IThe further away you are from game, the less likelihood of detection, that's pretty simple and universal. Many here assume if we use the wrong scope or choose not to shoot at long distance that we are not good marksmen. In fact , over and over we've seen the optics geeks say anybody who doesn't use XYZ scope simply isn't a good enough shot to know if their scope holds zero or not. Nothing could be further from the truth.
That's simply not correct, & no one has said anything close to that, but you.
In densely covered areas, yes, it's easier for a good hunter to get closer to game in the east or in the west.
What you just don't seem to get is that in the west, in more open or fully open areas, game spots you at much, much longer distances.
It's not a matter of being a better hunter in either scenario, it's a matter of circumstances dictating how you hunt & at what distances shots may need to be made..................or no shot at all, maybe on a book head or a once in a lifetime ram or.............................
Especially if you are hunting for a trophy, & fully mature animal, not an immature 1 1/2 year old.
The more you yap the more you simply discredit yourself.
MM
Bullshyt, you're either lying or stupid. Which is it ?
Blackheart you are just wrong on this. I grew hunting black tail deer and my longest shot for years was just over 100 yards. When I started hunting Idaho and Nevada in many places there was no cover no way to get close. I have let a lot a deer walk because I couldn’t get within comfortable range at the time There are many different ways to hunt and take game. Your myopia is telling.
That's hunting. You ain't supposed to be able to kill every animal you see. The quarry is supposed to have a sporting chance of detecting danger and making an escape. How did they ever manage to get it done before the advent of rangefinders ? Folks today want to make everything as easy as possible, replacing skill and work with gadgetry.
