Huskemaw optics and the Best of the west clowns

Status
Not open for further replies.
sheephunter said:
I've never tried to make a case for what they are doing..... but sadly just trying to bring a few relevant facts to the discussion seems to automatically pit you against those without any facts. For what it's worth I agree with most of what you say. Unfortunately the discussion rarely matures from here.

I would not say that getting closer always reduces the chance of wounding. I'd say shooting position plays a significant role. If I can be prone on the bipod at 400 yards vs standing at 200, I know which one I'll take every time. There are times when getting closer does compromise shooting position. But I have no doubt they do purposefully seek out long shots to promote their products. I don't think that was ever in question.
Click to expand...

Prone at 400 with a bipod vs standing at 200 (I assume you mean off hand) might be scenario that exists, but you'd have to have a situation where at 200 you couldn't set up a bipod, couldn't shoot from kneeling or sitting and didn't have some sort of rest like a tree. Also, and here is where we can get onto a slippery slope, 400 yards isn't what we are talking about here. We are talking about 700 yards, 800 yards...a 12 year old shooting at elk from 1376 yards...and so forth.

From a practical standpoint that is very different than your example.

I would rather we self regulate than have politicians make up more laws. Part of that self regulation means we have to, as much as possible, agree that some activities are not neccessarily good for public opinion or for ethical reasons. And before someone comments on "ethics" I am specifically referring in this instance to consciously increasing the chance of wounding animals in order to make money.
 
1899 said:
Prone at 400 with a bipod vs standing at 200 (I assume you mean off hand) might be scenario that exists, but you'd have to have a situation where at 200 you couldn't set up a bipod, couldn't shoot from kneeling or sitting and didn't have some sort of rest like a tree.
Click to expand...

That was my point exactly...rather than getting totally hung up on distance being the ethical factor, there are many others that play in. Shooting position being one of the most important for me personally. In the terrain we hunt, getting closer often means a compromised shooting position. Ethics aren't always as black and white as one would like to believe. Setting an ethical shooting distance as some would propose just isn't practical.
 
sheephunter said:
That was my point exactly...rather than getting totally hung up on distance being the ethical factor, there are many others that play in. Shooting position being one of the most important for me personally. In the terrain we hunt, getting closer often means a compromised shooting position. Ethics aren't always as black and white as one would like to believe. Setting an ethical shooting distance as some would propose just isn't practical.
Click to expand...

I didn't suggest setting an ethical shooting distance is practical or desireable. The point about self regulations was to acknowledge that we can and should have discussions - even if we (as hunters) criticise ourselves - in order to help us govern our own actions in a way that promotes hunting. I also said that consciously increasing the chance of wounding animals in order to make money is not ethical and further I could add, if we are looking at practical solutions, we can self regulate by not watching the program and by not buying the products they are trying to promote. Part of that process is to post on public forums where people who have no oar in the water can share their perspectives and possibly give good, well thought out advice to others who may lack the experience to make a fully informed decision on their own. And I certainly don't mean that last part in a condescending manner - we all have to start somewhere.
 
sheephunter said:
I would not say that getting closer always reduces the chance of wounding. I'd say shooting position plays a significant role. If I can be prone on the bipod at 400 yards vs standing at 200, I know which one I'll take every time.
Click to expand...

f:P:


I'm pretty sure he meant that under the same conditions, the closer shot ALWAYS reduces the chance of wounding. FACT.
 
1899 said:
I didn't suggest setting an ethical shooting distance is practical or desireable. The point about self regulations was to acknowledge that we can and should have discussions - even if we (as hunters) criticise ourselves - in order to help us govern our own actions in a way that promotes hunting. I also said that consciously increasing the chance of wounding animals in order to make money is not ethical and further I could add, if we are looking at practical solutions, we can self regulate by not watching the program and by not buying the products they are trying to promote. Part of that process is to post on public forums where people who have no oar in the water can share their perspectives and possibly give good, well thought out advice to others who may lack the experience to make a fully informed decision on their own. And I certainly don't mean that last part in a condescending manner - we all have to start somewhere.
Click to expand...

The argument could be made that to teach one must demonstrate. I guess I'm more willing to accept what they do if there is an educational aspect included with it. Not saying that is the case always but if it teaches better long range shooting skills then I'm not necessarily opposed...if it's done as a stunt or purely to sell product then yes, I agree we need to look more closely at it.
 
sheephunter said:
The argument could be made that to teach one must demonstrate. I guess I'm more willing to accept what they do if there is an educational aspect included with it. Not saying that is the case always but if it teaches better long range shooting skills then I'm not necessarily opposed...if it's done as a stunt or purely to sell product then yes, I agree we need to look more closely at it.
Click to expand...

Then why not have it be a target shooting show? I have great respect for folks that can hit targets out to long distances.

My father taught me that if we look hard enough we can find bad things in just about anything (or anyone). We can either accept those bad things as being part of the whole and continue on, or the particular bad thing might be significant enough for us to reject the whole. I guess from my perspective the bad outweighs the good in this instance.
 
1899 said:
Then why not have it be a target shooting show? I have great respect for folks that can hit targets out to long distances.
Click to expand...

I think because people are going to take long-range shots at animals regardless of what's on television so why not take the opportunity to demonstrate methods of doing it more effectively?
 
1899 said:
Then why not have it be a target shooting show? I have great respect for folks that can hit targets out to long distances.
Click to expand...
so if you have "great respect" for long range shooters that respect shouldn't change when that target turns from paper to flesh correct?
 
Brian46 said:
so if you have "great respect" for long range shooters that respect shouldn't change when that target turns from paper to flesh correct?
Click to expand...

Incorrect. Setting up at extreme ranges to shoot targets for fun/competition at long range is different than setting up at extreme ranges to shoot animals.
 
sheephunter said:
I think because people are going to take long-range shots at animals regardless of what's on television so why not take the opportunity to demonstrate methods of doing it more effectively?
Click to expand...

Two reasons. One is because they don't give a balanced approach - they basically say "look at all of this kit we are using - you should buy it, practice and then you too can do what we are doing". They should show all of the misses, the poor hits where a wounded animal flails around until they find it and put it out of its misery, the wounded animals with the hours long follow up that finds only blood etc etc. The second is because they condone and promote actions and that, as I mentioned earlier, increase the odds of a wounded animal.


From Boone & Crockett's "Fair Chase Statement"
Attain and maintain the skills necessary to make the kill as certain and quick as possible.

Behave in a way that will bring no dishonor to either the hunter, the hunted, or the environment.

Recognize that these tenets are intended to enhance the hunter's experience of the relationship between predator and prey, which is one of the most fundamental relationships of humans and their environment.
Click to expand...

These basic principles are repeated often in various hunter education courses - respect the animals you hunt, do everything you can to ensure a quick, clean kill etc.

IF you agree with what they do on the BOTW and similar shows then how can you reconcile that behaviour with the above noted tenets? OK, let's say you have the skills and equipment to shoot targets accurately out to 1000 yards. Will you not be more likely to ensure a certain and quick kill by closing the distance to 400 yards? Sure, the animal may spook or just vanish during the stalk, but isn't that ok? The trend now is farther and farther. Folks are now talking about shooting at animals from 1 mile away - 1,760 yards!

Anyways, I'm bailing on this topic.
 
1899 said:
Two reasons. One is because they don't give a balanced approach - they basically say "look at all of this kit we are using - you should buy it, practice and then you too can do what we are doing". They should show all of the misses, the poor hits
Click to expand...

Again, I wasn't making a case for BOTW...I was talking about how it could be done properly.
 
1899 said:
Two reasons. One is because they don't give a balanced approach - they basically say "look at all of this kit we are using - you should buy it, practice and then you too can do what we are doing". They should show all of the misses, the poor hits where a wounded animal flails around until they find it and put it out of its misery, the wounded animals with the hours long follow up that finds only blood etc etc. The second is because they condone and promote actions and that, as I mentioned earlier, increase the odds of a wounded animal.


From Boone & Crockett's "Fair Chase Statement"


These basic principles are repeated often in various hunter education courses - respect the animals you hunt, do everything you can to ensure a quick, clean kill etc.

IF you agree with what they do on the BOTW and similar shows then how can you reconcile that behaviour with the above noted tenets? OK, let's say you have the skills and equipment to shoot targets accurately out to 1000 yards. Will you not be more likely to ensure a certain and quick kill by closing the distance to 400 yards? Sure, the animal may spook or just vanish during the stalk, but isn't that ok? The trend now is farther and farther. Folks are now talking about shooting at animals from 1 mile away - 1,760 yards!

Anyways, I'm bailing on this topic.
Click to expand...

1899 - I really appreciated your discussion and analysis. I have a feeling that you represent hunters and our pursuits in the most positive ways. Thanks for the great words and insight. Cheers, Mike
 
BOTW and their huskecrap scopes are to serious long range hunting about the same as Red Jerkoff firearms is to serious gun making.
Both are a BAD joke in my opinion. Just crap made for TV that gives the gun culture a poorer image for the masses.
 
i enjoyed reading some comments.

there is some countries in the old Europe where you can`t shoot any game animal at a distance of 300 meters, even in Switzerland in some Cantons nothing after 150 meters ....

and they know how to shoot paper targets ...

just my two cents.
 
medvedqc said:
i enjoyed reading some comments.

there is some countries in the old Europe where you can`t shoot any game animal at a distance of 300 meters, even in Switzerland in some Cantons nothing after 150 meters ....

and they know how to shoot paper targets ...

just my two cents.
Click to expand...

Don't some of those countries have a proficiency test in order to get a hunting license as well?

LC
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom