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

MD, if you read back, you'll see that Steelhead posted the WT deer population in 1900, and that was my context.

I'm not sure what your "not exactly" is referring to. I maintained above that "some amount of regulation" is needed. You mention market hunting as playing a role in decimating game populations, and I put market hunting in the category of something that we don't have today due to "some amount of regulation."

Close range hunting gone wild.



https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?...t=vb.107068640871&type=2&theater

smokepole,

I was referring to exactly what was stated in my post: Some regulations are reactions to declining game numbers (and some recent changes, in some places, still are), and some are due to ethical concerns. But today they are pretty much separate issues.

In fact "market hunting" in itself doesn't affect game populations. Game is legally sold on the market in much of Europe and Africa, and there are lots of animals. We tend to forget this, because so much of our land and game is owned by the public (or, technically, held in trust), rather than privately owned as it is in those other countries.

I would suggest the rampant use of ATV's on public lands where they're illegal affects hunting far more than long-range shooting, because it actually affects game movement and, often, stalks by hunters who got there legally. Indiscriminate long-range shooting (which isn't what we're talking about) can have some of the same effects, but not nearly as much as ATV's.

I might even suggest that indiscriminate long-range shooting was far more common on western public lands BEFORE we had laser rangefinders. I witnessed a bunch of barrages back in those days, by nitwits who didn't have a clue about the range of where their bullets were landing--many of whom were convinced that because their rifle was a "magnum" (usually a 7mm Remington or .300 Winchester) it would "knock down" any animal it hit. I actually see little of that sort of thing among foot hunters since lasers appeared, but ATV hunters are another deal. on more than one occasion have seen them surround a herd of elk or pronghorns and start blazing away, killing a few but wounding many. Yet we almost never see threads on the Campfire about the ethical use of ATV's.

So start one. Also by the way, I'm not sure why people keep lecturing me on long-range hunting/technology, because I don't believe I've indicated I have a problem with either.

But really, any time anyone questions "long-range hunting" the answer is always the same--"more deer are wounded by bowhunters or running shots or fill-in-the-blank than long-range hunters."

Or, "off-road vehicles are a bigger problem."

So what?



Un-regulated market hunting in the US surely would, and did. So, some amount of regulation, in the US, is necessary.

I've pointed out on a number of these long-range threads that the numbers of animals bowhunters or unpracticed rifle hunters wound are irrelevant.

But a bunch of your posts on this thread have been about "unfair technology," and not all concerned shooting. So why are ATV's not relevant?

No, my posts have been about the fact that at some distance, shooting an animal ceases to be fair chase hunting because the animal's natural defenses do not include worrying about a human that far away. Similar to the quote you posted from Ortega y Gassett.

I can't put a number on it because as I said, it varies with the season, the animals, and the location. I'm not in favor of any new laws regulating it, and I don't care if others do it because I reserve the right to do it myself. Sometimes when I hunt, I just want the meat. I'd rather shoot an elk or deer at long range than buy a steak at the grocery store and ethically, there's no difference between either option. As a matter of fact, the long-range option is probably more ethical since it forces a meat eater to kill something rather than pretend nothing had to die so he could eat.

What I did say though, was that if you're far enough away from an animal that your spotter can stand up in the open behind you and do jumping jacks, and the animal either doesn't notice or chooses to stay put because it doesn't perceive you as a threat, I believe you've crossed the line into something other than fair chase hunting.

If all you want out of your hunt is the meat or horns, then it's no one else's business. Just don't pretend it's fair chase hunting.

As far as technology, we all choose to draw the line somewhere, I believe yours stops well short of using drones for scouting?

Let's take that out of the equation right now. It would be cheaper, easier, and you would end up with a better product if you paid a rancher to put a 3 year old steer in a small pen for you to shoot. That ain't it.

Nope wild game is lower in Cholesterol and higher in protein than beef. Wild game is healthier meat.

Since the facts are that we have more game today the regulations that are already in place have proven to be working perfectly.

I think allowing folks to use those four-legged horse thingies in the backcountry is bullschit.



Travis

Where in my posts did you see anything in favor of more regulations, especially regulations on long-range hunting?

Lame rationalization. Learn how to buy meat and build a healthy diet. Cheaper, easier and just as effective.

No it is not lame, it is a fact. My father made his living with horses and cow, I do know a bit about them.

Why buy meat when it's free? I've yet to eat a cow that tastes like a deer.

Well if you chase game half way across the prairie so you can get up next to them and stick an arrow in...

You can take that out of your own equation if you want, but jwp is right, wild game meat is much healthier. Much better Omega 3/Omega 6 ratio than corn-fed beef, if that means anything to you.

So it's unfair to use it to kill the animal, but not to bring it out?



Travis

You're obviously out of your depth here. And who gives a crap about cheaper or easier?

I'd rather kill my own. That is, if you're OK with that.

Free? Are you kidding? And I've yet to taste venison as good as a properly prepared prime cut steak. Maybe why the vast, vast majority of domestic stock are steers and pigs?

Point is, "it's for the meat and nothing else" is a poor rationalization. More to it than that even if you don't realize or care to think more about it.

He makes an excellent point deer and beef do not taste the same.