Ask a hundred people and you'll get a hundred different "right" answers. In the July 2011 issue of Petersen's Hunting, Mike Schoby went on a tirade in his editorial about the ethics of long range hunting.

In it, he criticizes a television show that promotes long range hunting and contends it isn't fair chase. Schoby indicated that he shared an elk camp with some inexperienced hunters who were "Kool-Aid-drinking fans" of the show and said they had a "fatal flaw" and were "looking for and easier way of being successful."

He rebukes those who rely on technology to make up for deficiencies in expertise and experience. Schoby went on to say, "I feel sorry for the folks who buy into this stuff" and "long range surgical strikes remove much of the experience of why we hunt."

Last year, I was at my local archery shop talking smack with one of the owners when I guy came in to get his bow restrung. I guess he thought he had the right audience and started yacking about how he only hunted with a bow. He thought the vast majority of rifle hunters were slobs who had limited skills and didn't think that harvesting an animal at "hunderd" yards was ethical or sportsmanlike.

I wonder how Schoby would defend his use of centerfire rifles wearing glass to this guy. Even an entry level Savage rifle and Bushnell scope is pretty sweet "technology" from a historical perspective. It sure takes more skill to kill with stick and string than a .30-06. If that's the case, why doesn't he eschew firearms and use a bow if it's all about experiencing the outdoors and proving your skill set a hunter?

I think debating the ethics of how we hunt and why we hunt is healthy. However, it's obvious that some drink too much of their own Kool-Aid like Mike Schoby. He makes its clear that why and how "he" hunts is also why and how "we" should hunt. Schoby references Boone and Crockett's definition of fair chase in that animals should be hunted "in a manner that does not give the hunter improper advantage."

When it comes to killing schit, what's the proper way and what's the improper way? After four decades of hunting, I'm relatively entrenched on the why and how I hunt, but I'm not going try to bend you to my will. I just can't understand why so many are myopically bent on overlaying their subjective ethical positions on others.