Not just that, it is sportier to me than rifle hunting. Why? Because simple fact that you must get much closer to the animal to ensure that one shoot kill. To do that you have to outsmart animal, and it is not easy think to do.
Well - to be perfectly honest while i can see your point I'm not sure it's of much help when we're discussing it with other people per se. I've heard it said, and the immediate answer is 'so use a rifle and don't shoot till you're close'. Heck, use a smoothbore sluggun, you're limited to even less range. There's no point to a pistol just to keep your range short.
A BETTER way to phrase that argument might be "On some hunts, I decide that to REALLY preserve the concept of 'fair chase' and choose to limit my shots to no more than 100 yards (or whatever). I feel doing this really forces me to understand the animal and to perfect my stalking, tracking and scouting skills. On THOSE occasions I find a pistol is a BETTER CHOICE for me than a rifle, because it's easier to work with, easier to carry and is more than adequate for the ranges I've chosen so I don't have any use for any 'more' range or power. I find that i can better focus on the animal and the environment instead of focusing on the gun every time i bend down to look at tracks and have the thing swinging around on my back.
In fact, in some ways a pistol is safer in those cases - when you're really stalking up to something or constantly kneeling down to examine tracks or sign, a pistol is ALWAYS 100 percent in control on your body, and is inherently pointing in a safe direction (down). You won't have to worry about laying it down and getting debris in the barrel. Whereas a rifle even with a good sling is always wiggling around a little, and unless it's in your hands it's more difficult to control, and the barrel tends to point all kinds of directions.
So for the scout or stalker who's really working his skill, Even a large 'purpose built' hunting pistol with a scope is a lot easier and safer to carry than a rifle, and has more than enough power to do the job within the range limitations that the hunter has ALREADY set for himself.
In short - the pistol doesn't make me limit my range, i've chosen to limit my range, so i might as well take a pistol because it's a better choice in those conditions.
Self-protection in very remote areas is also very valid sale point whether you are a hunter, fisherman, prospector or who ever else, if they still interested to listen to those arguments?
To the hunting community, they'll 'get' that. The gov't would need to be approached intentionally and aggressively on that point specifically to make it fly, or they'll just get 'concerned'. Federally there's an angle there, provincially we'd likely want to focus on the hunting element.
Provincially, as much as i hate to say it, it may be necessary to go with something like an additional license for handguns. That is an out and out bribe. Hey mr province - you can make an additional 15 bucks per resident and 70 bucks per non-resident offering a handgun 'tag' to a hunting license. And maybe some other thing like 'must have liability insurance' - which we all get free with our BCWF memberships anyway.
We could probably show they'd make something like an extra 100,000 a year for essentially doing nothing, and the guide outfitters will make more money and pay more taxes. Heck, it'll buy another conservation officer, or pay for another scientist, or whatever. We KNOW the bc gov't is looking for ways to increase their revenues from hunting.
We can say it has all kinds of 'benefits' - keeps people who aren't serious out of the woods, lets them count how many handgun hunters there are, etc etc etc. Whatever. The bcwf will get 'excited' about the 'need for insurance' - it may help boost memberships.
