lefty-Cunuck
Member
- Location
- Edmonton Area
I am curious, Why does archery keep coming up in the discussion?
LC
LC
Huskemaw optics and the Best of the west clowns
- Thread starter pinkmoon
- Start date
- Status
If you are a practiced and proficient shooter in the scenarios you will find game at in the wild like I have already stated, why are you bringing up the "humane" or "respect" argument? Is it because you have seen some guy try a long range poke with little to no knowledge or ability to make the shot? why paint everyone with this same brush? because that is what it appears that some people are doing by the posts here.
There are people capable of making long distance shots on animals and there are those that can barely spot an animal in the wild or those that will not bother to take more than 2 steps from their vehicle to hunt. This is why we have the legal regulations to follow in regards to hunting and you yourself get to choose within those regulations what you yourself are capable of doing in regards to taking a legal animal.
From my perspective it's another aspect of hunting that seems to have nearly universal support...including my own support yet many that support it, oppose long-range shooting despite the fact that archery appears to score worse on the exact things long range shooting is being criticized for. I just think it's important to have some benchmarks when making ethical judgements and deciding what is and isn't acceptable to the general hunting population. To me the glass house analogy comes to mind. Wouldn't you agree? If we criticize long-range shooting for a perceived high rate of wounding, increased recovery time, etc...how can we support archery?
Last edited:
I'm not sure, but I posted something to this effect earlier when flight times were being discussed.
I have had a white tailed deer jump the string on a shot that was under 30 yds but I have never had any animal jump my bullet at even 20 plus times that distance.
an animal wont hear a bullet coming, but they will hear your bow release before the arrow/bolt gets there and in some instances that will be a wounding shot or a complete miss due to the animals movement.
Wow. If you have to ask...
Forget about the difference between the perfect benchrest vs. even the best makeshift field set-up. Forget about the difference between a relaxed, calm shooter sitting at that rest vs. a "hunter" who is probably feeling the effects of somewhat elevated heartrate and breathing caused by excitement and/or exertion. Assume that the animal does not move and that a superhuman sheephunter can "know" that the critter will remain motionless. That same extraordinary perceptive ability will also allow the shooter to know the various wind speeds and directions along the bullet's flight path, as well as their cumulative effect on the projectile...after all, those wind flags at the rifle range are just for amateurs.
BUT...if you can't see a distinction between shooting at paper, where a miss is just a miss, vs. shooting at an animal where a miss can result in a wound and, at best, a difficult recovery effort and a period of suffering...
...again...wow.
lefty-Cunuck
Member
- Location
- Edmonton Area
I think that many are not proficient enough to hunt with archery tackle and an equal amount are likely not proficient enough to hunt with a rifle long range.
For me it comes down to proficiency....I don't necessarily agree with having someone who had 5 minutes of instruction shoot an animal at 1000 yards anymore than I would want someone with 5 minutes of instruction shooting a bear in the head with a x-bow, I think they are both equally ridiculous scenarios....but likely have both been successful and unsuccessful.
Is the measure of success at taking a chance what dictates whether something is ok or not?
LC
For me it comes down to proficiency....I don't necessarily agree with having someone who had 5 minutes of instruction shoot an animal at 1000 yards anymore than I would want someone with 5 minutes of instruction shooting a bear in the head with a x-bow, I think they are both equally ridiculous scenarios....but likely have both been successful and unsuccessful.
Is the measure of success at taking a chance what dictates whether something is ok or not?
LC
I'd agree but that still does change the facts when comparing the two yet we whole-heartedly support one and many denounce the other. Why is that? Don't you feel that sets a dangerous precedent for the future of archery? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to correlate what hunters are criticizing long-range for to archery...heck I bet even an anti hunter could do it. Why do we give them this opportunity?
So now we are moving from criticising going out of your way to shoot at animals from a great distance in order to promote products and make money and equating that to criticising our troops??? Note my previous post where I said actions need to be considered in the proper context.
I said:
"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."
Also please keep in mind where this whole thread started from - a critique of BOTW.
Yes, I read your post carefully. If you read mine carefully you will see the implication is that since even those who practice a great deal, use good equipment and have favourable conditions have quite a high miss rate of a 10" target on the initial shot we could reasonably believe that hunters under the conditions you suggest will have similar results. Here is a question for you that may be even more on point. I assume that you shoot/hunt at long range. Do you keep records of every shooting session? What are your first shot hit rates on targets? How do the rates change as the range increases? It is safe to say the longer the distance the higher the initial shot miss rate (or overall miss rate) is, correct?
No, it would be unacceptable if I would have that rate of missing and wounding. I do not have anywhere near that rate of wounding or missing because I practice lots, didn't take bad angle or long shots when I used to use archery equipment, and pass on shots when I need to. But the conversation isn't really about me.
The key points again are (and I quote myself to preface):
1. We can all agree that wounding animals is bad;
2. Getting closer means less chance of wounding animals;
3. They purposely seek out longer shots than neccessary to harvest animals;
4. They therefore purposely seek out conditions that increase the risk of wounding animals;
5. They do this to make money.
bearkilr
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Nowhere, ......just past the middle
Wrong. Long range hunting and archery hunting are pretty much a North American pastime.
Exactly, it is about the entire hunting community and this long heritage that we are all so passionate about.
And archers use gear that increases the odds of wounding and there are plenty of archery shows on television that make money. Why do you support archery?
But that goes the other way too with setting precedents, doesn't it? In the future will it be OK to use drone mounted firearms to hunt? The antis will be anti regardless of what we say in this thread. They will not accept logic and reason - which is imo why they are anti in the first place. Should we muzzle ourselves simply because we are afraid of the antis?
There is a tiny bit of hunting skill required to lose an arrow at game inside 40 yards. There is NONE required to shoot at game from 1000 yards.
Most of us are hunters, not just shooters.
I just watched a 12 year old being coached to shoot an Elk at 1200 yards. Very good coaching job. Dry fired a couple times to get the "feel".
Loaded a live round, settled in and squeezed the trigger. Luckily it was a clean miss. A little bit more experience and/or more coaching and he might have got a perfect wounding shot.
Most of us are hunters, not just shooters.
I just watched a 12 year old being coached to shoot an Elk at 1200 yards. Very good coaching job. Dry fired a couple times to get the "feel".
Loaded a live round, settled in and squeezed the trigger. Luckily it was a clean miss. A little bit more experience and/or more coaching and he might have got a perfect wounding shot.
No we shouldn't muzzle ourselves but we should remember that what we are criticizing today is most likely to bite us in the posterior tomorrow. Arguments such as wounding rates, miss rates, recovery times must be universally applied, not cherry picked to serve our individual needs. Just because it's not affecting me today doesn't mean it won't in the future. Discussion is productive but make sure the rock you are hurling doesn't have to go through the walls of your glass house before hitting the target. I'm happy you decided to return to this discussion....it seems you are actually interested in the discussion. I appreciate your point of view.
I understand what started the thread, but my posts do not mention the show, I commented simply on the comments against long range hunting, I think that we can all agree that TV show aside there are people who can long range hunt proficiently, ethically and humanely while respecting the animal regardless of the opinions posted otherwise by those who look down on long range hunters.
My mention of military personel was only to show that people do train to make long range shots in the field and that very long shots are possible on an unpredictable animal. It equates to the type of training long range hunters do out in the field, comparing training of a sniper or long range hunter to that of a benchrest shooter with a 30lb rifle almost bolted to a table is rather insulting IMO.
IMO if you call that criticising the military then the example went right over your head
Last edited:
As a previous member mentioned - I also appreciate your posts/insight on this subject.
And I don't openly "bash" long range hunters, or go out of my way to "slag" them. I know there are a few that would be capable - but you can damn sure bet they are not likely most of the guys flogging the junk on TV.
I do however have no issue with opposing the thought process that these 1200 yard shots are easy - you just need to buy the crap, and read the manual - oh and have a spotter and you too can be the new Hathcock of the outdoors. Anyone that has a clue knows what goes into become a elite athlete of any discipline.
And I won't be levered into believing a difference in perceived ethics is a "threat to hunting" as Sheep suggests. In fact I believe in the end it may very well be what saves it.
Produce a show on the importance of practice and how it applies to any discipline then. Seems a universal principle to me.
I find when people speak for other people they rarely get it right and your statement is case in point. My position all along is that it's important have all the facts and apply them universally, not just where it suits your needs. We all hunt for different reasons and that needs to be respected but no question some ethics are universal....they just aren't always universally applied. If we want other ethics to become universal, well we better be prepared for them to indeed be universal.
No argument from me...in fact I said that earlier. Television is obviously a very powerful medium and it can be a valuable teaching aid. Many definitely don't utilize it for that. More should.
A couple of things about your post:
- You presume that those who use archery equipment have a higher rate of wounding than those who use rifles.
- We are not talking about the gear - we are talking about going out of your way to make long shots and that applies to archery, centerfire, blackpowder...
- Due to certain season restrictions it is either hunt with a bow or don't hunt - I suspect very few hunters hunt with a bow in rifle season.
- They don't (yet) have archery hunting shows where they shoot at animals from +100 yards, do they?
- Status
