Red Rock Precision lack of ethics
- Thread starter Bbowers
- Start date
libidilatimmy
Veteran member
This comment here only furthers the divide between long range hunters and traditional sportsman. There are those who have the ability to make the long shots and do so only as a last resort and then there are those who have the same abilities and choose to take the long shots as their first option so they can brag about how good of a marksman they are.
tikka_mike
New Member
- Jul 27, 2013
- 9
- 0
so 1000 yards takes NO skill.. yet you need a "decent" rifle and a spring/summers worth of practice... but then its cake? so if thats the case what is the issue with long range hunting? I am not being cynical I am just trying to understand the mindset. To me bow hunting is the riskiest type of hunting out there.. yes you have to sneak up on the animal or call it in.. but look at all the variables in such a short distance like obsticals, bone, wind, the animal jumping the string etc... where as with a gun you still have obsticals and other variables like wind but a bullet has the ability to break bone and disable the animal. it also has hydrolic shock. Your lethal kill zone is much bigger.
I just have a hard time calling a bow hunter ethical and a long range hunter unethical. I have seen a lot of animals wounded from arrows and bullets from people who shot at 200 yards but were not proficient.. wouldnt the people who only shoot a box or 2 of ammo through their gun each year be the unethical ones? Afterall you are hunting an animal who deserves a quick clean humane kill correct? so reason would dictate that a hunter that holds them selves to any sort of ethical standard practice weekly with their weapon of choice?
WapitiBob
Veteran member
Did you read anywhere where I said a 1000 yard shot takes no skill or where I said I had a problem with LRH? I shot one of my antelope this year at 500.
This is what I said:
"Nothing wrong with a limit of 200 or 300 yards but a shot of that distance certainly doesn't take any skill with a decent rifle and a spring-summer of range time."
Perhaps the wrong choice of words.
To paraphrase, a 300 yard shot is cake for anybody that spends several months at the range and is using a decent rifle. Decent being moa or better.
When shooting that decent rifle, I still say it's tougher to get within 300 yards of the critter than it is to kill it. 1000 or even 700 is a different story but you've shot enough to know you can kill any animal you want at 200-300 yards if you can get that close.
This is what I said:
"Nothing wrong with a limit of 200 or 300 yards but a shot of that distance certainly doesn't take any skill with a decent rifle and a spring-summer of range time."
Perhaps the wrong choice of words.
To paraphrase, a 300 yard shot is cake for anybody that spends several months at the range and is using a decent rifle. Decent being moa or better.
When shooting that decent rifle, I still say it's tougher to get within 300 yards of the critter than it is to kill it. 1000 or even 700 is a different story but you've shot enough to know you can kill any animal you want at 200-300 yards if you can get that close.
Last edited:
Getting close can present its problems depending on the scenario. My experience on deer that hole up where it's hard to get to them will give you a cpl of options. Shoot them a long ways or shoot them on the run after you blow them out. Our Colorado hunt this year saw us kill 3 bucks with this scenario. One got shot on the run, one got shot from a long ways twice and had some bullet performance failure (VLDs making craters instead of penetrating) then shot in timber up close when he was found bedded for the second time, then the 3rd one just stood there wondering what those 2 idiots in orange were up to (rarely does that happen). Mine was the one running and to be honest I feel more comfortable taking my time and shooting one at 600-800yds than one free handed and on the run at over 150 that's mixed in with other deer.
Elkoholic307
Banned
woodtick
Veteran member
So the way I understand it, long range hunting is unethical?? Who decides what long range is?? Is it when we have to compensate for bullet drop?? Is it 300, 400, 600 yards?? I love the a$$ hats that show up to the range the week before our general hunt with a paper plate, wood stake and a pillow to shoot of the hood of their truck, they take there plate out an stick it in the dirt @ 100yds, walk back to the truck and rattle off 6 rounds and maybe hit the stupid thing 4 times, there gun looks like it has been behind the truck seat since last season. Is that ethical?? How do you feel that people like that are running around the woods with you?? I can take that same paper plate drag it out to 250, 550 or even 700 in heavy cross winds and could put 5 out of 5 90% of the time within inside that same group size they just shot. Am I the unethical one?? I guarantee I respect the land, the animals I hunt, my fellow hunters and my equipment a hell of lot more than what they do. This age old debate is oh so tiring! There are idiots on both side of the fence, these so called drive further away nut jobs are another story! I took my buddy and his sister on a cow elk hunt last fall, we had elk at 850 yards and he wanted to shoot at them. I turned around and said we can cut the distance almost 250 yards, there not going anywhere and we have the time to cut the distance and that was as close as we could cut it. 2 rounds later we was butchering animals, could have turned out a lot worse if we had just shot at them from there.
Know your weapon, equipment and limitations and for the love of the man upstairs don't be an idiot
.
Know your weapon, equipment and limitations and for the love of the man upstairs don't be an idiot
.
woodtick
Veteran member
I don't want to ruffle anyones feathers, were all there for one underlying theme, spend time in the outdoors, enjoy time with friends and family and hopefully be successful at harvesting an animal. The long range world isn't going away anytime soon and I don't totally agree with all the stuff they are putting out there. I don't know of many people that can put 1st round cold bore hits on a 36"x36" steel plate @ 1200 plus yards. The variables that come into play at distances past 800-900 yards take a ton of knowledge and precision to predict.
I suck shooting a bow period, I spend hours and hours with knowledgable people but still to this day 45-50 yards and your pushing my comfort zone big time. I have friends who can smash the Xring @ 100yds all the time and have harvested animals at 75-80yds on a pretty consistent basis. I won't bash them for what they are doing but I will bash the guy that has limitations like me and is taking those same shots and wounding animals.
Now the guys at Red Rock, Best of the West, Thompson Long Range and Gunwerks etc.. are in the business to make money and make believers out of us dummies that anyone can do this. Us hunters are the most gullible group of idiots out there and we buy the latest gimmicks or HD glass etc..
You never see what the original post was about on any of there shows or commercials. I guarantee they have had more misses at those extreme ranges then they do hits. Smoke and Mirrors boys!
Last edited:
woodtick
Veteran member
I sure wish that someone could give me the exact definition of "ethical behavior". I've tried to figure it out and can't. What's ethical to me doesn't come close to what someone else might think. What I believe is unethical is standard operating procedure for other's.
I suppose it almost has to be left up to the individual to decide but it does get decided for us in many cases. Ethics that has been legislated for us for many years, at least in Alaska, including hunting the same day you've been airborne, use of helicopters for hunting and even the salvage of edible meat. One could argue that the animal belongs to whoever shot it and if he doesn't want to salvage the meat, that should be solely his choice, not the states requirement. In some areas here, if you wound an animal but don't recover it, your done hunting. Other area's that isn't the case.
In some areas you can run an animal almost to death with a snow-machine and kill it, in other areas if the animal reacts to the sound of your machine, it's off limits. Would it be ethical if I hazed a bear into the open, or a dall sheep ram with my airplane and then shot it while airborne. I would need to be a skilled pilot and marksman to do it, so maybe it should be considered ethical for me, heck I could practice it a lot, so no problem there. Just because you can't do it doesn't mean it should be unethical that I can.
All this talk of what's ethical and what's not is clear as mud to me. I hope someone can clear it up for me.
I suppose it almost has to be left up to the individual to decide but it does get decided for us in many cases. Ethics that has been legislated for us for many years, at least in Alaska, including hunting the same day you've been airborne, use of helicopters for hunting and even the salvage of edible meat. One could argue that the animal belongs to whoever shot it and if he doesn't want to salvage the meat, that should be solely his choice, not the states requirement. In some areas here, if you wound an animal but don't recover it, your done hunting. Other area's that isn't the case.
In some areas you can run an animal almost to death with a snow-machine and kill it, in other areas if the animal reacts to the sound of your machine, it's off limits. Would it be ethical if I hazed a bear into the open, or a dall sheep ram with my airplane and then shot it while airborne. I would need to be a skilled pilot and marksman to do it, so maybe it should be considered ethical for me, heck I could practice it a lot, so no problem there. Just because you can't do it doesn't mean it should be unethical that I can.
All this talk of what's ethical and what's not is clear as mud to me. I hope someone can clear it up for me.
Last edited:
Posted this before but maybe it might help with what the B&C think about the subject.
http://blog.eastmans.com/long-range-shooting-whats-your-intent/
http://blog.eastmans.com/long-range-shooting-whats-your-intent/
woodtick
Veteran member
Woodtick, no arguing here, just throwing that out there.
B&C will go back and forth on it like justices do on the Constitution. Rules in place were clearly written, depends on who currently with the org thinks they're smarter than the scribes to interpret them in their own little special way.
I grew up hunting on a place that the animals qualified for B&C, 3 sides are game-proof fenced, the 4th side is a steep-banked river. There were also food plots, protein feeders, culling like livestock, habitat manipulation, import of Kansas deer after the construction of the fences (kept pure in a separate pasture for roughly 20yrs) and known 200" pedigree from South Texas imported on a yearly basis. Based on that, what seems worse, long range hunting or stacking a deck with approval from the fair chase authority?
B&C will go back and forth on it like justices do on the Constitution. Rules in place were clearly written, depends on who currently with the org thinks they're smarter than the scribes to interpret them in their own little special way.
I grew up hunting on a place that the animals qualified for B&C, 3 sides are game-proof fenced, the 4th side is a steep-banked river. There were also food plots, protein feeders, culling like livestock, habitat manipulation, import of Kansas deer after the construction of the fences (kept pure in a separate pasture for roughly 20yrs) and known 200" pedigree from South Texas imported on a yearly basis. Based on that, what seems worse, long range hunting or stacking a deck with approval from the fair chase authority?
tikka_mike
New Member
- Jul 27, 2013
- 9
- 0
tikka_mike
New Member
- Jul 27, 2013
- 9
- 0
Ethics are a relative term as stated above. I have an opportunity to shoot an elk at 288 yards facing me this weekend but I didnt because it wasnt the elk I wanted although I was tempted. It would have been an easy shot. I was telling a guy about it the following monday and he cringed at the thought of a 288 yard shot. He said the vitals are too small from that angle at that range..to me this sounds ridiculous because to me shooting twice that far is a no brainer.. but to this guy his limitations are obviously much lower and I assume that is because I shoot all the time and he shoots once a year.
hoshour
Veteran member
All this does little to no good if we don't write the Outdoor Channel.
Here is the Outdoor Channel's Contact Us address: http://outdoorchannel.com/contactus.aspx and a couple execs - Jeff Wayne, Executive VP Programming and Production
Nancy Zakhary, Public Relations Brainerd Communications, Inc. 212-986-6667
While you're at it, tell them to start streaming so we can cut our cable. I pay $110/month and the only channels my wife and I care about that we can't get streaming or by antenna are HGTV and the Outdoor Channel. Basically, we pay over $100/month for two channels. Not for long!
We really need to contact the firms that advertise on their shows. That's the pressure point.
Here is the Outdoor Channel's Contact Us address: http://outdoorchannel.com/contactus.aspx and a couple execs - Jeff Wayne, Executive VP Programming and Production
Nancy Zakhary, Public Relations Brainerd Communications, Inc. 212-986-6667
While you're at it, tell them to start streaming so we can cut our cable. I pay $110/month and the only channels my wife and I care about that we can't get streaming or by antenna are HGTV and the Outdoor Channel. Basically, we pay over $100/month for two channels. Not for long!
We really need to contact the firms that advertise on their shows. That's the pressure point.
hoshour
Veteran member
Forgot their address:
The Outdoor Channel
1000 Chopper Circle
Denver, CO 80204
No phone number is listed that I could find.
The Outdoor Channel
1000 Chopper Circle
Denver, CO 80204
No phone number is listed that I could find.
T43
Active Member
There has been a lot of these threads around lately. I suppose I'll offer my perspective.
1. The ethical harvesting of an animal WILL be determined by the owners of that animal. Because the wildlife of this country belongs to all citizens and not just hunters. Pushing the envelope of what non hunters, specifically those who currently tolerate the conventional hunting model based on traditional values are willing to tolerate is absolutely not the way to assure our ability to pass the tradition on to future generations.
2. The argument against deadbeat hunters who don't practice is flawed. No one would promote the deadbeats on television. No one would go online and start threads about missing game because they were not prepared. These deadbeats are not in the limelight, don't have shows on T.V. and don't promote an ethical divide to the non hunting, voting public.
3. The argument that haters just don't have the skills is ludicrous. I have the ability, experience and could get the equipment to make those shots. I will not. Neither will many others who have the ability.
4. The argument that we should all stick together is invalid. Hunters must band together to police ourselves against actions that threaten to bring an end to our beloved sport. If shooting animals from distances that completely remove their sporting chance of survival threatens our ability to hold hunting in an honorable light to the non hunters we should and judging by the recent attention this has gotten are, doing just that.
5. Anti hunters do not bother me. Non hunters who may become anti hunters based on actions they feel need corrected scare the hell out of me...
1. The ethical harvesting of an animal WILL be determined by the owners of that animal. Because the wildlife of this country belongs to all citizens and not just hunters. Pushing the envelope of what non hunters, specifically those who currently tolerate the conventional hunting model based on traditional values are willing to tolerate is absolutely not the way to assure our ability to pass the tradition on to future generations.
2. The argument against deadbeat hunters who don't practice is flawed. No one would promote the deadbeats on television. No one would go online and start threads about missing game because they were not prepared. These deadbeats are not in the limelight, don't have shows on T.V. and don't promote an ethical divide to the non hunting, voting public.
3. The argument that haters just don't have the skills is ludicrous. I have the ability, experience and could get the equipment to make those shots. I will not. Neither will many others who have the ability.
4. The argument that we should all stick together is invalid. Hunters must band together to police ourselves against actions that threaten to bring an end to our beloved sport. If shooting animals from distances that completely remove their sporting chance of survival threatens our ability to hold hunting in an honorable light to the non hunters we should and judging by the recent attention this has gotten are, doing just that.
5. Anti hunters do not bother me. Non hunters who may become anti hunters based on actions they feel need corrected scare the hell out of me...
Last edited: