Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Just my observation. |
Unless I am very bad at guiding, I have seen a lot of guys who are good shots completely miss animals under 300 yards with a rifle off a rest.
Myself and another guide had clients from a very well-known archery hunting show on a mule deer hunt. There were several shots taken, but no animals harmed. They showed me at the beginning their skill level and they were definitely proficient. One of them was quite arrogant about it. I used to make a point of getting hunters to shoot before we went out so that I could see what their skill level is. I’m not sure it matters. I certainly don’t blame them. I have missed and made bad shots too and I believe I am more competent than most, and certainly have practised a lot. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
I respect some people enjoy the longer range shooting but I am just not that guy. For me I enjoy being close and the challenge of doing so To each their own but turrets don’t fit into the style of hunting I enjoy |
Quote:
One of the best stone sheep hunters I know has never shot one over 200 yards. One of my mentors growing up was a sheep guide and a highly accomplished mountain hunter. He has multiple sheep taken with a bow stone, dall, Rocky Mountain, and cali. These guys like the up close game and get it done doing so There is also a ton of guys who shoot long range and well without turrets. My old hunting partner has rolled lots of game at 500 -700 yards and rarely misses but he is the cheat sheet laminated to the stock kind of guy It’s all a matter of how someone wants to go about it and what they enjoy |
Quote:
I do like turrets for small targets like ground squirrels and crows at longer ranges. |
Quote:
Marky Mark has killed a couple deserts in Mexico and some pretty crazy distances. Expensive hunts to go home empty handed because you couldn't get closer. I don't have a scope with dials (just BRH), but if I was headed south on a sheep hunt...I'd have 'em. |
I’ve always said that the firearms safety course should include actually shooting firearms. Some sort of proficiency course is a good idea before flinging lead at critters. It would help eliminate a lot of the “woopsies” that hunters seem to be famous for, much to our detriment as a group as a whole.
More professionalism=better public image, I don’t think anyone could intelligently argue that one. Getting trained by a “professional” would usually be better than getting trained by bubba. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
[QUOTE=Pathfinder76;4711420]When this is implemented the ability for the common man to hunt will be long gone.[/QUOTE
That's right ... and that's the way it should be . If a persons interest in hunting is greater than his interest in becoming proficient with his hunting tool, he shouldnt be allowed to hunt. I've been advocating that for decades. I don't think we would be in the mess we are in today if this were a requirement made many years ago. |
[QUOTE=Salavee;4711423]
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
[QUOTE=Bushleague;4711424]
Quote:
Learning to hunt us a totally different subject. If a person is incompetent in that area, no harm done to any one or any thing. |
[QUOTE=Salavee;4711427]
Quote:
What weapons are the required to be competent with and what should the standard be? Do we start making deferent course requirements for each legal weapon style? Are we talking a yearly requirement? Personally I think adding some hands on training in hunter ed along with more regarding shot selection or even tracking would be beneficial to help a new hunter. I don’t know if we need to go down the road of yearly testing Like I mentioned earlier more times than not it not a lack of shooting ability but instead people who make bad choices on shot selection that is the problem |
IMO There are shooters that hunt and hunters that shoot. I am a hunter that shoots. I’ve never taken a kill shot over 150yds. Shooting for vitals is not hard at that range. 500+yds is another thing. Suggested/required proficiency should consider that. I honestly don’t know what grouping I could make at 300yds cause I never plan to take that shot so don’t practice to that range. If I’m within 2” of Center on an 8” circle at 100-150yds I call it good. I Always aim for center of boiler room and No problem with injured or missed animals. Same shooting standards combined with regular attempts at +500yd shots would be terrible practice.
Far More bad shots are made due to bad choices than competency. How do you regulate for that? |
Canadian & Alberta society already uses "mandatory" too often with no way to define or regulate it.
|
[QUOTE=Smoky buck;4711430]
Quote:
Legal BG firearm and caliber of choice with 10-15 shots required.Less than 1 hour duration,. Once passed -valid for lifetime. I'm sure there are enough hunter ed instructors that might be interested in adding a test such as this to their agenda to make it work. If not ? |
Learning to use the quote function properly should be mandatory to post here.
|
[QUOTE=Bushleague;4711424]
Quote:
One is very different from the other .... Cat |
Quote:
|
[QUOTE=Salavee;4711445][QUOTE=Smoky buck;4711430]
Quote:
Either way a one time deal/added training to hunter ED is not crazy but I don’t want to see it become a yearly thing Unfortunately though this doesn’t solve the dumb people making dumb choices which in my opinion is the real problem. |
Quote:
|
[QUOTE=catnthehat;4711449]
Quote:
I take time to practice but I wouldn’t call myself a gun nut. |
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:13 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.