Long Range Hunting’s Impact on Harvests?

[Focoelkman]

Don’t have a dog in the fight. Do not do it but can.
Yea figure LRH hunting is like like calling me : They, or telling you all I identify as a woman?
Ain’t right.
Yes it impacts things for sure.

 

[slamdunk]

Helped a young lady with a bull tag last fall. Set her up with my custom rifle. She shot frequently, however, not at very long range. She was comfortable with the gun and could group well. Big Bull shows up at 700 yards. Not many ways to get much closer. I Dial the gun, set her up on the BOG Death Grip, BOOM. Dead Bull. How many outfitters are setting up their Clients with their "Long Range" set ups ?? I am sure its a very common thing these days. My point is, as i have mentioned before, we are getting too good at the game and the "Top End" animals are paying the price. (LE only).

It's all about the pictures for Social Media and cashing that check.

 

[Tikka]

This thread is going to be hilarious. Can't wait to hear from all the "experts" about long range shooting.

Well then start posting your expertise…,

 

[mtmuley]

Well then start posting your expertise…,

I can do without hearing it. mtmuley

 

[OpeningDay]

It's all about the pictures for Social Media and cashing that check.

Maybe for some. For me, its about helping friends and family optimize their "once in a lifetime" hunt and take the best animal we can find.

 

[OldMan2]

Maybe for some. For me, its about helping friends and family optimize their "once in a lifetime" hunt and take the best animal we can find.

Yep. 70 years old. 23 points to draw. Will never hunt this unit again (or any unit with two bad knees). I tell the guide, “I can’t shoot that far with my gun.” He says, “Well, we’ll have to get you one that can.” 1 1/2 hrs later rifle arrives, elk has bedded down. 9 hrs later elk finally stands up. We are ready, guide rifle, guide tripod. Done deal. My wife is up the ridge above and has watched the entire hunt. My only guided hunt. First thing wife says, “I don’t care what this cost, it was priceless.”

 

[Weiserbucks]

Well then start posting your expertise…,

I'm no expert, but it's funny to read comments from people who think they are.

 

[heartshot]

Honest question, how many times has this scenario actually happened? Not arguing just curious because it’s happened to me exactly zero times.

5 times, always in the steep stuff.

 

[JPickett]

5 times, always in the steep stuff.

the steep stuff is where the advantage is. i built a rifle specifically for an area i deer hunt. i have a spot i sit and i watch 7 different drainage's. i can reach 5 of them from where i sit.

i also sit there and watch guys try and hunt it from the bottom. its pretty entertaining. guys walk in there and try and look straight up a hill with 8' buck brush on it. i've literally watched two guys at the bottom of a hill with 20 deer 200 yards above them stop, look up for 15 minutes then move on because theirs no deer there. then theirs the guys I watch try and bush whack strait up while i watch the same 20 deer push up the hill 500 yards ahead of them never to be seen.

two things. i've never seen a guy take a deer in that drainage, and i've never seen the same guys come in it twice. i kill a buck in there every year and have seen as many as 100 deer a day depending on weather. granted i sit in the same spot with big glass for 10-12 hours depending on daylight and im glassing a huge area. guess im the one doing it wrong though

 

[mtmuley]

the steep stuff is where the advantage is. i built a rifle specifically for an area i deer hunt. i have a spot i sit and i watch 7 different drainage's. i can reach 5 of them from where i sit.

i also sit there and watch guys try and hunt it from the bottom. its pretty entertaining. guys walk in there and try and look straight up a hill with 8' buck brush on it. i've literally watched two guys at the bottom of a hill with 20 deer 200 yards above them stop, look up for 15 minutes then move on because theirs no deer there. then theirs the guys I watch try and bush whack strait up while i watch the same 20 deer push up the hill 500 yards ahead of them never to be seen.

two things. i've never seen a guy take a deer in that drainage, and i've never seen the same guys come in it twice. i kill a buck in there every year and have seen as many as 100 deer a day depending on weather. granted i sit in the same spot with big glass for 10-12 hours depending on daylight and im glassing a huge area. guess im the one doing it wrong though

Daily affirmation. mtmuley

 

[JPickett]

Daily affirmation. mtmuley

and dog gone it, people like me

 

[JPickett]

5 times, always in the steep stuff.

if your on the same hill side as the deer, there shooting over you and it truly is steep, you were never going to see that deer anyway

 

[El Gringo]

Helped a young lady with a bull tag last fall. Set her up with my custom rifle. She shot frequently, however, not at very long range. She was comfortable with the gun and could group well. Big Bull shows up at 700 yards. Not many ways to get much closer. I Dial the gun, set her up on the BOG Death Grip, BOOM. Dead Bull. How many outfitters are setting up their Clients with their "Long Range" set ups ?? I am sure its a very common thing these days. My point is, as i have mentioned before, we are getting too good at the game and the "Top End" animals are paying the price. (LE only).

That goes back to one of my points…. Maybe that is a good thing? More mature animals being killed (I refuse to use the word harvest. Sorry any PC cops). Less younger animals.

 

[El Gringo]

willfrye- kinda similar but different experiences from times forgotten. I had an extended family member, back in the 70s, who claimed his 300 Weatherby Mag could shoot flat out to 600. Oh, and he didn't have to lead a running animal. Of course, as my dad pointed out, there didn't seem to be a lot of evidence of success around .

My 300 Wby doesn’t do any of those….. Must have made them better back then!

 

[Chesterwyo]

I'm not convinced that the success rates are higher with long range equipment are higher. But the number of animals that get wounded, and not recovered is exponentially higher.

 

[Deerlove]

I'm convinced.

 

[OldMan2]

the steep stuff is where the advantage is. i built a rifle specifically for an area i deer hunt. i have a spot i sit and i watch 7 different drainage's. i can reach 5 of them from where i sit.

i also sit there and watch guys try and hunt it from the bottom. its pretty entertaining. guys walk in there and try and look straight up a hill with 8' buck brush on it. i've literally watched two guys at the bottom of a hill with 20 deer 200 yards above them stop, look up for 15 minutes then move on because theirs no deer there. then theirs the guys I watch try and bush whack strait up while i watch the same 20 deer push up the hill 500 yards ahead of them never to be seen.

two things. i've never seen a guy take a deer in that drainage, and i've never seen the same guys come in it twice. i kill a buck in there every year and have seen as many as 100 deer a day depending on weather. granted i sit in the same spot with big glass for 10-12 hours depending on daylight and im glassing a huge area. guess im the one doing it wrong though

?

 

[elkassassin]

Would have jj Got His Bull Without The Gun Somebody Built For Him?

I Know!

There Was Alot More Than The Gun Involved!

Just Sayin!

 

[Bigwiffy]

the steep stuff is where the advantage is. i built a rifle specifically for an area i deer hunt. i have a spot i sit and i watch 7 different drainage's. i can reach 5 of them from where i sit.

i also sit there and watch guys try and hunt it from the bottom. its pretty entertaining. guys walk in there and try and look straight up a hill with 8' buck brush on it. i've literally watched two guys at the bottom of a hill with 20 deer 200 yards above them stop, look up for 15 minutes then move on because theirs no deer there. then theirs the guys I watch try and bush whack strait up while i watch the same 20 deer push up the hill 500 yards ahead of them never to be seen.

two things. i've never seen a guy take a deer in that drainage, and i've never seen the same guys come in it twice. i kill a buck in there every year and have seen as many as 100 deer a day depending on weather. granted i sit in the same spot with big glass for 10-12 hours depending on daylight and im glassing a huge area. guess im the one doing it wrong though

Can you help me get to that spot?

 

[slamdunk]

I'm not convinced that the success rates are higher with long range equipment are higher. But the number of animals that get wounded, and not recovered is exponentially higher.

There is no available data supporting that, just like there is no data proving we are more efficient at cherry picking quality.

 

[Chesterwyo]

There is no available data supporting that, just like there is no data proving we are more efficient at cherry picking quality.

Forgive me for not being interested in “data” coming from someone who can’t correctly read and comprehend the Wyoming deer hunting regulations.

 

[slamdunk]

Forgive me for not being interested in “data” coming from someone who can’t correctly read and comprehend the Wyoming deer hunting regulations.

My comment was facetious.....
I was in agreance with you....

And you are correct.
Next time I go scouting with someone in Wyoming, I'll make sure he knows where he's at?

 

[JPickett]

Would have jj Got His Bull Without The Gun Somebody Built For Him?

I Know!

There Was Alot More Than The Gun Involved!

Just Sayin!

Would jj have got is bull if his titts were one cup size bigger?

Some mystery’s we’ll just never know the answer to

 

[BLOK2003]

I am genuinely interested in understanding LRH’s impact on deer and elk hunting. Has it measurably changed harvest %? Has it had a disproportionate effect on trophy class game?

I hypothesize that the overall harvest % is little impacted. However, I could see where trophy class game receives some impact. I suspect that the actual number of LRH capable hunters is less than 2% of the total hunting population. Note the word “capable”. If I’m right, 2% of hunters being LRH would have minimal overall harvest impact. However, if one is the type to become that proficient, invested (both time and money), and dedicated to becoming LRH capable, they are likely to be similarly invested in trophy game pursuit. Since trophy game is usually less than 10% of a huntable population, that 2% becomes 10X more impactful. But how impactful? Lastly, the impact of LRH needs to discount shorter range opportunities they have (or pass up?). The impact is just the increased success due to kill shots longer than, say 450 yards.

As for capable- it gets really squishy. I would define capable as:

• Having the right equipment. (Gun, loads, scope, ballistics calc assistance, RF, Wind mtr, etc)
• Proficient in use of that equipment. Spends inordinate amount of time practicing and honing skills with all the equipment to hit targets consistently at long range in a variety of situations.
• Knowing real-world limitations. Does not take a shot in breezy conditions or take shots that are not makeable regardless of conditions (too far, not a good angle,etc).
• Physically capable of serious hunting.

My last assumption is that there are far more than 2% of hunters who claim to hunt LRH but are no different in skill than the average hunter. I have personally met many in the field, or just in life (not passing judgement to folks on this forum). Funny that tho- I am 100% certain that none of the folks I personally met were LRH capable. Just listening to them talk about it or seeing them in action confirms that they lob shots out there, but are no more likely to hit something at 600 yards than I am. Not to start the argument- but I believe there have always been and always will be folks who do that. I don’t consider them LRH. I suppose one might make the argument there are more folks thinking they can than there used to be.

So what say you (especially the LRH capable folks)- do LRHers have measurable impacts on harvests? Are my assumptions way off base?

Yes Long Range Hunting definitely has had an impact on trophy / quality animals being harvested. Technology has made long range shooting VERY VERY popular. It is an expensive hobby for sure. I kinda caught the long range bug myself but 650 yards is about my max for a hunting scenario. We could save ourselves thousands and thousands of dollars if we would just cut the distance by 400-500 yards. We’re supposed to be hunters not snipers right ? That’s why some of my bow kills are my most rewarding I guess. A bull I killed at 8 yards with a bow is my favorite kill by far !

 

[HikeHunt61]

That’s why some of my bow kills are my most rewarding I guess. A bull I killed at 8 yards with a bow is my favorite kill by far !

I can relate. My longest kill in 40 or so elk/deer/antelope was 400 yards when I was 17 and was lucky, to be frank.

My biggest bull was shot at 40 yards in the timber, after chasing his bugle and cows for an hour. Most thrilling moment of my hunting life!

 

[heartshot]

if your on the same hill side as the deer, there shooting over you and it truly is steep, you were never going to see that deer anyway

Your two posts were not very good on assumptions. I'm not coming in from the bottom and they are not shooting over me.

My original quote;
"LR hunters lower my success rates. To many times, with spot and stalk, I will be stalking an animal to get into range. Just before I get into shooting range, Someone will lob a pop shot from 800-1,000 yards away. They miss and I loose the opportunity to shoot."

I spot them from a vantage point like you described. But I don't pop off 1,000 yard shots at them. I circle high and come down a finger ridge above them. While in route, somebody else shows up (once from where I just left) and they lob the long range shot, scattering the animals. Easier for them to not do the stalking trek when you can give it a try from a far.

 

[WannaB]

Oh yeah. Only satisfaction I get in life is making sure the MM crowd is impressed with me. If that takes lying about long shot then lying about long shots it is.

I guess I’m a long ranger. But I’ve also been doing it since before it was cool. Over 400 being called long range doesn’t really register with me. Anything under 500 I see as a chip shot.

All that being said I still don’t have a strong opinion on the matter. I know what I can do because I’ve done it. I don’t care at all what someone else can or can’t do because I hunt alone.

Doesn’t make a bit of difference nor affect me one way or another. I think that can actually be said about most. Why i always get a kick out of how worked up guys get about it. Worry about yourself

Other peoples choices actually affect all of us as a community…it is why regulations and rules exist. I get your point that it hasn’t been an issue for you, but worrying just about yourself is short-sighted in relation to the future of hunting. If it was determined that LRH contributed to game numbers being down (not saying LRH is doing that, just making a point)…then it should concern all of us. If you are only worried about yourself, why comment at all?

 

[WannaB]

One of the main reasons LRH exists is so that hunters don’t have to do as much hiking to make a kill. If it isn’t clearly hit, they ain’t checking it (again, because of the hike/work required). I’m sure it has contributed to additional loss. I have killed several animals that showed no clear sign of being hit, but walked a couple steps out of sight and died. Most LRH’s wouldn’t check that and they’d keep hunting, so more than one animal is being killed on that tag. That has an impact.

 

[JPickett]

why comment at all?

Probably same pointless reason you commented on mine I’d guess. It’s the internet

 

[slamdunk]

One of the main reasons LRH exists is so that hunters don’t have to do as much hiking to make a kill. If it isn’t clearly hit, they ain’t checking it (again, because of the hike/work required). I’m sure it has contributed to additional loss. I have killed several animals that showed no clear sign of being hit, but walked a couple steps out of sight and died. Most LRH’s wouldn’t check that and they’d keep hunting, so more than one animal is being killed on that tag. That has an impact.

Absolute horrible assumption.

I have lost more deer to bad hits inside of 80 yards than all my kills combined.

The biggest gripe on these threads is about the data.

Show me your assumptions

And based off your assumption, how many people targeting animals with close range weapons knowingly hit animals and continue hunting on to take another?

Don't even go there Sir......

 

[HikeHunt61]

Slam- you are certainly spot on about hunters of all types losing animals they hit. When dad taught me to hunt, he focused as much on what to do after the shot as what leads up to it. I have multiple kills that at first blush appeared to be misses, but after excruciating searching for signs of blood and tracking were recovered. My son learned the same as well. We got his last elk 2 hours after the initial shot- and it was painfully difficult to get on it. But we never gave up, and we were ultimately successful.

And range has nothing to do with it. Just determination and a little experience. And LRHs, as a whole, will be just as determined as others.

WannaB- I think the point here is that there are lazy hunters of all types. Sure, some pretend LRHs are lazy and don't want to put in effort. But I have witnessed road hunters who are FAR worse.

 

[JPickett]

when you can give it a try from a far.

even better when its not "trying" but doing. those of us who can aren't "popping off shots" were killing deer

 

[heartshot]

even better when its not "trying" but doing. those of us who can aren't "popping off shots" were killing deer

I agree with your statement. I just think that of all the ones actually taking the 976 yard shots, there are way way more who can't than who can.

 

[JPickett]

id agree with that for sure. but im not going to tell anyone they cant take that shot. thats up to them

 

[OldMan2]

id agree with that for sure. but im not going to tell anyone they cant take that shot. thats up to them

True, one size does not fit all! Except at Walmart. Spandex needs to be outlawed!

 

[Gator]

Well I guess LRH get one tag as the same a MRH and the
SRH they also gets just one tag.
Now I do think LRH killed or shoot bigger bucks YES they do but it is still only one tag.
So should the guy who can shoot a buck at 700 yds be limited to a 300 yds deer setup just because he might or might not have the skills.
Most LRH I know spend more time and money before season then what it cost to go deer hunting with a outstate tag and all the get and go before they have set a foot in the unit they hunt. I know several guys on here I wouldn't want them shooting at me LR it just flat scary the groups they shoot at 800 yards and above.

 

[mtmuley]

I agree with your statement. I just think that of all the ones actually taking the 976 yard shots, there are way way more who can't than who can.

Most of the guys that can don't advertise. mtmuley

 

[WannaB]

Absolute horrible assumption.

I have lost more deer to bad hits inside of 80 yards than all my kills combined.

The biggest gripe on these threads is about the data.

Show me your assumptions

And based off your assumption, how many people targeting animals with close range weapons knowingly hit animals and continue hunting on to take another?

Don't even go there Sir......

Defensive much? If you have to drop 1000’ in elevation and hike up another 1000’ to check a shot…what’s the likelyhood that’s happening? It isn’t! Walking 80 yards is and does happen. That’s the point.
I can’t control people’s judgement/ethics on wounding an animal and continuing to hunt, but checking if an animal is dead or wounded is and should be required. That is the difference. If LRH’s wanted to make the hike, they’d get closer for a higher probability shot in the first place.
I don’t have any data…do you?

 

[JPickett]

Defensive much? If you have to drop 1000’ in elevation and hike up another 1000’ to check a shot…what’s the likelyhood that’s happening? It isn’t! Walking 80 yards is and does happen. That’s the point.
I can’t control people’s judgement/ethics on wounding an animal and continuing to hunt, but checking if an animal is dead or wounded is and should be required. That is the difference. If LRH’s wanted to make the hike, they’d get closer for a higher probability shot in the first place.
I don’t have any data…do you?

Ive never not walked to a shot, why wouldn’t you?. Never missed a “long range” shot (missed some of what I’m sure you’d call ethical closer ones) but still never not gone over there. Last year took me an hour and a half to get up to my buck

 

[mtmuley]

Ive never not walked to a shot, why wouldn’t you?. Never missed a “long range” shot (missed some of what I’m sure you’d call ethical closer ones) but still never not gone over there. Last year took me an hour and a half to get up to my buck

I hope you had enough water. mtmuley

 

[JPickett]

I hope you had enough water. mtmuley

You kinda got a thing for me don’t you? I’m flattered

 

[mtmuley]

No

You kinda got a thing for me don’t you? I’m flattered

No. Just enjoy your daily affirmations. I think you have a thing for yourself. Carry on. mtmuley

 

[JPickett]

I wonder what you think Internet forums are actually for? I bet your one of those guys that think your actually “ making a difference “ this whole place is one big circle jerk, it’s kinda the point. Keep changing the world though, you’re doing it!!

 

[Aceman]

I am not a bowhunter but it seems like the folks that hunt with a bow or going back to longbows and recurve while the rifle hunter is seeing how far they can shoot at an animal. Makes me think, which is really hunting and which is just killing. I am assuming that the long range folks go over and see if they wounded the animal? In the end, what will our hunting future be like with the continuing advance of technology.

 

[BGnight]

If you're shooting from a range where you can stand in the open in full view of the animal, speak in a normal voice, and not spook it, then it's not hunting. It's long range execution. Spotting an animal with $2000 swaro's takes zero skill and effort.
I don't bow hunt, but I'll acknowledge that bow hunters are MUCH better hunters than rifle hunters and I have mad respect for them. I'd bow hunt but I hate velvet and hunting in hot weather.

 

[JPickett]

If you're shooting from a range where you can stand in the open in full view of the animal, speak in a normal voice, and not spook it, then it's not hunting. It's long range execution. Spotting an animal with $2000 swaro's takes zero skill and effort.
I don't bow hunt, but I'll acknowledge that bow hunters are MUCH better hunters than rifle hunters and I have mad respect for them. I'd bow hunt but I hate velvet and hunting in hot weather.

im an avid bow hunter as well, love killing them close and have a lot of success doing so. im also an avid long range hunter when the rifles in my hand. my binos are over 2k. ive asked this before but no one can seem to give me an answer. am i good or bad?

 

[scopenstalk]

People still need to know how to find a trophy buck to kill it. It doesn't matter if you can shoot a mile, if you don't know how to find something worth shooting at. That's the hard part for many hunters.

Ridge nailed it.

The bigger deer I’ve seen in recent memory aren’t living in these big open basins where they are going to get sniped at 950 yards.

 

[OpeningDay]

Ridge nailed it.

The bigger deer I’ve seen in recent memory aren’t living in these big open basins where they are going to get sniped at 950 yards.

Can that be said about the LE units like Oak Creek, The Henry's or even the Book Cliffs ? I don't think so

 

[scopenstalk]

Can that be said about the LE units like Oak Creek, The Henry's or even the Book Cliffs ? I don't think so

Considering I don't scout any of those places and I referred to my own experiences, no it can't be said about them. At least I can't say it about them. I don't understand the point of this comment other than to try and be argumentative.

However, given the amount of grumbling about quality I would wager a big sum of money that the biggest bucks on all of those units right now are in steep, thick, hard to glass and even harder to hunt places.

 

[OpeningDay]

Considering I don't scout any of those places and I referred to my own experiences, no it can't be said about them. At least I can't say it about them. I don't understand the point of this comment other than to try and be argumentative.

However, given the amount of grumbling about quality I would wager a big sum of money that the biggest bucks on all of those units right now are in steep, thick, hard to glass and even harder to hunt places.

Not trying to be argumentative. I was just making a general statement, that in those units, from my experience, there are many big bucks that are in open basins that can be sniped from long ranges. I would also take that bet as I believe that the biggest bucks on those units are the most visable and vulnerable right now in their summer velvet patterns. Again, my response to your statement was just a general observation that I believe contradicts your statement. If you meant general season areas, I am with you 100%. Also, Yes, on you comment about quality, I do believe that long range has had an affect on top end quality bucks on LE units. just my opinion there.

 

[HikeHunt61]

If you're shooting from a range where you can stand in the open in full view of the animal, speak in a normal voice, and not spook it, then it's not hunting. It's long range execution. Spotting an animal with $2000 swaro's takes zero skill and effort.
I don't bow hunt, but I'll acknowledge that bow hunters are MUCH better hunters than rifle hunters and I have mad respect for them. I'd bow hunt but I hate velvet and hunting in hot weather.

I don't long range hunt, and never plan to. In defense of TRUE LRHs, it takes a lot of experience, knowledge, practice, and simply some special skills to ethically do it. Ya, it's not like hunting I do, but then again bow hunters could claim that me using a rifle at 300 yards is not "really" hunting.

I understand the sentiment, but I won't judge someone who can do it ethically (meaning they aren't just lobbing shots at 600+ yards because they have some vague idea where the bullet might hit).

As for swaro's- Come on Man! I have them and they are sure nice for finding game in low light conditions. I spotted my best Wyoming bull at 1.5 miles as the light was going away in the evening. Next morning, I hiked in the dark for 45 minutes and set up near where I saw him last. Light came up, snuck in another 100 yards, and got right on him. I felt pretty good about hunting that bull.

 

[scopenstalk]

Not trying to be argumentative. I was just making a general statement, that in those units, from my experience, there are many big bucks that are in open basins that can be sniped from long ranges. I would also take that bet as I believe that the biggest bucks on those units are the most visable and vulnerable right now in their summer velvet patterns. Again, my response to your statement was just a general observation that I believe contradicts your statement. If you meant general season areas, I am with you 100%. Also, Yes, on you comment about quality, I do believe that long range has had an affect on top end quality bucks on LE units. just my opinion there.

Fair enough. I guess in my mind the big bucks just can't really survive in open areas anymore. I suppose with lower tag numbers on LE that may not be true. I am not saying during archery season that the bigger bucks won't be more visible, just seems like they have learned to dive into the cover come mid September.

My experience is all on general season stuff in Idaho, Utah and low point tags in Colorado.

 

[Ballistic]

At a long range event “vortex extreme” that was a run and gun competition to simulate hiking and hunting about 10 years ago. An article was written about the sponsored shooters ( some of the best in the nation) that were engaging animal sized targets with steel vitals from 200-over 1000 yards. Teams of 2 shooters (both shooting and spotting for each other) would run the mountain course for time and score. When the dust settled the author noted that the hit ratio was right at 50%. My teammate and I placed 4th overall and I can’t remember what our hit ratio was but no one claimed a perfect score that day.

My point is that no one can guarantee a 1st round hit - and that’s what you’ll hear from the best shooters out there. The best can likely get it done - but won’t guarantee it. If they have a spotter that’s filming that also has “lots of experience” there’s a very high chance the 2nd shot will hit home. And this is on steel -not animals.

How many hunters/shooters put in the time to understand the internal ballistics of their setups first before looking at the external program to adjust the dials ?

I could write a book on internal ballistics. In short it deals with mapping the speeds and zero of the rifle that change with temperature. This starts at the cold bore and changes with each shot after. And every rifle will be different depending on caliber and barrel size. And that temp insensitive powder helps - but super cold barrels and super hot will tell a different story.

Secondly -take a good look at all of the ballistic programs and software out there. Take a well known bullet (for example a .308 168 Sierra) and plug the same numbers into every program. You will find inconsistencies across the board for the firing solutions and the differences can be huge.
How many hunter/shooters are putting in the time out in the field taking good notes of the internal ballistics and external results from hits/misses at given ranges/angles/wind/light conditions ?
I don’t know the answer to this question - but I have taught some long range shooting courses and can’t seem to get many to take notes.
I’ve witnessed some irresponsible hunting where long shots are taken - with no follow up - and animals are wounded. I’ve also seen some amazing shots occur.
I’m not a fan of someone telling me what I can or can’t do either. Overall I will have to say that 500 yard shooting/hunting is the norm when it used to be 200-300 yards. Animals don’t know your there at 500 yards so success rates are likely higher. The long range controversial game is here. The debate will continue. I hope those that purchase the long range equipment put in lots of time proving it before hunting and will find their limitations and not push beyond them. X works and many others are marketing how easy long range hunting can be when in reality it takes tons of time and notes to get there. Or maybe I’m wrong and it’s just easy………..

 

[El Gringo]

Did we solve the debate?!

 

[MountainSqwabler]

Did we solve the debate?!

Most of these guys are Republicans. Of course they didn't get it solved haha

 

[slamdunk]

Most of these guys are Republicans. Of course they didn't get it solved haha

Well we are all seeing how Democrats solve things.......?‍

 

[MountainSqwabler]

Well we are all seeing how Democrats solve things.......?‍

True, not saying I'm one. Republicans just love to argue and seemingly not typically resolve much.

 

[Ballistic]

True, not saying I'm one. Republicans just love to argue and seemingly not typically resolve much.

 

[MountainSqwabler]

Prove me wrong lol. Both sides argue like little children and accomplish typically jack all. There's a bunch of both sides on MM lol and all they all do the same here, and in office.

 

[Ballistic]

Your the one that brought politics into this !
And I agree on the LOL - I should have been more professional so I apologize.
But it was kinda funny……..

 

[MountainSqwabler]

Your the one that brought politics into this !
And I agree on the LOL - I should have been more professional so I apologize.
But it was kinda funny……..

Gotcha lol my apologies then.

Wasn't trying to really do that was just making a small joke.

 

[The_Coloradoboy]

I’ve honestly lost interest in it as of recently. I got heavily involved with the long range game back in 2009. I’ve killed my fair share of animals at 600 plus yards. Became absolutely obsessed with it. Devoting a ton of of time behind the reloading bench and the trigger to become “competent” at it. As I’ve grown older it’s lost it’s allure for me. It’s made rifle hunting loose the hunting aspect for me, when all I have to do is glass them up and majority of the time the game is over. I would undoubtedly say that its drastically increased the harvest success rates for those whom are actually capable of doing it. Now days I would bet that nearly 1 out of 3 hunters will proclaim they have a “long range” set up. Whether they are truly capable with that equipment is another story….

 

[BrianID]

If you're shooting from a range where you can stand in the open in full view of the animal, speak in a normal voice, and not spook it, then it's not hunting. It's long range execution. Spotting an animal with $2000 swaro's takes zero skill and effort.
I don't bow hunt, but I'll acknowledge that bow hunters are MUCH better hunters than rifle hunters and I have mad respect for them. I'd bow hunt but I hate velvet and hunting in hot weather.

It actually takes significant skill to glass animals with Swarovski or other high end glass. A guy skilled at glassing will out glass others with the same glass in the same spot 10 to 1. I’ve seen it many times. If you have an opportunity to sit next to a really skilled glasser it will surprise you on how effective they are.

 

[BrianID]

The truth is none of us really know how much long range hunting has affected the % of animals that are killed per tag. Without a doubt the improvement of long range capabilities of hunters has had some sort of impact.

True long range hunting (800+ yards in my opinion) probably has very little effect. Most hunters including myself don’t attempt to take those long shots. In ideal conditions I know I could hit a deer with the first shot at 1000 yards but I have more confidence in my ability to get closer than risk a long range shot that is just as likely to wound an animal as it is to provide a quick clean kill.

The real impact on animals is how effective hunters are at 300-500 yards. 30 to 50 years ago there were few hunters that could cleanly kill a deer with a single shot at 300-500 yards. Now with improved rifles/scopes/bullets and range finders a 300 yard shot is not a big deal to many hunters that have a tag in western states. Many hunters are very capable of a 500 yard shot. This was not the case 30 years ago. I remember being impressed by an estimated 300 yard a friend made on a buck 30 years ago. That wasn’t an easy shot back then like it is now. Last year I easily shot a buck at 350 yards and hit him within an inch of where I was aiming. I wasn’t even impressed by my shot and had 100% confidence in my shot before pulling the trigger.

I don’t go out with the plan of taking long shots but I’ve killed all 4 bucks I’ve attempted to shoot that were 500+ yards. I still like to get as close as possible before shooting. A few years ago I passed on shooting a 32” buck where I could have walked down the ridgeline and shot him in 5 minutes. Instead I snuck up on him and shot him a couple hours later at 125 yards. I was going to have to walk over there anyway, may as well get closer before pulling the trigger.

I don’t care what distance you decide to take a shot as long as you only take shots you know you are capable of. Some guys are ethically capable of killing a deer at 1000 yards and others are not even capable of a 100 yard shot.

 

[elks96]

The truth is none of us really know how much long range hunting has affected the % of animals that are killed per tag. Without a doubt the improvement of long range capabilities of hunters has had some sort of impact.

True long range hunting (800+ yards in my opinion) probably has very little effect. Most hunters including myself don’t attempt to take those long shots. In ideal conditions I know I could hit a deer with the first shot at 1000 yards but I have more confidence in my ability to get closer than risk a long range shot that is just as likely to wound an animal as it is to provide a quick clean kill.

The real impact on animals is how effective hunters are at 300-500 yards. 30 to 50 years ago there were few hunters that could cleanly kill a deer with a single shot at 300-500 yards. Now with improved rifles/scopes/bullets and range finders a 300 yard shot is not a big deal to many hunters that have a tag in western states. Many hunters are very capable of a 500 yard shot. This was not the case 30 years ago. I remember being impressed by an estimated 300 yard a friend made on a buck 30 years ago. That wasn’t an easy shot back then like it is now. Last year I easily shot a buck at 350 yards and hit him within an inch of where I was aiming. I wasn’t even impressed by my shot and had 100% confidence in my shot before pulling the trigger.

I don’t go out with the plan of taking long shots but I’ve killed all 4 bucks I’ve attempted to shoot that were 500+ yards. I still like to get as close as possible before shooting. A few years ago I passed on shooting a 32” buck where I could have walked down the ridgeline and shot him in 5 minutes. Instead I snuck up on him and shot him a couple hours later at 125 yards. I was going to have to walk over there anyway, may as well get closer before pulling the trigger.

I don’t care what distance you decide to take a shot as long as you only take shots you know you are capable of. Some guys are ethically capable of killing a deer at 1000 yards and others are not even capable of a 100 yard shot.

SO as long as the deer dies quickly and clean it is ok? So as long as my drone made a quick clean shot on a regular basis it would be alright?

 

[gznokes]

I know last year was my first time I hunted with a long range rifle and I killed a buck that I am almost certain I would not have killed with my old 270. If you get instructions and a little help from someone that knows hat they are doing, 700 yds is not that hard with the right set up. One of the hardest parts is finding where the deer was standing at when you shoot that far. I believe many hunters cannot locate where the deer was standing when they go look for it. I found by taking a picture from the place I shot helped me find where the deer was at when I got over there. I bet my 15 year old daughter could kill a deer at 700 yds with my gun today.

Agree with the points here. Taking a photo of the area is KEY. Even a video where you narrate what happened.

 

[JPickett]

SO as long as the deer dies quickly and clean it is ok? So as long as my drone made a quick clean shot on a regular basis it would be alright?

What are you talking about? Drone?

Brian’s actually had the best post in here. I agree, far greater affect in 300, 400 , 500 yard shots being now guys range. I too remember anything over 200 being “a pretty good poke” and how surprised my dad was when I told him about the deer I shot at 320. But from what I gather most don’t have a problem until it’s “not hunting” you telling me you can’t do jumping jacks with a deer at 300 yards and still not spook it? Ok…,

 

[slamdunk]

What are you talking about? Drone?

Brian’s actually had the best post in here. I agree, far greater affect in 300, 400 , 500 yard shots being now guys range. I too remember anything over 200 being “a pretty good poke” and how surprised my dad was when I told him about the deer I shot at 320. But from what I gather most don’t have a problem until it’s “not hunting” you telling me you can’t do jumping jacks with a deer at 300 yards and still not spook it? Ok…,

I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure his drone comment was facetious to the point that if we don't draw a line in the sand, any method would be legal and "ethical" as long as it made a clean kill.

 

[HikeHunt61]

I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure his drone comment was facetious to the point that if we don't draw a line in the sand, any method would be legal and "ethical" as long as it made a clean kill.

I agree, but drones are already illegal. Rifles, scopes, rangefinders, apps- all legal. I'm of the camp that the western states need to get on top of emerging technologies and limit them before they become mainstream. Talk of taking away rangefinders (20+ years), good binos (50+ years), scope magnification (older than me), is where people get a little pissy. I think there's a little wiggle room- technologies that are in use less than a decade and are not mainstream should be considered as well.

Take game cameras- it must have been obvious the effects on scouting that they would have. Lesson learned I hope for state game agencies...

 

[JPickett]

Like I’ve said before. Toothpaste, tube, can’t put it back in there. You can shorten seasons.

 

[JPickett]

SO as long as the deer dies quickly and clean it is ok? So as long as my drone made a quick clean shot on a regular basis it would be alright?

I guess i’ll ask. Why is it not ok? Personal convictions? Those are great, and we all have our own

 

[BrianID]

SO as long as the deer dies quickly and clean it is ok? So as long as my drone made a quick clean shot on a regular basis it would be alright?

Yes, I think it is ethical for someone that is capable to take a 1000 yard shot. Many hunters take 100 yard shots that are not capable of taking that shot and I don’t think that is ethical. My grandfather thought it was unethical for me to use binoculars and a spotting scope to watch deer from a mile away and then hike over and kill them with my bow. Back in the 40’s and 50’s when he hunted it wasn’t considered unethical by most to “party hunt”. Many Americans think hunting deer for any reason is unethical. If you think a guy shooting a deer at 1000 yards is unethical you are entitled to that opinion.
Drones are not legal to hunt with and shouldn’t be legal. That something almost everyone can agree on.

 

[The_Coloradoboy]

The reality of it is with the increase in technology we have become much more efficient at killing. I think you can see it across the board throughout the west. We are never going to be able to slow down the technological advancements in hunting it’s just part of the beast. The only thing that will change is the opportunities to hunt.

 

[HikeHunt61]

Like I’ve said before. Toothpaste, tube, can’t put it back in there. You can shorten seasons.

Question for Utah:

Did they do a survey on which approach to improve herds?

Option 1: Use some combination of the following: Reduce permits, doe vs buck, change season timing, reduce season lengths, spend more money protecting deer near roads, modify mix of hunting methods, etc.

Option 2: Limit hunting technologies to reduce success.

Seems to me that Utahans must really hate Option 1, or they wouldn't be putting themselves through Option 2.

 

[slamdunk]

I agree, but drones are already illegal. Rifles, scopes, rangefinders, apps- all legal. I'm of the camp that the western states need to get on top of emerging technologies and limit them before they become mainstream. Talk of taking away rangefinders (20+ years), good binos (50+ years), scope magnification (older than me), is where people get a little pissy. I think there's a little wiggle room- technologies that are in use less than a decade and are not mainstream should be considered as well.

Take game cameras- it must have been obvious the effects on scouting that they would have. Lesson learned I hope for state game agencies...

Exactly my point on drones.....that was nipped in the butt as they emerged into the hunting world.

 

[Flyjunky12]

These debates about LRH always crack me up.

In the grand scheme of things what is the percentage of hunters who take long range shots? 5%? Out of that 5% I’d be willing to wager a high percentage put in the time and effort to get proficient and take pride in their shooting skill. Maybe it’s just the people I talk with but they all put lots of time in, both at the reloading bench and on the range to be confident in their skill/equipment.

Conversely, of that other 95% of hunters how many spend the time to be efficient to hunt the ranges they hunt? From my experiences working range days, not very many. Most shoot 10-15 rounds before the season, from a bench, and they are good to go. They shoot a 2”-3” group and it’s time to go kill a deer/elk.

Speaking from my experience, I’d rather see a guy who’s honed his skills take a lr shot than someone who can’t shoot a group at 100 yards off a bench taking a shot at a deer at 200 yards in a field position….or those that take shots at running animals. Don’t even get me started on that.

Now tell me, which group do you really think wounds more animals? Just by sheer numbers the second group of course.

Every hunter has to judge for themselves what is a high percentage shot considering the circumstances and their skill. I’m not going to tell anyone how far they can or can’t shoot. If you start doing that, someday they will be coming after the way you hunt.

 

[eyeman]

I will ask a question and try to keep it simple.
Not arguing a case just asking a thought provoking question.
Go back to lets say the year 1990.
Think about what we had then to what we have now that is related to Hunting. IE, Long range setups, range finders, scope on muzzleloaders, longe range bows and such
Think about the Deer herds and the Big Bucks.
Nobody was complaining or arguing about any "rights" being taken away because nobody had the things we have now.
Just asking you to think about it.

 

[elks96]

My point was exactly what it was... People dismiss long range hunting so long as the shot is a clean ethical kill. The problem is this voids the situation of any true "hunt" and focuses only on the end result... We as hunters need to have serious conversations around this issue, it is growing harder and harder to justify hunting. The more technology we use, the more advantage we gain and the less we can argue in favor of our sport. If we do not make clean distinctions between what hunting and what it is not, we blur the lines and therefore we cause harm to the over all appearance...

The quick clean kill and because it is legal arguments are lazy arguments because it allows a person to hide behind a predetermined line... Just because it is legal or quick and clean, does not ensure it is right...

If you have not paid attention, nonhunters and anti hunters have an easy time picking apart things... So we hunters have 2 choices, self regulate and create a perception about ethical hunting and its importance or to allow things that continue to blur the line between ethics...

Just curious, when we apply these principals to certain activities... Helicopter shoots? We have as a group tried very hard to distance the term hunting from the activity. We have called them shoots and population controls etc. But they seem to hit the 2 biggest arguments in favor of long range... The animals are typically killed pretty cleanly and it is legal?

Last point anyone that says long range shooting is that hard, I dare you to look up all the little kids blasting gongs at 1000 yards. Watch the tv shows where the guides gun is used by some person that cant even hike, then that person who probably cant even see 700 yards takes an elk at over 700...

Truth is once a set up is dialed in darn near anyone can pick it up and shoot pretty consistent with it...

 

[JPickett]

those that take shots at running animals. Don’t even get me started on that.

That’s the shot all the “real” hunters brag about and everyone swoons over. Too funny

 

[Flyjunky12]

My point was exactly what it was... People dismiss long range hunting so long as the shot is a clean ethical kill. The problem is this voids the situation of any true "hunt" and focuses only on the end result... We as hunters need to have serious conversations around this issue, it is growing harder and harder to justify hunting. The more technology we use, the more advantage we gain and the less we can argue in favor of our sport. If we do not make clean distinctions between what hunting and what it is not, we blur the lines and therefore we cause harm to the over all appearance..

The quick clean kill and because it is legal arguments are lazy arguments because it allows a person to hide behind a predetermined line... Just because it is legal or quick and clean, does not ensure it is right...

If you have not paid attention, nonhunters and anti hunters have an easy time picking apart things... So we hunters have 2 choices, self regulate and create a perception about ethical hunting and its importance or to allow things that continue to blur the line between ethics...

Just curious, when we apply these principals to certain activities... Helicopter shoots? We have as a group tried very hard to distance the term hunting from the activity. We have called them shoots and population controls etc. But they seem to hit the 2 biggest arguments in favor of long range... The animals are typically killed pretty cleanly and it is legal?

Last point anyone that says long range shooting is that hard, I dare you to look up all the little kids blasting gongs at 1000 yards. Watch the tv shows where the guides gun is used by some person that cant even hike, then that person who probably cant even see 700 yards takes an elk at over 700...

Truth is once a set up is dialed in darn near anyone can pick it up and shoot pretty consistent with it...

Very slippery slope if you ask me. I’d say we are better off uniting as a group instead of the infighting.

What if an anti was to say they don’t think elk should be hunted during the rut…they’re too vulnerable? Same with deer? We have too much advantage over the elk/deer at that time when their minds are on other things. Where does it stop?

Also, shooting long range is more than just dialing a scope. Shooting at a gong with no consequences isn’t the same thing. Wind is the biggest hurdle and that is only learned through experience but it’s never mastered.

 

[JPickett]

My point was exactly what it was... People dismiss long range hunting so long as the shot is a clean ethical kill. The problem is this voids the situation of any true "hunt" and focuses only on the end result... We as hunters need to have serious conversations around this issue, it is growing harder and harder to justify hunting. The more technology we use, the more advantage we gain and the less we can argue in favor of our sport. If we do not make clean distinctions between what hunting and what it is not, we blur the lines and therefore we cause harm to the over all appearance...

The quick clean kill and because it is legal arguments are lazy arguments because it allows a person to hide behind a predetermined line... Just because it is legal or quick and clean, does not ensure it is right...

If you have not paid attention, nonhunters and anti hunters have an easy time picking apart things... So we hunters have 2 choices, self regulate and create a perception about ethical hunting and its importance or to allow things that continue to blur the line between ethics...

Just curious, when we apply these principals to certain activities... Helicopter shoots? We have as a group tried very hard to distance the term hunting from the activity. We have called them shoots and population controls etc. But they seem to hit the 2 biggest arguments in favor of long range... The animals are typically killed pretty cleanly and it is legal?

Last point anyone that says long range shooting is that hard, I dare you to look up all the little kids blasting gongs at 1000 yards. Watch the tv shows where the guides gun is used by some person that cant even hike, then that person who probably cant even see 700 yards takes an elk at over 700...

Truth is once a set up is dialed in darn near anyone can pick it up and shoot pretty consistent with it...

Please provide the range extent of “true” hunting. That way I’ll know when I’m going it right

 

[elks96]

Please provide the range extent of “true” hunting. That way I’ll know when I’m going it right

When the range you are hunting from allows the target animal a reasonable ability to use it senses and avoid the hunter... SO it would different in different setting and with different animals. But when you are banging away from so far that the animals can not hear, see or smell you, you are now a shooter and not hunter...

 

[elks96]

Very slippery slope if you ask me. I’d say we are better off uniting as a group instead of the infighting.

What if an anti was to say they don’t think elk should be hunted during the rut…they’re too vulnerable? Same with deer? We have too much advantage over the elk/deer at that time when their minds are on other things. Where does it stop?

Also, shooting long range is more than just dialing a scope. Shooting at a gong with no consequences isn’t the same thing. Wind is the biggest hurdle and that is only learned through experience but it’s never mastered.

Sorry but all my time spanking Pdogs at long range is not different that shooting gongs at long range and no different than shooting deer or elk... You can claim all you want but today a person just needs an app, and the ability to turn a nob. Again I have watched a 12 year pick up a gun they have never shot and hit a 12" gong at 1000 yards with a cross wind... Why would it be any different with a critter at that range?

 

[elks96]

Very slippery slope if you ask me. I’d say we are better off uniting as a group instead of the infighting.

What if an anti was to say they don’t think elk should be hunted during the rut…they’re too vulnerable? Same with deer? We have too much advantage over the elk/deer at that time when their minds are on other things. Where does it stop?

Also, shooting long range is more than just dialing a scope. Shooting at a gong with no consequences isn’t the same thing. Wind is the biggest hurdle and that is only learned through experience but it’s never mastered.

If we do not self regulate, then we will be at the mercy of others who wish to regulate us... There are many examples where this has worked....

 

[RRCowboyStar]

The Question was about Long Range Hunting, but the answer is about the progress of technoligy. First it was Compound Bows, Hyper Cross bows, Inline Muzzys. Then came Laser Rangefinders, next came Bluetooth.
These all make for higher success rates. At what point is the line drawn? Wherever it is it will make a group pissed off.
If we went back to Open sights, Side Locks and Recurves, how many would continue to hunt? Success Rates would drastically fall.
Perhaps the moutains would'nt seem so crowded, maybe no need for LE Tags.

 

[RookieWYhntr]

When the range you are hunting from allows the target animal a reasonable ability to use it senses and avoid the hunter... SO it would different in different setting and with different animals. But when you are banging away from so far that the animals can not hear, see or smell you, you are now a shooter and not hunter...

So using a ground blind or tree stand isn't hunting? Btw, are you a trophy hunter only? What about meat hunters? Should they sneak up to a cow elk to say 20yds with a 300WM before shooting it? Or should they shoot one at 200yds? Also, you do realize most of the hunters shoot critters w/o them knowing at well under 200yds.

 

[Ballistic]

Last point anyone that says long range shooting is that hard, I dare you to look up all the little kids blasting gongs at 1000 yards. Watch the tv shows where the guides gun is used by some person that cant even hike, then that person who probably cant even see 700 yards takes an elk at over 700...

So I agree with the majority of what you are saying with the exception of the above. Pulling the 10 oz trigger on a rifle that’s setup on the bench or ground on a bipod and bags can be easy and that’s what these youngsters and those that can’t hike (and my friend that’s never pulled the trigger before -for an example) are likely doing. What they aren’t doing is the rangefinding/ballistic solution/angle and light compensations/wind affects.

And this is the tricky side of the discussion- is it ethical ? I don’t want to go there as I don’t want anyone telling me what I can or can’t do.
The experienced shooter or guide likely is setting this up and that takes some skill. And where you from here who knows. But it is happening and that’s where I agree with you. Best of the west set a 12 year old up on a 1376 yard elk years ago to showcase how easy it is to do. I met that kid later and his job was pulling the trigger. He was too young to understand all the variables - his team set everything up. The elk was harvested so it was a success. Would I set a 12 year old up on my benchrest rifle on an animal at 1376 yards -not a chance…….to each their own.

But shooting 1000 yards and doing it well takes lots of experience. And I stress doing it well as not many can. Anyone that proclaims they can guarantee a 1st round hit on an animals (and there’s countless out their that say they can) vitals hasn’t shot enough to know better- especially on the longer shots. Ask any PRS shooter that plays the game - misses happen. Ask any top IBS shooter the same - the answer will be that’s the reason sighters are allowed before the string for score starts.
I’m not saying it can’t (1000 yard hunting) happen because it does. And that’s what we will have to ask ourselves out in the field- experience or not. But guaranteed 1st rounds shots/hits on animals is a very hard task on the longer shots.

 

[slamdunk]

I will ask a question and try to keep it simple.
Not arguing a case just asking a thought provoking question.
Go back to lets say the year 1990.
Think about what we had then to what we have now that is related to Hunting. IE, Long range setups, range finders, scope on muzzleloaders, longe range bows and such
Think about the Deer herds and the Big Bucks.
Nobody was complaining or arguing about any "rights" being taken away because nobody had the things we have now.
Just asking you to think about it.

Exactly!

 

[HikeHunt61]

When the range you are hunting from allows the target animal a reasonable ability to use it senses and avoid the hunter... SO it would different in different setting and with different animals. But when you are banging away from so far that the animals can not hear, see or smell you, you are now a shooter and not hunter...

I understand your point. To be honest, my main hunting target is elk, and the majority of the elk I've gotten have been in timber- so fairly close range. I'll admit I enjoy that method of hunting the most.

But at what range do you feel the animal has a reasonable chance? 100 yards? 200 yards? I am no LRH in my mind, and the furthest I ever killed an animal was 400 in 1978 (my best antelope as a young, dumb, lucky teenager). That antelope had no idea I was there. I snuck up to the last place with cover, then took the shot. Of course, antelope can spot people for miles. I've witnessed herds notice us from over a mile and run to the next county. I have numerous other examples of deer and elk I killed at 200+, most of which did not have a clue I was there.

I guess the point is that it would be hard to pick a yardage to limit it to. At least I can't pinpoint a rationale that works.

 

[JPickett]

When the range you are hunting from allows the target animal a reasonable ability to use it senses and avoid the hunter... SO it would different in different setting and with different animals. But when you are banging away from so far that the animals can not hear, see or smell you, you are now a shooter and not hunter...

So inside 100 yards. Got it. Make sure your sticking to your guns there

 

[JPickett]

and the furthest I ever killed an animal was 400 in 1978

FYI, That was not hunting

 

[JPickett]

In order for it to be hunting, the animal had to know your there, be on the verge of busting, or even better, already running. Super stressed and full of adrenaline. Then you can take the shot as long as it’s not over 72.8 yards. Now your talking “real” hunters

 

[JPickett]

Still can’t get my question I’ve asked on here a few times answered though. I have killed bulls as close as 15 feet with my bow and deer as far as 964 yards with my rifle. Am I good or bad? Or was I good then bad? I’m so confused

 

[JPickett]

Wait I think I was bad both times. That bull didn’t know I was there…

 

[slamdunk]

FYI, That was not hunting

As the person on the technology committee, I have to beg to differ.
Ever hunted Coues deer or even open country mulies?

I hunt my ass off in areas that if you can't make a 400 yard shot, you have no business hunting that area.

Taking long shots in areas you could get closer with effort is "not hunting", it's killing.

 

[JPickett]

As the person on the technology committee, I have to beg to differ.
Ever hunted Coues deer or even open country mulies?

I hunt my ass off in areas that if you can't make a 400 yard shot, you have no business hunting that area.

Taking long shots in areas you could get closer with effort is "not hunting", it's killing.

No no no no. The animal has to smell you first. We all know that’s the first rule of hunting. Get up wind real close and let them know you’re there

 

[JPickett]

Taking long shots in areas you could get closer with effort is "not hunting", it's killing.

Wait. The new standard is if you can’t get closer now? So I’m on one side of the Grand Canyon, bucks in other side. Bang! Now I’m a real hunter! Got it

 

[JPickett]

I hunt my ass off in areas that if you can't make a 400 yard shot, you have no business hunting that area.

Or is the standard hunting your ass off?

Let’s see. Buck I shot at 964 yards. That morning I packed my camp in about 5.5 miles. Got set up early so headed up the 1300 vertical feet to the ridge top I wanted to glass. Found him shot him. Dropped back to camp then all the way back up the other side to get him. One tripped him to the truck, so another 5.5 miles. Then back in grabbed camp then back out. So I don’t know 25/27 miles or so that day. On the road around midnight. My ass was definitely a bit lighter. Funny thing was, didn’t see any of these see real hunters back in that hell hole with me. Maybe one day I’ll be a real hunter. Till then I’ll just keep punching tags, I know actual real hunters wouldn’t do that. I’m sorry

 

[Ballistic]

As the person on the technology committee, I have to beg to differ.
Ever hunted Coues deer or even open country mulies?

I hunt my ass off in areas that if you can't make a 400 yard shot, you have no business hunting that area.

Taking long shots in areas you could get closer with effort is "not hunting", it's killing.

I like most of your posts - but I’m confused on this one. I thought killing was the end result of a hunt to fill the tag……
I’ve hunted Aoudad sheep that are really hard to get close to where longer shots are the norm. I guess hunting will have different meanings to everyone. Weather it’s up close or extreme range shooting - this is up to the individual hunter and no one should tell them what to do. Emerging technologies will take or change the way people will hunt/kill/harvest/shoot and more. It needs to be addressed or you’ll never see a trophy class animal again. Hunting at long range isn’t really easy but new tech will and is closing the gap. Killing is harvesting at least that’s what I thought it was. Is new tech going to regulate a max distance you can shoot at an animal to make it fair for instance ?
Will you need permission after acquiring a target - to have an ethics committee decide if it’s a go or no-go ?
So emerging tech can also have negative issues as well.
But I still agree that new emerging (and some that’s here now) tech will likely remove hunting and killing skills or change it completely as we know it today. And what we know today is very controversial.

 

[BrianID]

Advancements in technologies have made us more killers than hunters for thousands of years. If we would switch to spear hunting only, states could issue unlimited tags. We could all have sheep tags and hunt mule deer during the rut every year.
The few true long range hunters (guys capable of 800+ yards) are not a significant problem for animals. The numerous guys capable of shooting 300-500 yards are having a much more significant impact on the animals.
Unless we get new technology like lasers that don't require adjusting for elevation or wind, 10 years from now there won't be significantly more hunters capable of 800+ yard shots. It takes more time and money than most hunters are willing to invest to be capable of 800+ yards. You can spend $10K on a rifle and have a rangefinder and kestrel that shares data with applied ballistics in your phone and not be capable of even a 500 yard shot if you don't practice.