Hunting’s Newest Controversy: Snipers

[edward]

Just one more issue people are making a big deal about to stir up controversy and division among hunters. The fact of the matter is no one has the right to force their ethics on someone else provided what one does is legal. If someone doesn't like it fine don't choose to hunt that way but I'll be damned if someone is going to tell me I can't as long as its legal.
I love distance shooting, I have built my own custom rifles just for distance. I choose not to take thousand yard shots at animals because my confidence isn't there yet. Right now 400 yards under the right conditions is the max I'll shoot at an animal. One day if my skills get to where I'm comfortable shooting at longer distances I probably will. For now I won't. Anyone who thinks these rigs make a 1000 yard shot a sure deal obviously never has shot that distances. Does it make it doable and repeatable? Yes it does but.... you have to put the training in. Otherwise wind or elevation will cause you to miss by a mile. A lot goes into making those shots. There is a lot of skill involved. It's much easier to stalk in close than it is to get everything just right for a extreme distance shot. For now my 500 and up shots are reserved for paper or gongs but who knows what the future will hold. It's a labor of love actually. Building the rifle, load development, ballistic charts, and the like. It's very involved and that's what I enjoy about it so much. I equate it to bow hunting which I do also. In bow hunting a lot of effort is put into getting everything just right and being accurate enough to comfortably make a shot and clean humane kill. Distance shooting is no different.

the term legal is bullshit,thats a crutch,ethics,thats the truth,is it or isnt it,you have to make that decision.killing an animal at 1000 yards is murder,you didnt give it a chance.thats my opinion,dont like it,tough.your ego demands you can hit something at 1000 yards,try paper or steel,no damage done,no animal hurt.

 

[billc]

So what if my ethics makes me think a pistol is no good. Maybe I think using a big bore is to unfair because it has to much power. So now should I fight with Edward , redleg and velo dog because they hunt with weapons I do not. Well that answer would be no I should support them. Some of you really need to get over if it does not fit my style or ethics it must be bad.

who knows if they can get closer to the animal there thrill of hunting is long range shooting and testing those skills.Plus if they pay the fee for the tags they have as much right to hunt as anyone else

Now when I was talking long range shooting it was not really about the system in this post. There maybe a need for laws but I would like to see the majority of hunters make that rule or law. It most be based on facts and what is good for hunters and the animals. It should not be based on likes or dislikes.

I keep finding it funny how we all hate the news we get about the bans and what the anti hunters and anti gun people are trying to do to us but then we attack other hunter and shooters rights because we don't like it. Wake up people that is the same reason antis fight with us they don't like what we do.

 

[lcq]

So what if my ethics makes me think a pistol is no good. Maybe I think using a big bore is to unfair because it has to much power. So now should I fight with Edward , redleg and velo dog because they hunt with weapons I do not. Well that answer would be no I should support them. Some of you really need to get over if it does not fit my style or ethics it must be bad.

who knows if they can get closer to the animal there thrill of hunting is long range shooting and testing those skills.Plus if they pay the fee for the tags they have as much right to hunt as anyone else

Now when I was talking long range shooting it was not really about the system in this post. There maybe a need for laws but I would like to see the majority of hunters make that rule or law. It most be based on facts and what is good for hunters and the animals. It should not be based on likes or dislikes.

I keep finding it funny how we all hate the news we get about the bans and what the anti hunters and anti gun people are trying to do to us but then we attack others hunter and shooters rights because we don't like it. Wake up people that is the same reason antis fight with us they don't like what we do.

"Wake up people that is the same reason antis fight with us they don't like what we do." and they are experts at pitting us against one another and we it seems are happy to oblige. If we don't hang together we will surely hang separately

 

[PHOENIX PHIL]

There maybe a need for laws but I would like to see the majority of hunters make that rule or law. It most be based on facts and what is good for hunters and the animals. It should not be based on likes or dislikes.

But Bill how does a discussion on new regulations happen if you're not even willing to let it begin, immediately shutting it down when 'no current law is being broken' ? Who if not your average hunter such as your average member of AH is 'allowed' to have this discussion? In what medium? In what place?

 

[Shootist43]

When I hunted the deep woods I rarely had a 100 yard shot. Now on my own property I have a 200 yard shot. At those distances I comfortable because I practice at those distances. However I can also see the need for long range shots. I started reading articles written by Nathan Foster a recognized Long Range Hunter that lives in New Zealand. Before judging all long range hunters unethical I suggest that you read Nathan's books. If you lived and hunted where he does, you'd either be hungry or a long range shooter. Not every rifle, caliber, scope, bullet or load is up to the task. Let alone the hunter and the attributes necessary for long distance shooting. I for one sort of envy the guys (like Nathan) that can do it responsibly.

 

[billc]

I am not the one saying it is wrong or right. I just will not fight within our group over something I may not do or like. A few seem to think because they don't like it that makes it wrong. My view is all because I may not like it or do it does not make me right.AS were it all starts to fix the problem that I don't know? Things like this need to be voted on by hunters and all hunters. Getting that done is the question. Till we figure that out the law is what we have and ethics and morals mean nothing as we all have are own and we each think we are right.

I for one would not use this system or shot past 500yds but I don't just get on my high horse and make up reasons to try and justify being so narrow minded on I don't like it so I will not support it. I support all hunting and with in the laws we have now. Ethics and morals is why we fight all the time as the other sides morals don't believe in the killing of animals. So why are we better then them. Because we believe our way helps wildlife and is better overall but morals always starts all the bs.

When someone can prove to me long range hunting wounds more animals then bow or handguns or maybe more then all the guys who can not shot the rifles they own then maybe I will change my views. I am sure with the amount of bow hunters there is a lot more elk walking around with arrow wounds then long range bullet holes. I am a bow hunter so are my ethics wrong because I still bow hunt and yes I have hit elk and lost them.

Should we turn the blind eye or stop guys who shot one or two rounds at the range ever year then go hunting. By my standard that is not enough shooting and my ethics make me shot 100's of round each year to be the best shot I can be when the time comes.

Moral/ethics vary greatly between people laws are suppose to effect everyone and what we go by. If your whole life is run by laws why now is hunting different and we should use morals or ethics for that.

 

[LivingTheDream]

I have no problem with it. Every hunter should know his or her limits and what is a reasonable distant for them to shoot. They should practice, practice, practice! I have a long range rifle system. I have practiced up to 600 yards, but my longest shot to date 315 yards. My goal is to get close and not try for a longer shot, but I got a long range system for the just in case, possibility, I have to take a shot longer then 250. I would not take a shot longer then 500 yards, that's my limit. The gun and system far exceeds my abilities. I think we all need to be very real with our abilities and realize that technology enables us to maximize those abilities, but they don't completely replace it. One of my favorite sayings is your can't teach talent. And you can't buy it either.

 

[rookhawk]

Sorry if this sounds snarky, but it will be banned in no time and the owners will be put $15,000.

This appears to be a nice tool for the disabled and the military/police but it's just another nail in the coffin of hunting.

When hunters use this stuff in the name of sport hunting they give us all a bad name and threaten our sport. Why? Because we bend over backwards to define fair chase, ethics and tradition to the public that allows us to lawfully practice our sport. This tool is just one more means to unravel all those statements and make us look like shooters/killers and not hunters.

 

[LivingTheDream]

Gunwerks is just turrets, and calculating wind effect on bullet on a spreadsheet. Unless it has changed and maybe I am wrong. But being able to do math will not be outlawed. Some of the other ones that calculates it in the scope, that might be outlawed in due time.

 

[PHOENIX PHIL]

I am not the one saying it is wrong or right. I just will not fight within our group over something I may not do or like. A few seem to think because they don't like it that makes it wrong. My view is all because I may not like it or do it does not make me right.AS were it all starts to fix the problem that I don't know? Things like this need to be voted on by hunters and all hunters. Getting that done is the question. Till we figure that out the law is what we have and ethics and morals mean nothing as we all have are own and we each think we are right.

I for one would not use this system or shot past 500yds but I don't just get on my high horse and make up reasons to try and justify being so narrow minded on I don't like it so I will not support it. I support all hunting and with in the laws we have now. Ethics and morals is why we fight all the time as the other sides morals don't believe in the killing of animals. So why are we better then them. Because we believe our way helps wildlife and is better overall but morals always starts all the bs.

When someone can prove to me long range hunting wounds more animals then bow or handguns or maybe more then all the guys who can not shot the rifles they own then maybe I will change my views. I am sure with the amount of bow hunters there is a lot more elk walking around with arrow wounds then long range bullet holes. I am a bow hunter so are my ethics wrong because I still bow hunt and yes I have hit elk and lost them.

Should we turn the blind eye or stop guys who shot one or two rounds at the range ever year then go hunting. By my standard that is not enough shooting and my ethics make me shot 100's of round each year to be the best shot I can be when the time comes.

Moral/ethics vary greatly between people laws are suppose to effect everyone and what we go by. If your whole life is run by laws why now is hunting different and we should use morals or ethics for that.

Because Bill, when enough people feel something is morally or ethically wrong, a law is then written to forbid it. Conversely when something is outlawed but enough people find it to be morally / ethically acceptable the law is changed.

What should separate us from the emotional anti-hunters is being mature enough to set our emotions to the side and be willing to discuss controversial hunting topics without succumbing to the simplistic mindset of "you're either with us or against us" that leads to the fighting.

If you take any topic and either make the discussion personal or take someone else's non-personal comments as an attack on you, the fight will then commence. I for one think it's quite possible and more importantly necessary for adult hunters to have these discussions. If we don't, non / anti hunters will have them for us, I'm certain that's not what you want.

 

[billc]

Sorry if this sounds snarky, but it will be banned in no time and the owners will be put $15,000.

This appears to be a nice tool for the disabled and the military/police but it's just another nail in the coffin of hunting.

When hunters use this stuff in the name of sport hunting they give us all a bad name and threaten our sport. Why? Because we bend over backwards to define fair chase, ethics and tradition to the public that allows us to lawfully practice our sport. This tool is just one more means to unravel all those statements and make us look like shooters/killers and not hunters.

See I see it as they don't like hunters because we kill and that is the goal of hunting. We may not always reach that goal and we know there is many parts between the hunting and killing part. But if we don't kill they don't care about that. They care when we kill. To many think they see shooting,killing and hunting as different. The antis hate the shooting that equals killing which like it or not is part of the hunting we all do or we would all be carrying cameras not weapons to kill the animal when we see them out hunting.

 

[billc]

Because Bill, when enough people feel something is morally or ethically wrong, a law is then written to forbid it. Conversely when something is outlawed but enough people find it to be morally / ethically acceptable the law is changed.

What should separate us from the emotional anti-hunters is being mature enough to set our emotions to the side and be willing to discuss controversial hunting topics without succumbing to the simplistic mindset of "you're either with us or against us" that leads to the fighting.

We should also be mature enough to say because I don't like it does not make it wrong. I think emotions are no better the ethics or morals in the end.

If the law is made then so be but you will not see me being so closed minded to say it is not hunting or it is not right because I don't like it. That is far different then some who just don't like it so it should be looked at as not hunting.

Just one thing to look at with the either with us or against us mind set. The antis seem to use that logic and they have been kicking are ass for years. They have one cause and stick to it and win as we fight with in and lose. I am not the smartest person but that is something to take note of.

 

[rookhawk]

I'm not sure the respondents actually watched the videos of what the technologies do. You paint an animal like you're calling in an airstrike up to 1400 yards away. Calculations are performed on 24 different aspects (not just drop, velocity, drift, wind). It then creates its own firing solution and tracks the target. You hold down the button and when you whip the gun all around eventually for a nanosecond your jerky wobbly gun intersects with the painted target whether moving or stationary and the system discharges the hammer, striking the target.

I'm a big fan of targeting hunters and I'm diametrically opposed to the big tent strategy to hunters rights. If we do not excise cancer from hunting behavior we are indicted for the collective behavior. MY ethical fair chase sport is forfeit because of a jackass on the fringe giving the anti's the platform they need.

I'm not afraid of the ardent antis, they are a tiny nuisance. I'm afraid of the ignorant public that determines what liberties I may enjoy. When something outrageous comes to hunting and we tolerate it, the anti's use it, the public buys into it, and we lose.

My enemies are the fringes of the hunting "big tent" because they are creating the indefensible positions that cause public PR issues with non-hunters. They give the antis their platform. If we didn't give the antis these agregious examples they'd be back to nude protests, throwing paint on women wearing fur and they'd be spiking trees in forests to cause harm to loggers....all stuff that makes them the enemy of the general public. Instead, we are becoming the enemy by feeding the antis their superior ammo through these sorts of activities.

I know many will disagree with my view, even those I respect as sportsmen, but I think history will sadly prove me right.

 

[curtism1234]

If you have to hold over an animal with a standard reticle, it's too far to shoot. That would put it at about 400-450 yards imo

 

[Royal27]

Here is an idea, and call me crazy.... Why don't we actually have discussions based on what we as individual hunters think is right and act accordingly, instead of being so worried about what a true anti will think? I'd rather fail doing what's right, than succeed doing what's wrong. I think that's what the attempt is in threads like this one, to discuss what is the right thing to do, not what is the currently legal thing to do.

I'm not supportive of using the "anti model" of all agreeing at any cost. My personal ethics won't allow me to be supportive of something I don't agree with ethically. If your personal ethics allow you to support something that you think is ethically wrong personally, then awesome, go for it. As Phil stated, when enough people agree with something ethically it turns into law. Laws don't just spontaneously combust without any discussion and this discussion is based upon personal ethics.

We aren't losing because the antis stick together, we are losing because society is changing and becoming more urban, with less people understanding what hunting is all about, and even losing the desire to hunt (not a new phenomenon by the way, we just think it is). Due to this, its more work to educate the non-hunter as to why hunting has benefits than it is to convince the non-hunter that hunting doesn't have benefits. WE HAVE A NATURALLY BUILT IN DISADVANTAGE - its easier to walk downhill than it is uphill. There's a fact for you.

We can overcome the disadvantage, but it takes a lot of work, and a lot of doing what is right, even if doing what is wrong is legal.

 

[BRICKBURN]

As rookhawk just noted while I was typing this, it takes one outrageous and egregious act to be spun properly to get the ignorant majority to VOTE (social/media storm, $, complaints).

The spin on Cecil and the "optics" thereof managed to create enough stormy water that some of my friends who are metro dwellers and know nothing about the woods had heard of this "issue" and were convinced by the "spin" that this hunter was some kind of demon.

It took ONE behaviour, presented in a particular way by the spin doctors to create negative sentiment among the MAJORITY. In your democracy that will be your doom.

How many airlines jumped on the bandwagon to ban trophy shipments. Public relations to appease the majority of its customers. One focus group and poof, a new policy restricting the MINORITY.
My nations two largest airlines jumped on that bloody bandwagon. Has Westjet ever seen a Lion skull in its hold. Not bloody likely, but they sure announced that new ban loud and clear.

HSUS just keeps filing petitions, one after the other, to "uplist" species. Simple, legal process that eventually, when successful, effectively encumbers hunters.
How are your Lion imports going?
They prey on the MAJORITIES ignorance and concern and it works really well. The latest announcement after the last USFWS finding; "We have almost got those Leopards protected now. We are on the way."

PERCEPTION MATTERS!
THE MAJORITY RULES IN A DEMOCRACY
WE ARE A MINORITY IN EVERY COUNTRY IN THE WORLD.

I am always reminded of this cartoon. Ignore the wind at your peril.

Put another way:
If some/many/half of the hunters find it offensive, how do you think non-hunters are going to find it?

I am starting to think I am "old fashioned". For me it boils down to respect.
Hunting live animals is not a video game.

 

[Witold Krzyżanowski]

I tink the same as rookhawk.
Witold

 

[billc]

Well with all this great logic we will all be ok as long as the guys who may not like the bow hunters don't get there group to fight against that and rifle hunters don't let there ethics go against handgun hunters. Hell the guy in the article makes a comment against bow hunting.

The whole worrying about a group of people who don't care and bringing everything out it front of them makes no sense to me. Maybe since the stance on the raised lions work so well we should give in again. Oh that right that blow up in are face to. Yup lets turn tale if it saves how we each like to hunt and through some way of hunting under the bus now. I know everyone will like us after this for sure. after all killing something another way will make them happy. Sometimes we are just are own worst enemy and let the because we don't like it make it no good.

Why we lose is we look like a joke to the people who want us stopped and how they pass us off to the people who really don't care one way or another. We look like fools fighting over what way is ok to kill something when most people have a problem with just the killing part.

The problem with the general public is not how we kill but we never get across the point why we do it. A few die so many more can live and have a place to live. The means is a small part of that but throwing out all the info for the world to see makes it a issue. Unless we are going back to spears and stones to hunt we are picking ourselves apart for what.

 

[BigJohnx13]

I think that reading most of the post here is that most is not against long range hunting it, it has it time and place, but rather the way the article is written and downgrading most Bow and Rifle hunters in general in way of speaking “if you don’t use this you are not doing it right”

Proponents of long-range hunting acknowledge that it can improve a hunter’s chances of making a kill.
So does any other firearm/bow upgrade provided the shooter/hunter use the right equipment, training and proper skills and ability. This system does not guarantee “no more wounded animals”

But what’s wrong with that, they ask, given that hunters often spend tens of thousands of dollars on equipment, travel and licenses in pursuit of animals whose numbers are abundant—sometimes overly abundant?
Abundant animals can be harvested in many other ways also very effective. Take livestock at an abattoirs for eg. Very effective.

As for ethics, proponents say that super-accurate sighting systems make hunting more humane at any range, by killing animals instantly, thereby reducing the risk of wounded prey escaping.
Reducing the risk but not eliminating the risk? Like stated too many times, shot placement, correct bullet (equipment) and skill set is what kills an animal and reducing the risk of wounding,

“With TrackingPoint 99.5% of animals are cleanly harvested.”
Is this stats worldwide and applicable to every system sold. So if Joe Average install this system on his FA he will have a 99.5% kill ratio.

but for his business partner, who had a habit of jerking when he fired upon a big-game animal.
Like stated this system doesn’t make a bad hunter/shooter a better hunter/shooter.

Since using the TrackingPoint system, however, “my business partner hasn’t missed a shot,” says Sinnett.
Again, is this with every system sold and also applicable to Joe Average or only for your business partner who turned into a better shooter overnight than most military snipers that trained for years and shoots more rounds in a month than any civilian shooter shoots in lifetime?

 

[billc]

Just for argument sake lets see how you think people in the general public would look at these two hunts if info got out and they used it to try and hurt us.

First is the old hard core hunter who does it by the book. Goes on his hunt and gets a chance at his elk. He stalks in takes the shot and hit the elk at 15 yds. Waits like he should and then goes and starts the search for his animal only to his surprise no blood and the elk gets away even after searching for days. He does everything in his power to recover the animal but no luck.

Second story to get to the public is new hunter who just gets in to hunting to give it a try. He knows he does not have the skills as he is new to hunting. So he goes out gets the new great rifle set up to give him ever advantage he can get to hunt the best way he can for himself. He goes out not having much luck but on his last day he finds an elk to shot. It is 700 yds away but his new set up that he has practiced with and knows he can make the shot. He takes the shot and the elk drops in it track. He goes picks up the animal takes it to get butchered and enjoys the whole thing.

Well we know the antis will hate them both. But you think the general public will look at the one that got away as the good story. If we go by we need to get the people who don't care either way to like hunting which will they pick. Remember we are in a new tech world and we can not look at everything through hunters eyes and for sure not old hunters eyes who fight everything that is different.

I may not like the new ways but if anyone thinks fighting over everything that comes down the road is good we are going to lose for sure.