, than any other bow I own. And I own more than a couple.

Yep hunting is commercialized. But haveing more "hunters" as well as "shooters" makes our sport that much more solid and hard to get rid of.

I don't agree with everyone on a lot of things, but as far as I"m concerned, you are the one that has to sleep with yourself at night, and beyond that if its down within the rules, who cares what others think.

Do it the way you want to, and the heck with others.

But too many people want to force their personal thoughts down everyone elses throats.

Jeff

This is the answer to the question posed in the thread's title.

I've called calf elk in so close I could kill them with an axe, let a herd of doe muleys walk within 2 steps and browse for 30 minutes, and been almost run over by coyotes.

I guess to eliminate the "problem" that the author sees hunting degenerating into just "shooting", one would have to use a weapon that doesn't require "shooting" such as an axe, spear, or rock.

It seems the people who see the "shooting" part of hunting as a problem are those who can't

Pisses me off to agree with something you typed.

Lol, nothing too judgmental there.

I have two main objections to long range hunting and the like: It takes place at such ranges that an animal's natural defense mechanisms are null and void, and that it crosses the line where a large portion of the non-hunting public (at whose discretion we are even allowed to hunt) objects based on perceived unfairness of chase.

Like it or not it matters how we are perceived by the non-hunting majority. And as far as I can gather they think this stuff stinks.

As far as John's objection to hunting degrading into an engineering problem? That would be an improvement over some of what I have seen. At times we, as a group, act like we have declared war on the animals we hunt. No technology too advanced, no advantage too great, no efficiency gained too extreme.

Will

Never said they were. But they occupy a lot of hunters these days, do they not?

I think you could call this thread "when hunting became killing" and it would be just as fitting

I wouldnt be sad if they banned bows,crosswbows, muzzleloaders etc. They all contribute to huge amounts of wounded game and they typicaly have choice seasons dedicated to these stunts. And yea I have bow hunted, and currently crossbow hunt. Never lost an animal i shot yet, but know many that have.

That's the whole point. It really doesn't take much to become efficient at long range's anymore. Buy the Scope with the computer engraved turrets set for your bullet coefficient plug in your hand held computer program the correct information, and walla you kill your animal. There's no woodsman ship skills there, just technical ones. You can do the same thing on a game boy.

Our big game are getting killed easier, they are at a bigger unfair advantage. When does this long range shooting interfere with fair chase?

If your shooting a bow that shoots 100yrds as easy as the old long bow does at 20, then you belong in a muzzy season. If your muzzy shoots as good as the old 06, then you belong in the general rifle season. If your able to shoot past 500 yrds and kill then you belong at the range shooting competively, or shooting for the military at objects that can shoot back.

The resource will not be able to withstand this continuation,proliferation of making it easier to shoot things past 5 or 600 yrds. In much of the open west this will have, and is having a detrimental effect on our activities. Therefor, it's going to ruin what we have enjoyed for generations. It's a direct threat to sport hunting.

If there are animals that can take the pressure then I'm fine with the technology, but very few will be able to. Do we go limited entry for everything just because people want to use this technology?

Because one man might be more fit, stronger, or faster than another is a lame example of why technology should expand. I'm sorry but not everyone will be as competitive with each other physically, and that's the way it should be. We learn early on in life that certain people are gifted at one thing or another. I can't draw for chit, nor hold a note. I don't feel that I should be able to go on "America's got Talent" and get to sing using a karaoke machine,because I'm not gifted and win the contest. Nor do I feel that I should be able to use bionic legs to compete in the Olympics to make it fair.

All those things take away from the real act.

Do we want that?

Even though the data shows a population decline, I maintain the population in the state is greater than in the 1800's. Grouse habitat comparison is key. For example 1812 versus 2012 the landscape has changed dramatically. Don't want to hijack this thread further. Would be open to discuss in PM's.

Wayne

No need. I probably agree with regards to the 1800's comparison. With Grouse numbers I only have recent historical data-last time I checked it went back to the 60's-to make a comparison.

Journey of Challenge

Thought some of you might like, or understand more by watching this video.

Sorry, my bad. I assumed you talking to the question asked, as roundoak was.

"What native game animals other than Whitetails have a proven population increase over the numbers of the 1800's? "



Kudo are up since the 1800's, Axis deer, Oryx, Water Buffalo, Zebra, lots of stuff.

No real reason to stick to the questions asked, FFE

Nilgai and Oryx, too

What's the challenge that bow hunting offers that rifle hunting doesn't?

Didn't watch the video did you?

I just did. Great vid, thanks for posting it.

I enjoy long range shooting but would not classify myself as a long range hunter. I am a hunter which means I enjoy all forms and aspects but do feel the long range approach for me anyway takes away from my actual hunting skills to get close to the game on it's terms.

I have seen game wounded probably equally by every form and that all comes down to knowing your weapon, shot placement and when or when not to take the shot and then having the skill to take it.

It doesn't not bother me that may be another's cup of tea and if it means more game taken then our game managers need to take that into account. Personally, I do not believe there is anymore game being taken or at least the statistics are not there to prove it. Additionally any study to support the claim would be extremely hard to quantify i.e. threads like "holding dead on at 600 with the .270."

Hunting methods vary a lot due to terrain, and by tradition. I've done the spot & stalk thing in the west, sat on a spot & waited on dogs to drive deer to me in NC, and sat on stands in Texas. This year I'll be doing both the stands and spot & stalk.

Even if you hunt over feeders, a fair amount of preparation time is required - several 300 mile round trips during the year to tend them, repairing damage to equipment from livestock or wildlife, and other scouting & prep work. Sometimes your setup isn't exactly right, and the deer avoid your spot. Last, the big old trophy deer got big by not going to feeders, at least during shooting hours. So no, you're not "hunting" walking around for hours or days, but a significant investment of preparation time is still required - and a wall hanger is not guaranteed.

On a lease near Sonora, we saw several young bucks with gore marks about two feet apart on their sides. But no one ever saw the big bastard who put them there. The country tends to be noisy to walk through, and still hunting them is seldom profitable.

As far as other "types" of hunting - you can find fault with lots of other methods. Is it "hunting" if you're finding the deer with 15x German glass, instead of 7x?

I appreciate the skill & mechanical precision for extremely long-range shots, but I don't care to try it myself - not because it's not hunting, but because during the bullet's flight time, a puff of wind, a step by the animal, and you've pulled a Swampy and shot the deer in the ass.

So I don't care for dogs, nor the extra-long range stuff, but I don't much nitpick other people's methods. They all require some investment of effort in one way or another, and when your plan comes together, and you successfully execute the shot, it is satisfying.

I did.

Again, I will ask YOU. What is the challenge that bow hunting offers you that rifle hunting doesn't?

I guess hunting for nonnative species doesn't count. Are whitetails going to count in Iowa? They were exterminated and reintroduced. Ditto for elk in Arizona.

And then there are turkeys. Probably exterminated and then stocked like pigs and pheasants in a lot of the places they are super abundant now. So, do we get to count these local nonnatives?

Doesn't really matter does it?

Meanwhile I think I'm going to take up golf and use just a driver. This must be thread-responsive, no?

I like eggs

Hunting became shooting with smokeless powder. It doesn't take any more hunting skill to take an animal at 50 yards than 500. When shots have to be taken at around 15-20 yards, you need some skill as a hunter, or a lot of luck. Beyond that it is more shooting skill than hunting skills.

The guys who put in the time to develop the skills to make clean shots at 500 yards are more hunters than the guys who shoot deer over bait inside an enclosed, climate controlled shooting box at 50-100 yards.

We are all victims of our own experience, and this has a lot to do with how we see the long range shooting debate.

Those of us who see a lot of "average" shooters on a regular basis tend to be somewhat jaded when it comes to the low percentage shot sports, such as long range shooting and traditional bowhunting. We've simply seen too many guys mess it up. Had to chase down too many wounded animals.

Sure, with training the long bow and the 338 Lapua are effective means of taking game. But the average dude simply can't or isn't willing to take the time to learn what all is involved to master the weapon. And therein lies the rub....

These two paragraphs perfectly illustrate the ignorance on the whole subject of Hunting and Shooting that some have due to their own inability and lack of experience

First of all, it's blatantly obvious that you've never attempted any long range shooting whatsoever if you think "it doesn't take much to become efficient at long range's anymore". You're watching too many long range hunting shows.

Bows have been able to shoot well at ranges much longer than 100 yards for centuries and rifles have been shooting projectiles since the first World War with just as much punch as today. So people who raise their skill level to be able to operate a bow or a rifle to its N'th degree of its capability are the problem? WTF?











The difference is that they actually perfected the skill by hard work. By your standards, an ancient Roman warrior with his ancient equipment would be a scourge on game populations with his "unfair advantage"

In response to the OP. I guess I don't get as worked up about how other people legally hunt. I no longer like driving deer. So I don't do it. But I'm not going to bitch at my neighbors for doing it on their land. If someone wants to hunt with a longbow or a rifle that they can shoot sub MOA at 750 yards, it doesn't bother me. More power to both of them. They both have skills I don't possess.

Dude, if it was so tough, then why do they (BEST OF THE WEST) show someone each week that has never shot long range taking 1000 yrd shots on game? I've shot fire arms my whole life, and talked with many on the subject. It's not above anyone to do it.

I take it you've mastered it? Rest my case!

Seriously you have to ask?

This is not meant as a dig at anyone in particular, rather it is just my thoughts on the subject of this thread.

I find that the Internet, and even before that the world of BBSing, filled with some very common themes:

1) My way of hunting is correct. The rest of y'all are slobs.
2) It used to be much better. It sucks now.
3) Hunting should be like it was when. . .


I've been corresponding on board and forums about hunting since 1981. Let me fill you in on a few things:

1) It will never be like it used to be. Go read Phillip Tome or Mishak Browning's memoir, or Frederick Gerstacker. Pioneer hunters in virgin forests faced a whole different scenario. They had different methods and different motivations. The forests are gone for the most part. The game has changed. For most folks, hunting is now done in a sort-of zen garden of hunting. It reminds us of what wild and wilderness was.

If we have some inner demon that needs tending, we no longer start on the eastern tidewater and hunt our way to the Rockies trying to scratch the itch. Nowadays we book a hunt here and there or lease or buy a few acres and set up camp. We hunt until the demon is fed and then we hop a flight home.

2) Very little since the advent of modern hunting seasons and laws resembles what folks did back when the game and the hunters ran free. There used to be seemingly limitless supplies of game, and few hunters and methods were big on consumption and there was little interest in conservation. Turkeys were shot out of roosts and deer were picked off from raised stands over salt licks in mid-summer. The goal was meat and hides. Nowadays, the idea is to go out and get a small taste of it all, play at being a hunter, and do so with as little impact to the herd or to the environment.

3) Of the species that are hunted nowadays, most populations support enough hunting that you can do what you want to do and there is enough left for the other guy to do what he wants to do. This idea that my way is right, all other ways are anathema is getting nobody anywhere. If I want to hunt with a crossbow its okay. I'm probably not going to take your deer. If you want to shoot turkey over decoys on your ridge, that is not going to change my luck on my ridge. This is no longer a zero-sum game.

4) We have collectively gone soft on the game. This whole 1-shot 1 kill thing is a modern invention. Teddy Roosevelt once put a couple of dozen rounds into a doe, because he could never get a good shot on her and his first shot was in her rump. If you read between the lines of Jack O'Connor, you'll realize this whole brush-busting thing was about placing an anchoring shot into an animal so that you could get a blood trail going and hope for a finishing shot later. This is just a minor modification of Mishak Browning's methods from 100 years earlier; Browning never expected his flintlock to finish a deer on the first try. Rather, he hoped to get a ball in and then set his dog on the trail. If he got really lucky, he got to jump on the struggling animal and ride it for a bit, stabbing it with a big hunting knife. He would catch a bear in a trap and then let it out to do personal battle with it.

That's hunting. Of course what you do out to 1000 yards is hunting. What somebody else does out of an air-conditioned blind is hunting. What I do is hunting. Got it? It's all hunting.


5) What the Internet has shown us is how parochial we are. I've been called booger-eating moron for hunting with a 30-06. I've been called all kinds of names for cleaning my deer head-up. The hunting world is filled with intolerance. It used to be you could do what you did and no one outside your family or hunting camp knew. Now it is posted on Facebook, and everybody's little quirks are plastered up all over the place.

6) Hunting shows on TV are irrelevant to real hunting. It is entertainment. Real hunting on TV would be as boring and watching your arm hair grow. What's up there on the cable and the satellite is Kabuki. It's Big Time Wrestling and Roller Derby with antlers and guns.

BTW: I remember the thing with the C-clamp on Lassie. I must have been under 5, but I was long past being taken in. Just so you know, I had a dog that never managed the C-clamp trick, but he taught himself how to use the remote and would wake us up every morning at 4 watching Lassie. Later in the day, he'd switch over to PAX to watch Miracle Pets.

Seriously, you can't answer the question?

The way it was, but today the majority can't imagine the reality of it.

You must not bowhunt? I'll play your game.

The challenge is the same, the rewards are much greater.

So goes it with limitations on any weapons, or restrictions. That's part of this whole thread that people today will miss.

Sad really for those that don't know the difference.

Watched:

I've done it both ways-but with a compound-and understand the difference. I prefer a rifle.

If the challenge is the same, why are the rewards much greater?
There is a dead Deer-or something-on the ground. Makes little difference to the animal. If it makes you feel better? Ok congrats, but it doesn't necessarily make you any better of a hunter or a more appreciative hunter than one who does it another way.

Yall are a bunch of heartless bastids shooting those animals at less than 100 yards. Back off to at least 600 and givem a sporting chance.

I bowhunt.

As already asked, why are the rewards MUCH greater?


Typical bow hunter answers go something like this:

You have to get closer with a bow. (one can limited themselves to 25 yard shots with a rifle, assuming one has any self control)

There is more movement with a bow, so deer are more likely to spook (ok, I'll wave my arms around a bit before I shoot one with a rifle)

Shooting a bow is more difficult than a rifle (once one has mastered whatever weapon they are using, they have mastered it)

Of course the shooting part isn't a question of hunting, it's a question of shooting.

So again, what part of bow hunting offers you more challenge than a rifle?

Is that you don't have a clue where the arrow is going every time? Knowing that you will likely wound more deer with a bow, that makes it challenging?

Wounding/losing game = CHALLENGE?

You ignorant wretch. I swear, of the 10 most stupid people on the Campfire, you have to be 8 of them. You get shown how wrong you are and you come back with that pathetic change of direction.

You are a real letherstocking alright. If you had been around in the days you want to emulate so badly, some other real mountain man would have beat you to a pulp and left you for fly bait. It is just too bad there isn't such a thing as a time machine, as I bet at least 15,000 campfire members would come up with the money it would take to send you back to that time!

This thread isn't a rifle vs bow thread. If you think that you've missed the whole point and I can't help you. Its about proliferation of technology and how easier it is to shoot your game than say 30 years ago.

Most bow shots are inside 40 yrds, Most rifle are inside 200. There's a big difference between the two.

Today, bowhunters can and will shoot out to 100 yrds. That means that they are now capable of taking 300% more game than 30 years previous. More encounters today end up with dead animals.

Rifle hunters are taking game at 1000 yrds, where as a decade ago it would have been 500 yrds. So just by doing the math. It's twice as easy to kill as before.

More hunters are taking game at longer range. There will be a consequence for this. Shorter seasons, and less hunters will be allowed to take a limited resource. Most states have objectives for their game populations and try to keep them at or under that. There is no unlimited supply of game.

The same people that support all technology, will scream bloody murder if wolves and lions started having greater success taking game, they would be screaming mad, and rightfully so. If those predators start having impacts on the big game herds, what do you suppose the majority of sportsman would want to take place in regards to those predators?

There should be limits on everything. Whether man or beast.

I'm not talking hogs either.

TR was considered a slob hunter by the hands at his place in Medora. A terrible shot. But hey, he signed their paychecks, and wrote the books....so he can be remembered however he wishes.

You ARE having a bad day I see. Well, so be it. Maybe tomorrow will be better, but I sort of doubt it. You seem determined to have an ugly attitude. Carry on.

One thing lost (to some) in this thread......it's still survival of the fittest. We're the hunters, not the hunted.

If one were to believe this crap posted above, it would follow that hunter success rates would double or triple. It isn't the case in Oregon, the first harvest data I could locate. The success rate has steadily declined from a high of 61% in the late '50's to 24% recorded in 2011.

Oh heck even with all this so called technology there are still folks that don't fill their tags.

2011 season I hunted with a recurve that is capable of shooting way past 100 hundred yards. I ate my tag for the season on elk and deer.

2012 season I hunted with my 375H&H which is capable of launching a 270gr bullet well past 1000 yards. I ate my tag for the season on elk and deer.

To answer the debate between Steelhead & 4100fps...to me there is no difference. I ate my tag using both means.

Non-hunting groups are not what will kill hunting for us...It will be the hunters themselves. The fighting that we do amongst our selves will be our demise!

Sorry, to follow your logic the FIRST thing banned would be modern firearm hunting as they WOUND and LOOSE a LOT more numbers wise. Pretty easy to figure that out.

Those that know anything about archery know there are very few non found fatal wounds out there.

I do know in my home state there is absolutely no lack of opportunity to hunt all the big game a guy can eat. I suspect the same holds true up north.

Want to get a set of oversize antlers and that somewhat changes. Are you mad because you want a trophy and there is a lot of competition?



Nice post. The good old days are not always as we wished to remember them.



I remember reading about TRs first elk trip up the North Fork of the Shoshone above Cody. It was nothing to him to kill half a dozen bulls in a day and only take the antlers from the very biggest, leaving everything else.

On his African safari he had a platform on the front of the train where he would shoot at anything he could see as the train sped across the plain.

Different time.

Caveat, I did not read every post.

But why would you not have a clue where EVERY arrow is going EVERY time? Any more so than any other weapon?

Gee, I wonder why that could be? Maybe because there are more rifle hunters? The fact is bow hunters wound much more game per capita and the majority of it is never found. Of course you are the sicko that enjoys tracking wounded game...

I'm going to 100% disagree with ya there.
Darn near every year, there is a big bull elk killed locally with an old broadhead removed during butchering. An uncle of mine killed a bull in the Breaks with two healed over broadheads in it's shoulder.

Something like 20-25% of our compound archery hunters over a 13 year period, and over 50% of the traditional bow hunters required follow-up. These are antelope shot from a blind, usually under 25 yards. Many were gut shot, and may have died after a day or so.....but are often eaten by coyotes after that amount of time, so ya gotta get to them before dark.

Bows can certainly be effective, often killing well. Sometimes a femoral artery shot will drop an animal quickly.
But when things go wrong, you can be in for a helluva long tracking job, often ending up with a mangled carcass found two days later by looking for circling buzzards.

All weapons primitive or modern are capable of clean kills, but not all hunters are.

Bow hunters love to go on and on about the challenge but it's not always the case. It's easier to kill a deer on pressured public land in Wi with a bow during the rut, than post rut with a rifle for example.

Forget about private land like the author of that article "hunts".

Without even looking for a link to provide, I will bet you archery hunter success rates have increased. I wouldn't be surprised by the margin either. They are having impacts. The Missouri Breaks region is one,(went restrictive for several reasons) The Big Hole Valley another. The Bio in the Big Hole told me that she might introduce a bull only limited entry there because most of the bulls are shot by archers.

For rifle hunters in order to keep success rates lower, season lengths have been shortened in much of the western United States, from the good old days.

Yep. I've seen it too. Bow seasons as well. We agree on something

Still, from data I've seen, the number of people hunting is down over the years too. Bow technology has advanced since 1980 dramatically but I haven't seen any figures on success rates to compare. Rifles haven't changed dramatically.

It's irrelevant anyway.

Hunting becomes shooting as soon as the hunter decides to shoot whether it's a 5 yard shot or a 1000 yard shot. You decide to shoot based upon your skill level and the conditions. There are conditions when a 5 yard shot is unethical and a 1000 yard shot isn't.

For every bull that is found with a healed over broadhead in it there are probaly three more that died and were turned into coyote/wolf poop.

I gotta say,and I use to bow hunt,Carry what ever you like. As long as it falls within the laws of your state. If you want to be an archer I'm all for it. I'm not for the bow hunters having free reign of the rut. Deer or elk. Want a challenge? Bow hunt with everyone else in the general season. That should make the rewards much much greater. I don't like my "rewards" being played down because I used a rifle. "Oh you shot it in rifle season". Has been expressed to me more than once. "Too bad you didn't get it with a bow". Is another phrase I've absorbed because I was an avid archer for bout 20 years. How many folks would bow hunt if they didn't have the rut all to themselves. Not many I would guess.

Archery equipment,i.e. razor sharp broadheads kill stuff. Pretty well too I might add. Unfortunately humans stink when it comes to self control. There are so many bow hunters afield now it's mind boggling. The odds are against all of them making clean kills every time. I use to have a yearly balloon shoot in the fall the week before our bow season opener. We would shoot 6" balloons,elimination fashion, starting at 25 yards and move back in 5 yard increments. Put your dollar in the can and take your 3 shots. Winner gets the proceeds in the can for each yardage. Fun stuff. Every year we would end up at 95 to 105 yards before the hitting would stop with the 3 arrow limit. Do I condone long range shots at game? Hell no. Hitting something with archery tackle and KILLING it are 2 very different things. Until bow hunters quit taking low percentage shots it isn't going to change either. Peer pressure needs to cease as well. Not filling a tag isn't the end of the world! I spent 30 hours in a truck seat to get to elk camp in 2011 and passed on a running heard bull. Tag soup. 1st rifle season,70 yards away. Quartering away slightly. I'm 99 percent sure I would have connected. I shoot the 300 RUM very well. Would I have possibly wounded or killed one of the cows behind the bull? Who knows. Split second decision. Others in my camp ridiculed me for not taking the shot. "Come clear to Colorado and pass on a heard bull!" My decision,my tag. Headed back this fall and I would do the same thing again if I felt the same way. It needs to be more about hunting,and less about shooting. Bow or gun.

My hunting buddy has arrowed several deer but recovered none. He has shot some and elk, too, and recovered them all.

Sample of one, admittedly.

If everyone was forced to use bows I suspect slob hunters would still be slob hunters, those that don't practice with their rifles would not practice with their bows, poor shots would remain poor shots and large numbers of animals would still be lost.

Here in Pa you nailed it Otter6.

Take the rut away from the pampered archers/crossbow people and most of them would be moving their vacation time out a month.

Of course the GC will do just about anything to keep less and less rifle hunters out at any one time. Since there are more than a few of us, I can appreciate their position. Still, the rifle hunters pay the majority of the bills and for the most part get left overs.

This tread is making me want to go out and shoot something.

If you ban crossbows in archery, you ban compounds IMHO. I've no issue with either and hunt with all kinds, at my will.

I don't think the crossbow has ever given me and advantage that I couldn't have done with any of the other bows, but I like a bit of variety at times. ANd at times I don't have them time to practice as much as I should and feel I owe it too the animals to do the right thing.

Note I shoot the same distances with the crossbow if not less, on average, than any other bow I own. And I own more than a couple.

Yep hunting is commercialized. But haveing more "hunters" as well as "shooters" makes our sport that much more solid and hard to get rid of.

I don't agree with everyone on a lot of things, but as far as I"m concerned, you are the one that has to sleep with yourself at night, and beyond that if its down within the rules, who cares what others think.

Do it the way you want to, and the heck with others.

But too many people want to force their personal thoughts down everyone elses throats.

Jeff [/quote]
I wouldnt be sad if they banned bows,crosswbows, muzzleloaders etc. They all contribute to huge amounts of wounded game and they typicaly have choice seasons dedicated to these stunts. And yea I have bow hunted, and currently crossbow hunt. Never lost an animal i shot yet, but know many that have. [/quote]

Sorry, to follow your logic the FIRST thing banned would be modern firearm hunting as they WOUND and LOOSE a LOT more numbers wise. Pretty easy to figure that out.

Those that know anything about archery know there are very few non found fatal wounds out there. [/quote]
Gee, I wonder why that could be? Maybe because there is more rifle hunters? The fact is bow hunters wound much more game and the majority of it is never found. Of course your the sicko that enjoys tracking wounded game... [/quote]

Yep, thats right, more rifles equals more wounds.

And yes I enjoy trailing. But guess what there sicko yourself?? My trails almost alwasy end in dead game.

I'll say it again, in case you just don't get it, maybe I hang with a better group of bowhunters than average, but over the last 10 years for sure, I've not been able to find folks deer that are shot with rifles, more often than with arrows.

An archer can do everything right and still wound game by virtue if the fact that game animals can jump the string, even at vlose ranges. This has been proven with slow speed film. As such I think your statement alluding to slob hunters losing archery shot game isnt accurate. Most all bow hunters lose game sooner or latter.

Again, this is not a reply to anyone in particular.

I am an ex-bowhunter. I had to put down the bow in 2007 after 25 years of hunting whitetail due to a bum shoulder. I probably could have had it rehabilitated and I might have gone on with a bow, but I found out a lot of things after I put the bow down.

For one thing, I stopped spending as much money on hunting. Bowhunting was a very cargo-intensive way to take deer. Second was time. I started having free time in the fall. I could be a lot more sociable. I still spent about the same amount of time in the field-- still saw a lot of deer, but the heat was off. I was happier.

Yes, bowhunting is more challenging. However, you have to look at where that challenge is. You have to practice more. You have to spend more money on equipment. However, did that make me more of a hunter? Nowadays I spend September and October scouting and squirrel hunting with my sons. I hold off shooting anything until November's rifle season, and then I go fill the freezer with my rifle. My commitment to the sport is as great or greater. The thrill is still there.

Back when I was primarily a bowhunter, I'd hunt Ohio's shotgun season or Kentucky's rifle season and have lots of fun. Same trees, same stands, the only difference was what I was holding in my hand. The deer still came right up to the ladder. The biggest deer of my hunting career were taken all taken within thirty yards-- some with a bow, some with a rifle.

Only now that I've put down the bow am I starting to really concentrate on hunting on the ground. Yes, I now have a luxury box. I use it when its pouring down rain. Yes, I'm now stretching out my shots to 150 yards on occasion. If anything, I'm widening my experience.

My point in writing this is that I spent close to half my life hunting with a bow, and now that I'm past it, I'm just as happy or happier. For all that has been written in the past 200 years about hunting, you would think that it ain't really hunting unless you suffer. As a dedicated bow hunter, I did my share of suffering. Cold, misery, riding a broken stand to the ground, or coming-to at the end of my safety belt-- it's all there. Most of it all had nothing to do with my relationship to the game or my overall success. I don't regret my years with a bow, and a certainly won't repent a moment of it. I just don't think it was somehow "better" than what I'm doing now with a rifle.

One other thought and then I gotta go. Most of my big deer have been taken up close. I've taken some deer as close as inside 5 yards with a bow, and even closer with a rifle. I love it up-close and personal. However, I can fully relate to a fellow that works at taking an animal at long distance. My one worry in all this is that if I started preparing for DXing, I'd never really get the deer to cooperate. I've been out at my luxury box with the sandbag on the window sill and had deer come up and stick their head in the window. Now what?

For all the work I'd have to go through to get ready for even a 500 yard shot, I could just as easily spend that time scouting. Come season, I could have my 35 Whelen all dialed in to take a shot into the next county, or I could have spent the same time, found a new trail and be sitting on a bucket and nail a nice one inside 10 yards. My choice is to do the latter.

Rost, you do know that there are studies that conclude the wounding rate for archery is 1.5 times that if fire arms? There was also an article several years ago in Bowhunter mag that suggested the rate was more like for every deer recovered one was not.

Missed it again Jeff.

What is the challenge that bow hunting offers that rifle hunting doesn't is the question at hand. I was asking if not knowing where every arrow was going is it.

So, what is the challenge, since obviously shooting isn't the challenge betwixt the two.

In my home area early bow season is the easiest tine of the year to hunt. Much less activity in the woods amd as a result the bucks are less nocturnal.

Any bowhunter that says they know where every arrow ia going is either ignorant or dishonest. As I mentioned above deer easily move at the release of the arrow and before the arrow strikes them.

Mine too....and more foliage to conceal the hunter, movement, etc. I love the bow vs. gun argument. As a woods (typically not open fields) hunter, most deer I shoot with a rifle are within bow range....and I kill a couple every year with a bow too.

The movement to draw issue is always the first rebuttal off the tongue. I've yet to meet a rifle hunter that keeps his rifle shouldered at all times -- wether on the ground or in a tree. You gotta move to shoot a rifle too!

Like I said, evident then that I hang with a group of folks with way above average archery skills then.

And if you are TRULY worried about wounding/loss, then you can't tell me there are less than 1.5 more gun hunters than bow... odds are simply going to lean that way.

What makes it right to wound because you are using a gun?

Never said bow or gun or anything else was perfect.

Hell, most of the time I have to chamber a round, shoulder and shoot deer. As I've said, I could just wave my hands around a little also if that helps bowhunters sleep at night.

So the challenge ain't the movement, it ain't the distance, so what is the challenge the bow hunting offers that rifle don't?

As I said, I did not read the complete thread.

For me the challenge and rewards that are offered by use of any weapon are the same. In so many words. Some of the challenges can be different, more or less practice, limited ranges, different seasons etc... but the rewards are the same, at least to me, I have as much satisfaction from one harvest to the next, regardless of weapon of choice or "score" for those that go there. I take a LOT more antlerless than antlered, thats what needs to be done where we hunt anyway.

Sorry for jumping in. Shooting is shooting and whether its me trying to spear a pig, you with your 45-70, whomever with a 338 Lapua and anyone in between. Its still all shooting.

Not knocking bow hunters in general and recognize some are very, very good. But like all endeavors, some not so much. I don't like slob rifle hunters, either. Or slobbish people in general.

Old time buffalo hunters with their big Sharps were surely "high tech" hunters (shooters) of their day.

Surely technology has changed, not so much the application. They were meat and market hunters, doing a job to support railroads, logging and other enterprises, like the U.S Army. Technology accommodating demand, not too unlike today.

Hunters and hunting has changed a bunch over the decades. Technology is again accommodating demand. Thank God for our freedom to pursue our sport as we see fit.

Indignant condescension of fellow hunters is counter productive, even if their sport isn't our sport. As long as laws aren't broken, so be it. If things get too out of hand, be sure that laws and regulations will step in to tell us what we can and can't do. Until then, laissez les bons temps rouler!

IMHO,

DF

As far as distance or the challenge of getting within range, if someone tells you it's the same with rifle and bow, one of two things is happening. They're either BSing about their archery skills or they're not very good with a rifle. Or maybe both.

The challenges of archery are mostly in getting close undetected. Chances of getting winded at 250 yards are not the same as 25. Or seen. Not everyone chambers a round just before the shot, and even if they did, drawing and aiming an arrow is a lot more movement. Then there's shot selection, a good bowhunter will pass on most everything but a standing broadside shot with a high percentage of a double lung hit.

I should add, I don't bowhunt very much, I use a muzzleloader because it gives me the best odds of killing an elk in my state. Better than a general season rifle tag.

100 yard archery kills? How many here have done that?

I don't get the "if it's legal, it's fine with me" argument.

It's perfectly legal to have 26 kids by as many different mothers. Perfectly legal to eat a Big Mac for every meal and balloon up to 600 lbs. A person is within their rights to do these things. Doesn't make it right.

But hey, this is America. Do whatever the [bleep] you want, as long as it doesn't affect me, right?

Well stated sir.

I do not let the hunting ethics police bother me. I enjoy being a truck hunting long range meat gatherer, they can keep their trophies, and their feelings of superiority just because they wear buckskin undies.
I have shot animals from straight under my stand with a bow, to near contact wounds with buckshot and out to a mile, it is all hunting to me, just different styles.

Didn't say it was ideal, just the way the hammer falls...

Say, 26 kids and on the dole...

You're talking some serious bucks...

Could buy a lotta powder and primers...

DF

So long as they can support those 26 kids, and can pay their own medical bills for the obesity, your damn skippy it is within their rights.

Very well said and I couldn't agree more. Thanks for posting.

AGAIN


A person can chose to not shoot a critter within self imposed distances if so inclined. I can opt to not shoot a critter past 30 yards with a rifle. So why is bowhunting more challenging?

I can opt to swing my arms around before shooting if that helps to even the slate.

Fact is, most bow hunters I'm aware of are perched in a tree, I ain't. I've still hunted to within 20 feet of deer I've shot with a rifle before

The only B&C critter I've ever killed was shot at 25 yards, whilst still hunting, with a rifle. It wasn't a bow though so it wasn't nearly as challenging.


I turkey hunt, where legal, with a rifle at times. I like rifles. I have never shot a turkey past 30 or so steps with a rifle, because I want to call them in close. Apparently using the rifle is less of a challenge when turkey hunting to. If I made the same 30 yard shot with a swarm of pellets it would be more challenging?

There ain't a GOD DAMNED thing more challenging about bow hunting then there is about rifle hunting. Hunting is hunting and shooting is shooting. Eventually one becomes the other.

The issue is archery hunters wound game needlessly at a much higher rate than rifle hunters.. Get that into your thick skull.

No that's not the issue at all. You totally missed it. It has nothing to do with bow vs. rifle.

So you've never shot an animal with a rifle that was outside bow range?

And you wave your arms around before every shot?

Fascinating.

I'm sure he gets it.

However, Rost495s response to you is. "Who wounds more animals in the course of a year? Decade? Archers or Riflemen? I would think the Riflemen are the dubious winners.

If an archer wounds "needlessly" what does that say about a rifleman with his much more efficient equipment? Are you saying archery hunting should not be allowed? I.E. If we didn't allow archery hunting we wouldn't have any "needless" wounding?

Your way out there steel.

First off, nobody uses a firearm to get within 20 yrds of their game. If there's one that you can show repeated clips of killing game routinely at that range with a rifle, then I"ll concede.

Rifle hunters will take the first opportunity to shoot if that animal is in their effective range. (THat's the whole issue with the post you can't comprehend) With modern firearms and technology to go with them, anyone will be able to hit a pie plate at 1000 yrds. There's even smart Scopes now, and smart bullets that all you do is get the animal(or man) in the scope and pull the trigger.

Today and in the future shooting will take over where hunting took place in the past. If you can't comprehend the difference then says a lot. The shooting was the final stage of the hunt to finish the effort. Today, it's the first stage and the last.

To say that animals jump bow strings and not concede that animals can take several steps before the bullet covers a 1000 yrds is BS.

Steel, what Broad heads did you use?
Bow?
What was your draw length?
What type of arrow did you use?
What did the Broad head weight?

Steel, I have to ask!

Where you in favor of remote controlled hunts. Where you shoot animals from your computer?

Shooting and hunting are one in the same! Laffin!

My take from the article is that in this day and age there is a lack of respect in general. A lack of respect for the game, nature, the hunt, oneself and others in general. Everything has become polluted with instant gratification and technology. There is no effort put forth and therefore no respect for anything and no wisdom earned.
It's not hard at all to go into the field and blast deer with a custom rifle guaranteed to sub MOA over your groomed food plot that you've been watching trophies come in to for months via your 50+ game camera's. And there is no pressure when you have a handful of tags and a density of 75 deer per square mile due to all the private farmland that supports it. Technology is destroying the true meaning of hunting. There is a difference between hunting big timber public land and limiting your shots to sane distances and sniping animals at 500+ yards over a crop field out of a cozy elevated box blind on private, un-pressured land. Just keep in mind what you do and say will be judged by those trying to take away hunting all together and it just doesn't look good.
Do as you wish, it's a free country. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, until it interferes with another's way of life of course. Remember NOTHING goes to waste in the field. If a deer happens to get wounded (bow or rifle) and not recovered it is used without a doubt by other animals. You may not like it but you'll get over it and it will make you more careful.
To sit here and tear each other apart over philosophy and preferred tool of choice is ridiculous and feeds directly into the agenda of the antis. They have done similar before pitting hound hunters against non-hound hunters trying to get rid of bear hunting in Michigan. It isn't worth it.

It's always the dumbest sons-of-bitches that think they are the smartest.

Only in America can someone spawned in a rest stop become an 'elitist'

Popcorn, right here...

DF

8 yards





20 feet



25 yards



30 yards



25 yards



15 yards



20-25 yards

[img]http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b297/Shoalcove/deerrr/7Nov99f.jpg[/img]

30 yards

[img]http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b297/Shoalcove/deerrr/bk2.jpg[/img]

Lotta truth to that in my book. +1 PG.

20 yards



40 yards



Long shot for 4100, 70 yards




30 steps





40 yards





Not a single critter from a tree stand. I enjoy hunting close, but apparently because I use a rifle that don't make sense to the inbred.

Steelhead, while bow hunting holds as much interest for me as shooting cattle in a pen,(I really haven't been following this argument), BUT that 99 is interesting.. what caliber is that little gem???

slobs in general is a good statement.

The fact that game CAN jump a string is one thing. The fact that 25 years ago it took a few non vital hits for me to learn a thing or two about our local TX deer... once learned, I've not had a deer jump a string since I can't actually remember.

I guarantee this simply by the distances I limit my shots to and the deers attitude at the time.

In the last 15 or so years I can't recall following my own rules and ever missing my aim mark by much more than a few inches. In fact I can't recall missing the heart in at least the last 10 years.

I am of German descent. Maybe that's why I"m superior in abilities?

Scott

I've always envied that last sitka there... Really nice!

And you SOB... gonna make me buy a 99 eventually, though I want an 88 first....

not quite, but fairly close on a couple of hogs. They don't move like deer do so I was comfortable with the shot. I"d have thought elk to be same years ago, but these days seems like them and muleys have even figured out that skinny blue jays may not be friendly to their health

Thank you. I enjoyed that

Now we're resorting to name calling? Congratulations on the frustration.

The Internet is a wonderful place where you can be and claim anything you want.

The article was never about rifle vs bow.

Sorry you can't understand that.

That was good.

Not sure about that middle finger up in the air...!

Wonder what he was trying to tell us...

DF

That was a cool looking pig there Scott. It is funny that some of these folks cannot grasp limiting shots with a rifle to bow range. Especially, when they are asking long range shooters to limit their rifle shots to their idea of "ethical" distances.

It is also funny that some guy wearing full scent blocker camo and a wearing a butt load of cover scent wants me to get closer to an animal because distance takes the advantage of a deer's eyes and nose away.

They are all just lumps of meat in a leather sack to me. Hell I would spot light em if it were legal.

Not sure if thats directed to me, but I understand the concept, and I've done it myself. It's just that 99.5% of rifle hunters don't limit themselves to bow range, so it's a rare individual who does. Not even Steelheads's limited sample of photos is limited to bow range( for most mortals).

Steelhead is an exception and would do fine with a bow, but that doesn't make the general statement that the two weapons are equal in the challenges they present true. If I'm at 30 yards with the buck or bull of a lifetime, there is no question which weapon I'd want in my hand.

I'm not knocking LR hunting or saying bowhunting is "superior" because those are just personal value judgments, and bowhunters do have certain advantages. In the end, there's no group of hunters whose sh** don't stink.

Like I said, I use a muzzleloader but it's not to harken back to the days of yore or limit myself, it's because I get to hunt elk in good weather, in the rut.

Having to get closer is just a bonus.

Freakin' Byron Ferguson here.........

Steelhead,
There must have been a hell of a pile of bucks as good or better than those that you passed up, just out of "bow range" before you dropped those critters. Care to tell us about all of them?

Gotta love this place. We could argue about whether the sun will rise tomorrow.

PS. I'm all for allowing rifle hunters in the bow season as long as they stick to 30 yds or less and wave their hands over their heads 3 times before shooting.

Reminds me of a bow hunt I was on with my best friend whose last name is "Adkins". We were in a fair area and he had called in a decent bull; a 6X7 on the smallish side. He decided to just take some pictures of it instead of shooting it.

Back at camp he broke out his camera to show us. His cousin was astounded as he was looking at the pictures that he didn't shoot it.

He exclaimed, "WTF man! You're name is **** Adkins, NOT **** ADAMS!!!!"

It still hurts my sides when I remember how hard I laughed!

That's funny rca...!

What's wrong with 'em BrentD?

Not a damn thing That's my point. I see, oh a maybe a dozen or three trophy animals outside of bow range for every one that I see inside bow range. Comes to reason that the biggest ones are pretty much out of reach; just simple probabilities. So, if I had killed that many beauties at close range, you can bet I'd have seen a hell of a pile of them that were just out of reach of my old twigs. I'm guessing that Steelie has passed up a few world records that didn't quite fall inside the magic 30 yds for rifle hunters that challenge themselves with bowhunting rules.

How about you? Have you seen more trophies under 30 yds or in rifle range but outside of 30?

I've never hunted blacktails in that kind of cover, so you can't compare that to the way I hunt because I hunt wide open stuff. But to answer your question, I've seen a crapload of really big mule deer outside of 30, and a few giant bucks inside of 30 that I couldn't kill.

It's where and how I chose to hunt. I seldom position myself in the open. Have I shot deer at 250 yards, yep. Have I shot them at 100, yep.

I've shot more under 100, but a goodly margin, than over. In fact I can count on 2 hands how many have been over 100 yards.

Never said I didn't shoot some further, but the idea that bow hunting is somehow more challenging because of the 'you have to get close' factor is BS.


How many deer hunter 30 yards have you shot with a bow, without the help of a blind or tree stand?

With the exception of one of those deer and the turkey, all had to have a round chambered at the time of the killing too.

Of course I forgot how many years you've spent hunting the rainforests of SE Alaska, so you know how dense that stuff is.

Most of the remaining deer have been shot in the south, were thick rules too. I don't hunt green fields, food plots etc. I hunt the woods.

I've killed about 5 deer in Texas which is about the most open area I've hunted whitetail and the furthest shot there was 100 yards.

My best Texas deer was at 70 yards, not in a blind.


I've NEVER had an issue if someone says 'I love bowhunting, it's what I like' or 'I like hunting with old single shots, it's what I enjoy'

When the elitist start saying that it's TOUGHER that way and if you don't hunt that way you don't have soul, well then those types are so full of [bleep] and themselves.

Of course you ain't one of them Brent.

I can compare it to the way I hunt in bottomland timber for whitetails.

You probably didn't get those bucks inside 30 because you waved your arm over your head three times like Steelie

Me, I just shoot'em

I don't raise my arm, but I still have to chamber a round and bring the rifle up. Of course that makes it less sporting than bow hunting.

So again, WHAT is the challenge that bow hunting offers that rifle hunting doesn't?

I certainly understand his point though. I personally think bowhunting in trees over foodplots would be the most boring thing in the history of deer hunting.

I've also seen and read bow hunters killing [bleep] at 70 yards with a bow, I'd not shoot past 30 yards with one, but that don't mean folks can't do it at 70.

Guessing a guy killing something with a bow at 70 yards is akin to someone killing a deer with a rifle at 500.

So what is the range limit with a bow before it no longer has a soul? Is killing a deer with a bow at 20 yards full of soul, but 45 soulless?

Is slinging a carbon arrow cheating? Sights on a bow? Compounds? Wearing glasses to correct your vision?

Seems lots of folks out there cheating by wearing glasses that could never hunt without them. If God wanted you to have perfect vision He would have given it to you.

So much cheating.


I don't give a flying [bleep] what makes someone happy, enjoy it, but forgo the elitist bullshitt.

It was guys like a few here that almost made be give up flyfishing before I even started. Then I said, [bleep] them, and I did it on my own.

I tend to avoid most 'hunters' as many fall into the 'my way is better' gig and many are pigeon hole themselves into one way of hunting.

If I'm in west Texas hunting mule deer I'm going to have a rifle set for shooting further than 50 yards. If fish are hitting better on a fly, I'll do that. Spoons, I'll do that.

It's apparent that the word repertoire is lost on many, damn shame really.


I've never considered any deer a cull, though many do, but that's their thing. I'll never tell a kid 'that will eat well' after he shot his first buck, a spike.

I will concede that stalking deer with a bow and shooting one at bow range is pretty damn sporty, but not many do that.

FAR from that. But folks fail to understand how much I pass up because I am not sure of the shot. If folks would operate under that premise, it wouldn't matter if it was 1000 yards or 5 feet, things would go smoothly most of the time.

FWIW the quote about not missing the heart is the truth. The heart is as large as a large orange typically. Its not hard to hit it. Especially since my max range these days with a bow is 15 or maybe 16 steps and closer. If I can't make that happen, I just don't do it. Plain and simple.

Wouldn't even think of 20 or 30 yards.

And the bottom line, its damn sure worked in my favor.

Always interesting that folks can't live and let live.... after reading a few more posts.

My way is not the best. But its the best for me. IE its what makes me happy.

Dang, that musta hurt

Well, you know, when I see you playing Howellesquian word games, I just figure you are pretty bored - maybe sitting in a tree over a food plot with your iphone or something.

But be that as it may, it ain't about what bowhunting "offers" so much as what it "requires".

Me, I only use a Rem 700 to club'em to death

But you knew all of that, right?

I agree on the tree stands, food plots, charcoal suits, and so on.

Above you said "bow hunting" and "rifle hunting" meaning in general, not how a few do it.

My answer is, bowhunters have to get close. Rifle hunters can opt to get close, but they don't have to. And in general the vast majority don't. Who here has had a rifle in his hands and seen a nice buck or bull at a hundred and fifty yards and said to himself "you know, this is just too easy, I'm gonna sneak within bow range and wave my rifle around like I'm drawing a bow?"

Well come on now. You KNOW Steelie does. He just said so.

I get his point. Rifle hunting can be just as challenging as bow hunting, depending on the hunter.

I do crack up at anyone who cops a superior attitude due to their choice of weapon. Especailly someone who uses a compound bow out of a tree-stand over a food plot.

"Muzzleloading is more of a challenge than rifle hunting." "Traditional muzzleloading is more of a challenge than using an in-line." "Bowhunting is more of a challenge than rifle hunting." "Compound bows are an abomination, the only real bowhunting is with a trad bow."

And so on and so forth.

But almost always isn't. Which, of course, is the point that you guys are dancing around as if you didn't notice it.

You have got to be one of the thickest posters on the net. Might be that plate in your head.

Nobody said bowhunting was more of a challenge, then you came along and you brought it up. You came on this thread with a 2 x 12 on your shoulder looking for someone to knock it off. I doubt you ever read the original piece by Gene Wensel.

Whether you hunt bow or gun, modern technology is advancing at an alarming rate, and it's going to have bigger impacts on either activity.

Lazar range finders are legal, so why not infra red detectors that can show where the deer is hiding? These things are not futuristic, they are used now on hogs. Why not deer too?

Both sports have become shooting more, and hunting less. No?

That doesn't mean your doing it, just overall, you know the AVERAGE guy.

I'm not dancing around anything, I said the same thing very clearly. Or so I thought.

It's not what you said it is how it was read. Just one of those things.

I was on a January bow hunt for mule deer in one of the best units in NM. Hunted hard for a week but could never get in tight for a shot.

Mule deer with a bow is one of the toughest hunts. I admire those who have closed the deal on a real trophy, with a bow or a rifle

From a dirt road, I watched an area about a mile off over a giant sage brush bottom and up the other side of the massive drainage. There was a tree line that meandered along the draw. Isolated at a point where the drainage widened, was a knob jutting out of the bottom that was treed as well but with plenty of sage bottoms encompassing its entire circumference.

Deer poured out of the tree line behind the knob and funneled around its base to feed every morning I watched.

I decided to penetrate behind the knob early in the afternoon one day. I used the labyrinth of arroyo cuts to stay low and out of sight to navigate to the rear of the knob which faced east; the Sun would be at my back where I wanted to hunt.

I carefully eased out if the arroyo and surveyed the area. There was a nice juniper that I could back up against, face east and watch a fairly open sagebrush park surrounded by draws leading down to it.

From 30 minutes after I backed up against that tree I was covered up by moving mule deer coming out of their bedding area, the trees and draws above the park, moving directly down to me.

I was totally exposed. Nothing in front of me for cover. Only the tree behind me to break the outline of my Outfitter Camo pattern. It's very difficult to remain completely motionless with your bow, arrow knocked and release on the string, from 2:00 pm to dark. Many deer walked by. I passed some easy shots on forked horn bucks.

Toward sundown, a steady stream of deer worked out of the main draw down the left edge of the park. There was a fenceline that met the treeline on the left side and ran to the right out in front of me in the open sage. I had ranged the fence at 60 yards as well as many other landmarks to be prepared for the shot.

The last deer to appear was a nice little buck. He seemed frantic to feed as he followed his does. He was on the other side of the fenceline but working the fence right down toward me. They were rutting. He was feeding frantically trying to refuel from the stress of the rut. As he moved down the treeline, he passed behind another juniper. I drew my bow. He appeared again but was on alert for sure, looking my way.

As I was settling my 60 yard pin behind his right shoulder, I took one last look. He was well past the fenceline I ranged at 60.

I gave it a bit more elevation.



I regularly practice out to 100 yards and had shot to 80 in camp the day before.



The release was triggered and the arrow sent. I watched it arch into the target and heard bone break on its impact. The buck hunkered low and launched forward like a scaulded dog. I could see blood pouring from the impact.

He disappeared from sight, sprinting to my right over sage and leaping over 10 foot arroyo cuts. I heard him pile up, thrash the sage and die

My friends and I drug him out in the dark to the truck. Skinned him in camp while he hung in a tree. He froze over night.

Went back the next day to retreive my arrow. Ranged from the location of the buck when shot. Looked as though someone had dumped cups full of blood all along his sprint. 83 yards.

I know it's doable with a compound,no doubt about it. Back before I went strictly trad I had a Matthews Q2XL that was rigged with all the latest and greatest. I could hit the vitals farther than bears mentioning. Now running a trad recurve I stick to about 30-35 yards. That's no sights off the shelf. I hunt in thick timber though and have no need for much more. I'll be damned though if I will give up my rifles.

Agreed...just imagine how sporting it would be for some tool to f_ck the game to death.


For some reason most seem to be forever trying to convince themselves and others that they are the best thing since sliced bread.

Used to have this bow vs rifle conversation with an old pal....I think a lot of it has to do with where you hunt and what you do.

Back in the day we used to bow hunt Vermont; and rifle hunt NH and Maine.Vermont had LOTS of deer back then but not many big bucks....a bow hunt provided more shot opportunities and better odds for success to kill a deer than a rifle hunt in Maine.

I used to tell my pal(who was a bit of a bow snob)that sitting a ground blind or tree stand with a bow for a Vermont deer was a LOT easier than deliberately killing a big buck in Maine....and since he had scores of Vermont bow kills, but never a really big Maine rifle buck, I suspect he knew I was right, but didn't care to admit it.

Personally I don't care what a guy hunts with but any ML hunter who tells me he's "handicapped" by weapon choice and entitled to a special season has me rolling on the ground laughing....with all the new scopes and the way these modern ML's shoot there isn't enough difference between them and a CF rifle to matter. They cleared he west of buffalo with less sophisticated stuff.... First buck I killed with a ML I laughed and said they call this handicapped?? That buck was blown off his feet...


I wouldn't grant a single special ML season as I think they are nothing more than revenue enhancers for F&G departments. If they really want to make it a challenge, remove the scopes and shoot a single shot 45-70 or 30-30 with irons during rifle season....near as I can tell there isn't any difference between that and a muzzle loader.

It all depends on how the states regulate what's legal in the early seasons. Like PA and CO.

I have a TC Renegade, irons, replacement barrel thankfully too...

Its 54. Runs a big conical. No sabot or such. True black. Musket caps.

Its an elk rifle. I can hit elk targets in the vital areas all day out to 300 given a good rest...

Thats a primitive tool.

Not that it matters one way or another, in the end all of these discussions come down to it being the Indian and not the arrow generally.

Never blown a buck off his feet though. In fact every last one I"ve shot with an MZ has done a bit of a death run. No biggy though.

But then a good CF scoped rifle would be valid to at least a 1000 yards in the right hands.

And I've got at least one iron sights kill pushing 600....

In the end also, they ALL take a set of skills. None of the skills are simple to master generally speaking. Most of them take some time and commitment. Some more than others.

And having hunted with just about every tool available, I still stick to the fact that it took me a LOT more work to become LR proficient, than it did to figure out how to kill a deer with a bow at 15 yards or less. Even on the ground on foot. Sure a couple of early years really sucked, but the suck factor on LR knowledge took more than a couple of years...

Rost I like how people think that centerfire rifles just became capable of killing deer at 1K. It is true that laser RFs and ballistic calculators have extended ranges quite a bit for the average Joe.....if they have the skills. Most even with the modern advances will never advance their shooting/loading/wind reading skills enough to ever become proficient.
Any monkey can get behind the gun and squeeze a trigger. It takes quite a bit more skill for the guy twisting the knobs for the monkey. I have probably started fifty guys down the path to becoming long range hunters, very few ever followed through when they realized the effort actually required. It is not as easy as some would lead you to think.

Jeff my first ML buck was killed with one of those soft lead round balls....they seem to have a bunch of crunch factor and hit pretty hard.

I do. 2 bull moose, two bull elk (one powder burned), 3 whitetail bucks, 3 mule deer including a 180 class, 2 blacktails, 2 black bears--- and if I take a few more minutes to think back through, there would be several more critters shot at less than 20 yards. Half or more of my predator calling shots are inside of 20 yards, a large majority under 50. I have shot critters beyond 600 yards and can do it but prefer all of my shots to be less than 20. No tree stands: all are still hunting, spot and stalk or calling.

This adds nothing to the orginal topic and is merely a reply to the assumption that all rifle hunting is at ranges longer than bow hunting. I got into bow hunting early and didn't change tactics once I went to a rifle. YMMV and that's Ok with me. It is what I enjoy and it works.

As to clips: I'm hunting not making movies. Steelhead has shown plenty of photo examples of dead critters shot up close and personal to confirm the point.



Again, not all rifle hunters. Probably new rifle hunters do that, take the first shot possible. As I age and operate on more experience, I don't always take the first shot possible and I suspect there are a good many hunters like me.

That's unusual IME. Do you think that bowhunting first made you a better rifle hunter?

Yes," is my first impulsive reply.

But then I realize that my yes reflects an assumption on my part that getting close to game is "better hunting."

Second answer is that bow hunting made me learn ways to get close to game, whether that in itself is good hunting or not.

Well, it wasn't a trick question!

Thanks! There's a minefield around the campfire these days and a man can't be too careful!

I've got to agree with that JG. Takes a ALOT of work in the field to become a good long range shot. And one must continue to work at it constantly. Few, including me, have that dedication. There are such hunters, of course. Some really good ones post here.
The other thing I've noticed is that game doesn't stand around in the open much as they get older. The "long range wantabes" teach them to stay out of sight. E

I know plenty of folks that will never be able to plug a target the size of a clay pigeon at 400 yards, regardless of all the technology.

You don't have to hit a target the size of a clay pigeon to kill game. Pie plate will work. I don't know of anybody at our rifle range that will miss the Gong at 400.

Must be an exclusive club. Or a big gong.

I found that I was NOT 300 yard capable when I started highpower rifle shooting. I also found that easily within a year I was 300 yard capable.

lets just say that when I finally became CONSISTENTLY good at 600 it was years later. Even more years later to be fairly consistent out to 1000.

And boy what a huge difference between 800 and 1000, especially from 900-1000....

But as they say... YMMV.

BUT knowing my abilities, I'd rather take a prone 600 yard shot than an offhand 200 yard shot.

Which just proves, you also have to konw what you are capable of.

A man has to know his limitations.

Well rifles as we know them to be has not changed much since smokeless powder the self contained cartridge and the lead jacketed bullets were invented 120+ years go, the only thing that has changed has been the improvement in bullets powder and the optics that we use. As for the rest is nonsense, At some point hunting stops being hunting, and it becomes shooting and killing. Usually that occurs when you find an animal to shoot, and you get close enough to hit and kill it. Yea muzzle loaders have gotten a little high tech and some bows too. You don't have to use that stuff if you don't want to. I keep in on the simple side of it all a fixed power scope, a rifle , a set of bino's , knife and a few odds and ends and that it. These days were I hunt my white tails, its more going to the food store and picking out a slap of meat than what I would call hunting. It was not always that way, we have an over abundance of deer for quit some time. Its hunting still, but not like it was when you had to really hunt hard just for that one shot a whole season. My hunting journal goes back to 1963, I have better cloths, better sights the rifles pretty much the same, bullets and ammo are much better. These days I am more interested in the cooking and the eating!

Didn't read the whole thread before posting so if this has been covered, sorry.
I shoot a lot of long range targets and have watched countless vapor trails in spotting scopes. I know what bullets do at long range in the wind. I love shooting reactive steel and paper out to a "G" or so. That being said, I don't shoot at game ANY FARTHER THAN I HAVE TO. When I hear people talking about backing up because they were too close etc. I just can't help but feel they are disrespecting the animal. I was taught you do everything you can to ensure a clean kill and not getting as close as possible is going against that. If I'm at 300 and I know I can close the gap, I will gladly do so even though 300 is well within my technical ability and so on... Just my opinion.

Add in the easy availability of accurate rangefinders and this is true in the same sense that the automobile hasn't changed much since the Model T. It still has rubber tires, burns gasoline in an internal combustion engine, etc.

Is when I lost the thrill,just me on that

You're not BB King, the thrill can't be gone.

Point blank range ho my...

Smoke, can you shoot 2" groups off the bench at 100 yrds. Most people are capable. So what's 2" x 4? It's 8" isn't it. The math says if you can shoot 2" groups at 100 then your plenty capable of 8" groups out to 400, and at least better hit a 12" target. Not an exclusive club just average.

Just saying.

Point bank range is a lost art,sadly

If there's ever a 10 mph wind at your range, it's more than enough to cause a miss at 400 on a piece of steel that's 12" or less. 400 is more than far enough to cause a miss without properly compensating for elevation.

If you're telling me that no one ever misses at 400, then you're telling me you've never missed at 400. Which is either BS, or a big-ass gong.

Just sayin.'

I know I've missed a 12-inch gong at 400 meters at my club, especially when I'm dialing in a new rifle or scope.

double post deleted

Silly me. But I was told to never shoot at a solid object,or water.

I really have my doubts about whether or not campfire dudes can comprehend what they read.

Did I say that at all?

Now that we're totally off topic, I'll indulge you. If your shooting a 2" group at 100 yrds in the same wind, you will be able to shoot the 8 inch at 400 is said wind, and any idiot should know to lead into that wind some. So I still think the vast majority will hit the gong almost all the time. Enough to kill.

I have my doubts as to whether you know what you're saying half the time. Here's exactly what you said, looks pretty black and white to me:



That's a lot different than what you're saying now, but I can't say I blame you for back-pedaling:




Having back-pedaled some, I'll give you a chance to do it some more. Shooting off a bench at a known distance is not the same as shooting in the field. And since you say "enough to kill" I'm assuming you mean in the field, not at the range.

I'd go so far as to say "the vast majority" of hunters don't carry an accurate rangefinder when they hunt. And furthermore that the vast majority cannot make a first shot cold bore hit on a pie plate in the field at 400 yards.

So I'm just curious about what it is that sets the members of your gun club apart from the rest of us?

I think if you did a survey you'd find the vast majority does indeed carry precision range finders.

Most have shooting stick, or bi pods for steady shooting.

Now we've come full circle are are back on topic.

This is indeed why most half baked hunters today will make the shot. 20 years ago your comments would be right.

I disagree, but if you want to conduct a survey, that would be great. Long-range hunters do, but most don't.

I don't carry a rangefinder, shooting sticks, bipod or even a sling.

I have carried a rangefinder before but haven't in YEARS.

I certainly know FAR more bow hunters that carry rangefinders than I know rifle hunters that do. But I'm only basing that on personal knowledge, not guessing out my elitist ass.

My ass is more elite than your ass.....

Smoke is right. Most average hunter dudes can't hit a target like that 2 shots after the cold bore. They have no idea how to allow for drop and windage either with their knobless duplexes.

We shoot a cold bore shot at every match. The range varies and so does the target size. For the group I shoot with, a pie plate at 400 is a piece of cake, but they're not your average bears, nor is their equipment...

Trying to answer the question of when hunting becomes shooting is sort of difficult.... I suppose it may be like defining pornography in that you may not be able to define it, but you know it when you see it.

As some have rightly pointed out, all hunting involves shooting. It is the essence of closing the deal. But this presupposes that some hunting-related activity or effort on the part of the hunter preceded it,other than just showing up. Inherent in this pre shooting process is ALWAYS (if it is hunting)the possibility that the quarry, whether through the use of its own senses, conditions of terrain or cover, or any combinations of these factors, can escape and render the outcome uncertain. In other words, there has to exist the possibility that you could lose...and not get your game.

An example or two come to mind. One story I think I read on here involved a group of guys perched on a ridge and the quarry was some sort of out-sized ram, whether Rocky Mountain bighorn or desert sheep I cannot remember. The story was about a fabulous shot that killed the ram at 1200 yards, or something like that.

The permit was once in a lifetime....seems there was a group of people along for this...some were charged with doing the necessary ballistic calculations on an i-phone to help the trigger man/permit holder (that's all he was)and IIRC one guy had to leave the scene to access a laptop to do the calculations or access the ballistic tables for that distance...the i-phone was apparently not enough. In any event the shot was made and the ram was killed.

Several thing struck me about the episode(setting aside for a moment the presence of a large group which would have been pretty impossible to bring along if the ram had to be approached more closely, and the extensive use of technology which rendered the "hunter" nothing more than a trigger man), one of which was the justification for having to shoot at that distance, which was that the ram was in an impossible position for a stalk....no doubt sometimes this happens but I could not help but wonder how, then, did they ever manage to retrieve it? My suspicion is that the "hunter" couldn't make the climb.

The other thing that struck me was the sense of entitlement displayed that somehow, because he had drawn a long sought tag, he was entitled to the ram and would employ every technical trick in the book to make sure he got it. I couldn't help contrast this story to the that of the killing of the world record typical mule deer by Doug Burris; or the hunting feats of a lot of guys who took record heads in the mid 20th Century.....sure they used technology but there was a whole lot more "hunting" involved.

Another was a recent Best of the West episode and the animal was some sheep, maybe aodad....I forget the distance but it was out there quite a ways...800 yards or so(?)....and this was all caught on camera....the animal was killed but I could not help but notice that the shot was taken over an intervening ridge,and draw that would have concealed a stalk and cut the distance by half .....or maybe more. Maybe this was not an option in light of having to sell the uninitiated some more Huskemaw scopes.


Observing human behavior tells a lot....I notice that when someone on here manages to kill some animal at long distances....say 500-1000 yards or beyond, or kills elk annually at 1200 yards from his back porch, they are quick to post and tell the story, and the thread will go on forever while everyone marvels at his skilled use of the technology....the poor slob who had to crawl through ground cactus and broken rock for the better part of a day to pull off a 75 yard shot at a big pronghorn is greeted with a few handclaps, and two pages of congrats.....that is if he is able to escape being reprimanded for "not giving the game a chance" for having shot it at such close distance.

I know some very good and consistently successful hunters who are ,by the standards espoused here, mediocre riflemen in terms of their acquired skills, and the equipment they use. The rifles are not finely tuned, the bullets garden variety and the scopes contain Duplex reticles and have no adjustable turrets for instant spinning. They could not make a wind call in a wind tunnel....their rifles are reliably zeroed ( they see to that) but I doubt they could always pass the 400 yard pie plate test and have no doubt infrequently flubbed a shot at an animal (show me the guy who has NEVER flubbed a shot at an animal and I will show you a guy who has not shot much game, nor done much real hunting....or is a liar). Their biggest nod to modern technology is the ability to crank a scope from 3 to 9 power....not much help these days.

But their dens are loaded with big bucks and bulls and hides and skulls, and their garages piled high with the antlers of lesser specimens....the freezers are always loaded.

When confronted by a 700-1000 yard opportunity, they figure out how to get closer for a certain shot....implicit in the decision is the knowledge that the animal could escape in the process but this is expected. In short, they know how to "hunt".

I'm impressed by the guys who successfully use bows, rifles, and muzzleloaders interchangeably.....this show great versatility and hunting ability and a lot of different skill sets....I am equally unimpressed by the use of technology as described in the ram story above...or the Best of West episode. The lines of demarcation between "hunting" and "shooting" may be about as clear as mud these days....but like pornography, I bet we all know it when we see it.

Good post, Bob.

Indeed.

Regarding hunting versus shooting, I think there is room for both in the field, especially with regards to younger or inexperienced hunters. My 7 year old daughter killed three deer last year in her first season and really had little say-so with regards to the actual when's and where's of the hunting itself. I just made sure she could shoot when the situation presented itself and that her equipment was up to the task. All the field work was up to me, but she learned something every time we went out. I've heard of folks in similar circumstances referred to as "trigger pullers" and will agree to a certain extent, but a little success right off the bat can make for an enthusiastic hunter on down the road, one with eventual input and interest in details of the hunt itself.

Just yesterday, I had my wife shooting her .243win at gongs when we were visiting our camp. I painted a few walnut-sized red dots on the 100yd and 200yd plates and then put a fist-sized dot on the 400yd plate. From our litle wooden shooting bench, she proceeded to tag all the small dots with one shot each. Spinning the turret up another 5 minutes, she put one right next to the 400yd dot and the next one smack in the middle. Probably 95% of the local hunters in our area couldn't have pulled that off with their equipment. The funny thing is that my wife is neither a hunter nor a shooter. This was actually her first time to ever shoot a rifle of any kind. The reality is that she was handed some really good equipment, showed how to properly use it, and then did just as she was shown. I put the rifle together for her nearly 5 years ago, but she'd never pulled the trigger. She was amazed that the bullets just kept going right where she put her crosshairs . Now she has some new confidence and is signing up for a hunters safety course so she can hunt with the me and the girls. I think that this little bit of "shooting" may lead to some "shooting/hunting" this fall when I bring her along and a bit of success in the field may (hopefully) lead to some full-on "hunting" in her future.

Whatever; rationalize your pansieness all you want fellas. I'll be tree-jumpin (no stand, thank you very much) in a loin clothe and moccasins with my Bowie knife between my teeth wrestling game and slitting throats in sub-zero temps after walking through hip-deep snow.

Anyone who does it different belongs in the kitchen cookin it for me.

Dang that felt good.

Huge +1

Let's twist this in another direction and see if we can generate another 10 pages of discussion. Given that many will swear and be da--- that a 223 or 243 is too light for deer yet will nod their heads sagely and agree that shooting an elk at 1000 yds with their 6.5 or 7mm or even 300 whizum is very doable even though the bullet energy is probably in the 400-600ft lbs range which is half the 1000 ft lbs generally mentioned as the threashhold for deer sized game. That's the real reason I question some of the long range shooting I see being thrown about.

Someone who gets it. Thanks for the response.

Yes, good thoughtful and articulate post.

And another!

Well stated Bob.

Bob as others have said well stated..

One thing I would like to add to this subject.. Long distance shooting has been part of America since there was an America.. Timothy Murphy's long shot in the Revolution has been called the most important shot ever fired..It turned the tables gave revolutionaries the push they needed to defeat the overbearing English govt.
Farther down the road, we have the American Buffalo Runners who were some of the finest long range shooters to ever come down the pike..
Look also at bows and muzzle loaders.. Fred Bear hunted with a simple bow.. Now they have compounds, sights, and maybe some sort of built in range finder..
Muzzle loaders in the modern era started off with T/C's flintlock, now we have inlines capable of killing deer at several hundred yards.. In both cases, the goal has been to shoot farther, make the long shot..
I guess, I feel the current 1000 yard plus shooting is just a bit too much.. Like the bow hunters with tree stands, scent blockers, bows with all kinds of stuff on them to enable them to make longer kills.. Muzzle loading the same deal..
The long kill attitude is not limited to rifles..
I almost never watch TV hunting shows, and all though I enjoy long range rifle shooting, it is mostly at varmits, and plastic jugs..

Realists vs idealists, just another way to divide the hunting community.

Muzzle loading, archery, and LR hunting are all stunts that diminish our sport in many cases.

So everybody should shoot game at under 200 yards with a center-fire rifle? And that's it?

I can't tell if that was serious or not...?

Nicely done Bob. I may not be as old as some but I have spent a lot of time in the woods hunting game. I don't mount anything, take pics or beat my chest about it. I simply fill the freezer. I have also found in the last few years that I have reversed the technology curve. I back off my handloads, close the distances on all game and have sold the compound bows in favor of recurves and long bows. It seemed that it was just getting too easy and I'm more about fair chase that just shooting animals. Fair chase is a variable. What's fair for me may be impossible for another. I guess it boils down to how do you feel after the kill. Did you earn it or not? Only the one who took the animal can judge that. I have seen the traditional scene grow quit a bit with a like growth in the super magnum development. Seems like a Yin Yang effect. It's a big world and there is room for us all. As long as we see it as such and not cut each others throats it's all good. Don't let the antis win.

Keep on keeping on Tanner. Methinks you got this stuff worked out just fine.

I'm going to continue to hang my hat on repertoire. Many are happy to beat the one trick pony.

I hear you Bob. Just like all the proud dads posting on the 'Fire, when all the kid did was sit in the box where dad told them to sit, raise the rifle when dad told them to raise it, and shoot the deer in the greenfield at 80 yards when dad told them to shoot it.

I guess those kids really earned it though, they didn't just SHOW UP.

That one word, sums up the entire discussion....

There's a reason I've picked up bowhunting.... I like to be out there with a tag in my pocket, and I couldn't care less what I've got in my hands as long as it's going to hit what I'm aiming at. If somebody wants to tell me that's wrong, so be it...

Now your talking, if they dont like my truck hunting from a golf cart and shooting does at 1K heck with em I hunt how and when I enjoy doing it. I like shooting stuff and am not above using deer elk etc as targets. I do take a lot more care trying to make sure that I hit those targets and they die.

For me it was my left nut found out there whose a right on.

Grin

That's what I do as soon as the hunting becomes shooting.

any goober can slip up on an animal and shoot em close, takes dedication to shoot them long

Hunting never "became" anything. It is what you make of it.

HYOH. Stands for hike-your-own-hike in hiker parlance. This means if you wanna carry 10# and risk hypothermia/starvation or carry the kitchen sink, just have at it, its' your call. Equally applicable to hunting, IMO

Laffin'!

Normally it takes me a couple hours or more to get the deer or elk to the road. Last year I started up the ridge and couldn't have been more than what seemed like five minutes and see a spike and a fork. I looked back at the road and then at the deer. I looked back at the road again and back at the fork. What heck I thought I am going to take this easy one.

Do I think I earned it? What a silly question. I earned money. I killed the deer close to the road for a change of pace.

Everyone deserves an easy one every now and then. But if it was easy all the time I'd lose interest, personally.

I agree with the article. I hate what the "Lee & Tiffany crowd" have done to hunting. I also am a stickbow guy who recently gave up bowhunting because since my state legalized crossbows I feel out of place. Our archery season is now crossbow season and they are killing the big bucks, because it's easy. If you sit in a spot where a couple trails intersect during the peak of the rut long enough a good buck is going to come by. When he would everyhting would still have to come together just right for me and my recurve which usually wasn't the case. But a crossbow hunter has a lot more latitude in what shots he can ethically try. I only shot a crossbow one day in my life. But in that afternoon I was shooting groups at 40 yards that I was never able to do with my recurves.

Lemme get this straight. You quit bowhunting because the state legalized crossbows? WTF does it matter to you how anybody else goes about it, if it's legal? Are you incapable of pleasing you? Must be, to just fuggin' hang it all up......

I hear the next step is legalizing gay marriage. Are you gonna run off from the 'little woman' in protest of THAT, too?

Thanks for teaching me how to stand up for what I believe. I'm now going stomp my feet, and toss a tantrum because my state outlawed buying 30 rd mags. I believe I might just hafta quit shooting all .223 in protest, over the injustice of it all......

I don't disagree with much of what Gene's talking about, but I do find it interesting that he's blaming the "business" of hunting. I seem to remember going to one of his whitetail deer hunting seminars in the late 80's over by UNH. Cost me about $8/10 at the time and I probably still have his book down stairs somewhere too - seems like he enjoyed the business end of it when it was his time.

And I for one, don't watch any of the hunting shows anymore. Don't think I have for 6-8 years now. They don't hunt so much as advertise and show kill shots. Not my cup of tea anymore. I'd rather get out and do it (or anything else for that matter) myself then watch someone else do it from the couch.

The things I hate the most about TV hunting shows is the hard rock music,the faked orgasms after killing something, the baseball hats worn backwards,(NEVER trust someone who wears baseball hats backwards) and the High 5's .....you would think these people never killed a game animal before...(kinda like spiking footballs and dancing in the end zone during the Super Bowl).

Killing a BG animal can be an emotion packed event, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't show some restraint...nothing worse than grown men acting like little kids.

I think it was Vince Lombardi who told his players that after scoring a touchdown, they should act like they had BTDT before.

A hearty Amen to that Bob! One of my managers in pro baseball told me one time, and I try to live by it....."The public should never be able to tell if you went 4 for 4, or 0 for 4". Makes sense to me.

95% of the TV hunters are a joke IMO.

FishinHank,

I've had that video for many years, mostly for personal/sentimental reasons, but I couldn't agree more with you in that it is a great video of times gone by.

Highly recommend it.

Bob

Most hunters have a hard time connecting on an offhand shot with a rifle, within reasonable bow range, at an unpredictable target, when out of breath, off the beaten path. Even more hunters aren't going to be physically able to put their asses in the position to get that same close rifle shot to begin with, regardless of what weapon they think is most artful and challenging to hunt with. So, when "hunting" became "shooting" is a moot point if you can't get the shot in the first place.

I must say it was super awesome seeing Gene on stage in Bozeman recently, next to the young rad hunting movie actors. He looked ungodly uncomfortable. Wish I could have visited with him about it.

I sure do like that .250 sav you got, steelhead ...