Saddlesore:
<br>
<br>That is the official Boone and Crockett position statement on fair chase off of their web site. Sky is correct that the fair chase statement does not specifically address LR killing. Whether it would come into play if a trophy killed in such a manner and B and C had knowledge of it is open to question in my mind. If someone knows of one that has been accepted with B and Cs knowledge of the situation, then that would appear to settle that question, at least for now.
<br>
<br>Darryl:
<br>
<br>I debated whether I should post my "conscientious" objections to LR, but decided that I would because I believe them to be valid. Initially I thought, well, why not, but the longer I considered it, the more I decided that LR sporting game killing is fundamentally not fair. You obviously do not agree, and that is your choice, we all have to live with our own conscience. You are missing my point, either deliberately or on purpose. It is not the killing or the distance, it is whether it is fair chase to shoot something that has no chance of detecting your presence and has no reaction to "sighter shots". Obviously you think it is, I disagree. Somehow the idea of a spotter and sighter shots does not fill me with the thrill of the hunt. It is target shooting with live game to me, not hunting. Chac un a son gout.
<br>
<br>I had a very accurate .308 with a T 16 scope on it, with all the clicks to 500m memorized 2 years ago, saw the biggest buck anyone has seen in this country for several years standing broadside on a small pond damn on my property at 573 yards from me, lasered with the Bushnell Pro800 I had with me. I did not shoot him, even though there was no question in my mind I could have killed him. Why, he was out of what I considered to be my hunting area, and thus had no knowledge that I was there. You would have shot him and I don't blame you, I passed and have had no regrets. Maybe that says something to you, maybe it doesn't.
<br>
<br>Your buffalo hunters and indians observations have no relevance to todays sport hunters. One was for subsistence and one was for money, neither of which apply to most, if not all LR gunners I am sure.
<br>
<br>I am not disputing your right to do it, just whether it is right to do it. It is not your skill levels, which I respect greatly. It is how you choose to use them.
<br>
<br>As you said, our hunting equipment and knowledge have improved, but the game animals have not. Does that mean that we have to use every modern trick to kill them? Maybe to you, not to me. Would it be fair chase to hike around elk country and position video cams so that you would know in real time which draw to go to for the big one? Just more technology to you, I suppose. How about locating them by air? Just another modern convenience. I think Saddlesore had an excellent point above, would you consider ANY distance to be too far? 5000 yards? Why not? I haven't read all the relevant state laws, but I doubt that many would restrict the size of the gun on the upper end, why not use a 20mm? A 105? Or a 20mm necked down to .50 or .49. If it was legal, is that fair? If not, why not? I hate to sum up your position, but I suppose that if it is legal it is OK with you and that is your right. I just hold myself to some higher personal standards than the legal ones.
<br>
<br>And finally, I strongly believe that a spreading trend towards LR gunning would rapidly and inevitably lead to restrictions on methods of hunting, and it would likely be lead by hunters. You may disagree but hunters have a pretty good record of deciding what is fair and what is not, we just prefer that the members of our sport would be self policing, but that does not always seem to work. Only time will tell if I am right, but technology will continue to improve and at some point the use of it will have to be restricted.
<br>
<br>
<br>
