Ethics of Rangefinders - (Potential for Controversy)

[Jacob Goodwin]

Hello All

During a recent club shoot, I was fortunate enough to have participated in an interesting, and at times heated, debate/discussion about the ethics of using (or not using) a laser rangefinder when hunting. Basically, this discussion centred around the question:

Is NOT using a laser rangefinder when bowhunting ethical or unethical?

Some basic parametres were agreed upon, such as

1. The shooting skill/experience of the hunter were acceptable
2. The rangefinder is in good working order/charged/etc
3. The range of shot is within acceptable limits (this figure wasn't agreed upon)

POSITION 1
I took the position that omitting to use a rangefinder is unethical. My view is based on the premise that a key component of ethical hunting requires a minimisation of risk of wounding intended game animals. So any tool that allows a hunter to minimise such risk , such as a bow with sufficient draw weight, sharp broadheads, regular range practice,etc. , should be employed at all times. The use of a rangefinder serves to minimise this risk by significantly reducing (if not eliminating) "guess work" around judging distance to game, particularly during a time of excitement, optical issues (ie "tunnels" in wooded areas, down hills,etc) and fatigue. Thus, not using a rangefinder is unethical.

WARNING: I realise that my position is a bit "Black and White". While I do believe in the position taken, I'm also conscious of not being dogmatic and am open to other views. If you disagree my view/approach, please limit your replies to the substance of the post. I will not respond to personal insults or attacks (I get enough of these from my wife :wink:)

POSITION 2
My friend's view (or my understanding of it) is that the use of a rangefinder is largely irrelevant to ethical considerations. He argues that a bowhunter should be proficient enough (from practice, hunting experience, etc) to be able to effectively judge the distance(s) at which he/she hunts...without using any tools. He also argues that rangefinders reduce the ability and need for hunters to develop these core hunting skills. Further, the use of a rangefinder removes some of the "romance" from the sport along with reducing the ability to "snap shoot" game that appears/disappears quickly from bowrange.

At the risk of opening a can of worms, I am very interested in hearing the views of the Forum on this topic, particularly from some of the "old hands" of the sport.

Jake

[rory]

Whatever floats your boat :D I have used both, and I like it either way....

[johnno]

Jake said :

[quote]My view is based on the premise that a key component of ethical hunting requires a minimisation of risk of wounding intended game animals. So any tool that allows a hunter to minimise such risk , such as a bow with sufficient draw weight, sharp broadheads, regular range practice,etc. , should be employed at all times.[quote]

Absolutely, not to IMO is not only unethical but irresponsible. In most hunting scenarios, without a rangefinder, unless the quarry is very close, ie under 20m, than determining the range is a guess, (albeit possibly an educated one) at best. Open spanses of terrain or unusual topography can often trick the eye when it comes to determining distance. Why take the chance and risk a wounding. ?? :D :D

[Trophy Bowhunts]

Jake

I put this to you is it unethical to use.

1.Camo
2.A certain weighted Bow
3. A certain type of Bow
4. A certain arrow
5. A certain shot

The list is endless, any one of the above may give the hunter an advantage or disadvantage, if in using any of the above are we not being fair to the animal being hunted. Your arguement that it is unethical does open up a can of worms as most of these discussions and should be left to the individual as he is the one that has to live with ones self. If it be said in the end maybe we should hunt with our bare hands to be fair that way the hunted has a fair go. Because I am sure if the animal knigdom had our knowledge we would be in serious trouble.

So in my opinon if I am to enjoy my hunting with a Bow & Arrow, I would use whatever I feel that could do the job successfully and as humanely as possible within my abilites as a hunter. If it was to be seen as unethical to hunt without a rangefinder then I would go back to shooting with a rifle
and not a bow.

PS. If you have to rely on a rangefinder to shoot what do you say to your mate who is being charged by a boar.....Just hold on mate I need to know if its 25m or 26m....I think NOT...(Just a bit of tougue in Cheek Jake)

Sorry don't believe you are or are not a ethical hunter whether or not you use a Rangefinder.

JMO
Mick

[jindydiver]

Your position then Jacob is that we must do EVERYTHING we can to ensure a quick and humane death for our quarry.
So any tool that allows a hunter to minimise such risk , such as a bow with sufficient draw weight, sharp broadheads, regular range practice,etc. , should be employed at all times.


Can we take it then that your view that “any tool” should be used “at all times” if it can minimise risk of wounding means at the very least that anybody who uses a bare bow (of whatever form it may take) falls outside what you would call an ethical hunter? If “not using a rangefinder is unethical” then surely not using the sights that go with the need for a rangefinder would be too.
Where do you draw the line? Do you draw it just past the hunting method you have chosen for yourself (sighted compound with the use of a rangefinder on all shots), or do we follow your logic to say that to minimise the chances of wounding an animal we should all be using a rifle of the maximum calibre that we can each handle (recoil wise)?

Every time I see one of these ethics debates come up I wince and wonder how long before someone else follows the “minimise wounding” argument to it’s end and suggests we not shoot at animals at all. By putting this thread up here Jacob you have drawn a line in the sand and told the world that any bow hunters who disagree with your position are an irresponsible lot who would argue FOR the wounding of animals in furtherance of their belief in bow hunting. Is that the impression you wanted to put across Jacob?

[jason]

Big call, calling the majority of hunters unethical..... :wink: i have used both and just found the extra movement of using a range finder gave deer more chance to bust me. How do instinctive shooters come into the equation the just point and shoot and some are very very good. I say each to their own and if you need the range finder to make you confident use it, but if you are confident without it do not use one, but neither us unethical. But a good post and i am sure will get some interesting answers.

[Paul R]

Calling all instinctive shooters unethical is a massive call. :shock: Not to mention that you are calling every person that hunted with a bow before the advent of rangefinders unethical as well. :?

My ideas tend to follow Jindy's logic , where does the line get drawn?
Some animal activists believe that not just the hunting but the killing of any animal is unethical.

I tend to believe that ranging and then taking a shot at game 50m and beyond is unethical compared to an instinctive archer shooting at game within his effective range.

Ethics although influenced by the majority in a group is largely a personal choice and so there will always be differing opinions. I do believe though that having a standard of ethics for bowhunting is very important especially for its protection; the discussion of just what those standards should be, is always an interesting and controversial one. :D

[ado250]

I think it's unfair to say jacob "called all hunters". I don't think he called anyone, nor was he passing judgement. The way I read it was that Jacob had an opinion and he expressed it. Not a crime in my book :wink:

I do however strongly disagree with this sentiment :D

Possibly on a long shot you do risk a bad shot without it, but then again you pick your shots with respect to the method which you are using to judge distance. I don't think that a range finder would improve your chances much on short range shots (say 35m max), but could definately increase your potential range (all other factors being constant - I have not used one huting though :oops: ).

An ethical shooter is not one who decides to use a rangefinder, but one who knows their limits without one.

Ado

[XTfreak]

If Iam hunting from a treestand, ground blind or taking a rest I will use the rangefinder to determine distances. But if Iam still hunting I usually forget I even have the rangefinder with me.
Sometimes when the wife and I take a walk I will try to judge distances and have the wife range them to see how close I come. That way I wont lose my eye for judging distances (Hopefully).
Bill

[HOOD]

So does this mean that the American Indians, South American pigmis, English medievil archers or even African tribes are "unethical" because they didn't/don't use a range finder. Mmmmmmmmmmm

As for those that are against range finders.....what about those people that love to hunt but but have a little trouble judging distance and need that little extra help to be certain of their shots.

Each to their own I say. JMHO :wink:

Guys

This can be a touchy subject and one I have heard go round and round and back again.

I own and use a good quality range finder and I have found it to be an advantage in a couple of areas outside the obvious , Unless you are prepared (I'm not) to miss a lot of game or worse make less than perfect shots (when you and your bow are capable) to train your self then a range finder is a valuable tool.

For those that arent to proud to admit it (I'm not) getting your range spot on in broken ground shot after shot isn't all that easy , and Its easy to be out by 5 yards in 40 even if you practice every day and your pulse isn't racing.

I shoot A LOT of arrows and I still give my self a shock from time to time when I double check a range before I shoot , I'm happy to tell anyone listening that I would not take many shots beyond 30 without checking.

We own and shoot equipment that is capable of tremendous accuracy even at what is considered long range for hunting 50 + yards , Its a virtue that is completely blind sided if pride or some medieval notion of ethics stops you from using one. Its like buying a Ferrari bringing it home taking off the tyres and putting waggon wheels under it " Cos that's how the good old boys did it and heck if its good enough to open up the wild west"

Make a 5 yard mistake at 30 you may get the heart but you may get the horrible wounding shot between the lungs and the spine and have your game run off with an arrow in it. However unintentional mistakes may be they have results distasteful ones.

Now I am not going to get into the who is and who ain't ethical and who is and who ain't the better man for choosing to take advantage of the ingenuity that man can bring to bear to a situation where he is a killer but I will say this mans pride and his mixed up irrational beliefs about ETHICS has cost more than one animal a miserable painful unfortunate avoidable death. NOT NICE TO READ , well imagine it were you.

I have shot enough arrows with enough puff chested bow hunters to know that none of us NONE of us are as good as we would proclaim around a camp fire.

You know the Guy , you shoot a round with him at the club , he shoots targets all over the show and the precedes to tell you how its never that way when he's in the bush , somehow his powers of range estimation and ability snap into gear and he becomes the predator when there is no one watching him.

Use one , Don't use one , wound game , take game , but don't ever suggest that your pride is a better judge of a situation when a life is at stake I don't Care if it is a Rabbit myself.

I'm tempted to say each to his own , Its been done with them its been done with out them Cave men did it Indians ,Pygmies , trick shooters ,BLA BLA BLA.

For those who without the use of a rangefinder to accurately asses distance keep there arrows in the quiver until they are sure , I tip my hat to you.

There are more who say they can than Can , Who Pays The Price ?

Are we Ethical men ? when we turn our backs on significant advantage to fuel some age old stroke of the ego that comes if we GUESS it right ?

Let the Ethical men step forward.

Theodore Roosevelt once said "I want to see you shoot the way you shout"

[ricochet]

Very well said Steely :D , and very well put, Ethics is a word that gets so many people upset, and a word that should not be used, i believe if you have to keep telling others that you have the correct ethics in your hunting then you are just fooling your self, it always seems to get into a " i am better than you" bunfight, because my ethics are better than yours, lets just get out there and enjoy what we are doing. IMHO

Rick :)

[Puk]

Ethical? What the hell is ethical?
All this ethics stuff is B.S. You can't define ethics and you can't impose yours on someone else.

Often talk about ethics is someone trying to high-note their views as better than someone elses. (Note: this is a generalised opinion, and is not an accusation made towards Jacob in this case)

It's time we stopped talking about something that can't be quantified, like ethics.
Puk

[interceptor]

I never felt the need for a RF. I figured if I can shoot 40 targets in a morning with 1 arrow and score nothing but A's with a few B's thrown in, then why the hell would I need a range finder.

But then I was given one as a loan on my Chital hunt earlier this year. What a difference it is to KNOW the distance. I have since bought my own good quality RF and I use it for every shot.

I think Steely has hit the nail on the head. Not using one for the wrong reasons is a bad call. I know of a lot of lads who don't need a RF, they shoot within their comfort zone and are happy to let the long ones alone.

Each to his own but in the end we have to do what we can to ensure a good clean kill every time, sometimes that means letting that big critter go rather than taking a chancey shot. Personally that is what I find more upsetting than anything else people who take the risky shot, IMHO it just ain't worth it, all the animals we hunt deserve better.

Cheers Noel

[Jon]

Started with out one and I would all ways overestimate and miss.

Got a R/F and havent missed any game yet 'touch wood'.
This realy compliments my style of shooting with pins to distance ,spot stalk range things on the way and the game.

without guesstimating thanks to the R/F I have full cofidence I will continue to get clean kills

[Jacob Goodwin]

WOW!! Great feedback from the Forum. I'm glad to see so many meaningful and passionate (and not TOO personal) responses to this topic.

I guess I'll reply to two broad points raised and then respond to a couple of individuals' points (there are too many to reply directly to everyone!)

Firstly,I don't want to come across as passing judgement on all bowhunters who do things differently, but rather as challenging people to think about this topic in a different way. So, if anyone feels personally 'judged',I do apologise.

Also, I've got no ethics "view" on instinctive verses sighted shooters...which has somehow been incorporated in this discussion.

To those who suggest we shouldn't be discussing ethics (Puk, etc). I would submit that if we, as hunters, don't discuss the ethics of hunting then our opponents will do it for us...we don't want this!!!

Specific replies:

Jindy- I was hoping you would share your views. As always, your points are challenging and thought provoking.

Where do you draw the line? Do you draw it just past the hunting method you have chosen for yourself (sighted compound with the use of a rangefinder on all shots), or do we follow your logic to say that to minimise the chances of wounding an animal we should all be using a rifle of the maximum calibre that we can each handle (recoil wise)?

This was a heated point during the original debate at the club. Where do you we draw the line? I'm not sure...I guess I'm always torn on this point, as I believe that people do have to come to their own conclusions about this but also believe that we all have to "draw a line" as to what's right and wrong, particularly in relation to hunting.

I guess I've drawn the line at using the RF (regardless of bow type used) to eliminate/reduce yet another variable in the hunting equation that will further reduce the likelihood of injuring a game animal.

That being said, I suspect that I will always wrestle with your above point....

Trophy Bowhunts

Is it unethical to use.
1.Camo
2.A certain weighted Bow
3. A certain type of Bow
4. A certain arrow
5. A certain shot

With the exceptions of "Camo"/"Bow Type" it would be absolutely unethical to use certain draw weights, arrow types and take certain shots. Specifically:

Draw weight: Does anyone here believe that there aren't draw weight/KE minimums that should be adhered to..regardless of the personal opinion of the hunter? Anyone comfortable with another hunter shooting a large boar with a 20lb bow?

Arrow type: What if a hunter posted that he was going to hunt water buffalo using 250 grain carbon arrow that he bought for a low price? Also, extending "arrow type" to broadhead...he also shares that he couldn't be asked to sharpen the heads he wants use. Would any of us really feel comfortable with this?

Shot type: I've actually met a hunter who believed that shooting animals in back legs is acceptable because the large arteries present allow for fast bleeding. Would anyone here tell a new bowhunter that this is where he/she should aim on a game animal?

In THESE above scenarios, I struggle to accept the view that it's "up to the individual" as to what's ethical or not. I realise that these are extreme examples, but I'm using them to illustrate that, despite a commonly held view that hunting ethics are all personal/relative, there are "absolute" boundaries. Or maybe it's just me :D

I guess discussions/debates help me (and hopefully others) better understand where these boundaries sit.

Great stuff

Jake

[Puk]

In THESE above scenarios, I struggle to accept the view that it's "up to the individual" as to what's ethical or not. I realise that these are extreme examples, but I'm using them to illustrate that, despite a commonly held view that hunting ethics are all personal/relative, there are "absolute" boundaries. Or maybe it's just me

I think it's just you.

If there is one refrain i hear a lot as a Christian Minister, it is "What you believe is fine for you, just don't try and impose it on me." same goes here.

You are right that there are absolutes, they are called laws. That's why we have game councils, licenses, police and "Parks and wildlife" oficers. But even they are not absolute, as the arguments over changing the laws and banning hunting shows.

Besides, do you really think the same anti-hunters who celebrate the death of a hunter falling from a tree-stand are going to stop to ask if he was using a rangefinder or not? :shock: Really?

It was a good thread to get discussion going. The question was valid. the assumption behind it that we can judge or set another's "ethics" (Whatever they may be) is invalid.

JMHO

Puk

[Trophy Bowhunts]

Jake

The point I was getting at is that there is no way that Ethical behaviour was to be pin pointed to certain guidelines where hunter was to use certain items to be Ethical. We can recommend that certain items be used to ensure a better chance but It does not matter what we use if you cannot use it properly.

My point is:

Why can't a hunter use a 30lb Bow with 200gr arrows to hunt Buffalo????Is it our opinon that it is unethical...? Have we seen that person shoot his bow at Buffalo. He may be able to shot every Buffalo at 5m in the heart and miss the ribs everytime. Sounds stupid I know but what if he can....He only needs that skill.....

To me ethics has nothing to do with Bowhunting, bowhunting it is about the hunter and his capabilities as a hunter and respect for the game he hunts.

\Ethics is a word somebody made up to satisfy their own need to control something or somebodies actions/

As you said Jake "is it just me". Yes it is just you, you have set your guidelines for yourself what is ethical for you.

I have no problem with this I have also set my guidlines for me this is good for me. Are we different, absolutley. Are we both right, Absolutely.

JMO
Mick

[Jacob Goodwin]

Actually, guys....don't worry about this topic. I have clearly miscommunicated my point and don't have the time to rectify it.

I have a feeling that this thread is going to "go south" soon..

Admin- feel free to remove this thread.

Jake

[Trophy Bowhunts]

Jake

I think the thread is good to point out to everybody that whatever their decission to hunt with or without is up to them and should not be dictated by others...By saying this I mean that they understand their capabilities and limitations to respect all game hunted and to maintain an humane outcome for all concerned.

Using Rangefinders is just another option for one to consider.

Mick

[jason]

I have a feeling that this thread is going to "go south" soon..

Admin- feel free to remove this thread.


Hope this is not because not everyone agrees with you............ :wink:
Up till now it seems to be going great and i am sure if an idiot posted something south than admin will step in. It is nice to have a post with so many well thought out replies.
I hope you get the time to explain yourself the way you wanted jacob and we keep this topic going.
Next weekend at your club start a discussion on politics or religon as i think it would be easier to sort out :D

[Jacob Goodwin]

Jason

I promise this isn't about people not agreeing with me...believe me, I'm quite used to that!!! :D In fact, I often learn a great deal from people who hold differing views.

I'm more concerned that I'll be viewed as dictatorial when all I'm trying to do respectfully challenge people's views/thinking for the betterment of bowhunting. As evidenced by some "border line" personal shots, I'm not sure the website is the best place for this kind of discussion (I find that it usually works better face-to-face over a meal or drink).

Jake

[jindydiver]

As evidenced by some "border line" personal shots, I'm not sure the website is the best place for this kind of discussion (I find that it usually works better face-to-face over a meal or drink).

Jake

I agree that the internet isn’t the best place for this, nothing to do with “personal shots” but more to do with the fact that a public open internet forum is not the appropriate place to air “dirty linen”. Every time one of these threads appears on the internet I expect that the anti-hunters are reading the replies and rubbing their hands with glee at the sight of hunters tearing into each others “beliefs”.

We only have to look back as far as Hood’s post with this comment..

“As for those that are against range finders.....what about those people that love to hunt but have a little trouble judging distance and need that little extra help to be certain of their shots.”

…. to see how peoples discussion on such a nebulous concept as “ethics” can be mistaken for something altogether different. NO-ONE in this whole thread said they were “against range finders”. People in this thread who hold a different view to Jacob were saying that it isn’t appropriate to expect that one persons view should also be another persons view just because both people consider themselves “bow hunters”.

I object often to being told how much further than the law my ethical model should extend. When we discuss thing like this we should take the law as our ethical baseline and be content in our selves with whatever distance we can make in our own lives past that, otherwise we might as well take it as rote that the ethical model of the vegan should be our baseline and just cease hunting, because if we can feel more morally pure for each step past the law we go surely those guys have reached a pinnacle to aspire too.

I use a rangefinder when I hunt with my compound, but I wouldn’t consider for one minute believing that someone else was a lesser person if they didn’t. And I sure as $hit wouldn’t start a thread on the internet suggesting a public argument on ethics.

[Puk]

I have said it before....

What would we do without you Jindy,
you seem to have a knack of summing things up beautifully.

Now THAT is a good note on which to end such a discussion.

Puk

[ricochet]

I have said it before....

What would we do without you Jindy,
you seem to have a knack of summing things up beautifully.

Now THAT is a good note on which to end such a discussion.

Puk


Agree with you there Puk, Jindy has a way of putting things in perspective. :)

Rick :)

[LongReach]

I don't use them.

I practice alot at judging range and shooting, like stumpshooting but with a target bag.

I don't shoot over 30meters.........at game even though my grouping is ok.
my range judging skill is ok past 30 meters but out in the field with other factors I am more likely to make a misjudgment.
Under 30meters...........I don't miss........exept for rabbits sometimes(lil bstrds,lol).

up to 30 meters is my bread and butter for judging distance and accuracy so.............i past up Everthing out of this comfort zone.

For me the rush comes from getting as close as possible to game, which i feel minimises the chance of wounding animals more than most things IMOH. :wink:

[Puk]

and that makes a lot of sense too.
I am a bit the same, i reckon.

For me it is because i have almost never had a chance to practice over 30 metres,(my yard won't allow it) so i am not going to shoot an arrow into an unknown distance.

I reckon i'm going to try one, though(a rangefinder), especially as i hope to be going after deer one of these days, and even 30m in the field is hard to judge. I just hope i can get to within 30 metres of a deer. :twisted:

Puk

[Kimall]

I think you guys that say they dont shoot over 30 mtrs need to get a RF so you know you are less than 30 mtrs. :D :wink:
Cheers KIM

[Jacob Goodwin]

Alright....I tried to pull away from this with a measure of civility, but I now feel the need to address a couple of points.

Jindy - I submit my comments with all due respect and deference.

People in this thread who hold a different view to Jacob were saying that it isn’t appropriate to expect that one persons view should also be another persons view just because both people consider themselves “bow hunters”.

....and I NEVER suggested that my perspective should be everyone elses. I clearly stated "I realise that my position is a bit "Black and White". While I do believe in the position taken, I'm also conscious of not being dogmatic and am open to other views." Of course, I have an opinion and I want to share it...thats the whole point of this forum ( I hope!). My sharing that opinion is not about judging or belittling others, it's about presenting a viewpoint that will encourage them to reflect on their views and help me confirm/change my own.

I object often to being told how much further than the law my ethical model should extend. When we discuss thing like this we should take the law as our ethical baseline and be content in our selves with whatever distance we can make in our own lives past that, otherwise we might as well take it as rote that the ethical model of the vegan should be our baseline and just cease hunting, because if we can feel more morally pure for each step past the law we go surely those guys have reached a pinnacle to aspire too.

I understand this sentiment, but then how do you (or me..or anyone) ever change/ evolve/improve if we never allow ourselves to be truly challenged by opposing/different views of other hunters. Provided that challenge is done in a respectful way (which I hope have done). If we remain "content" do we, as a hunting community, ever grow and mature?


I use a rangefinder when I hunt with my compound, but I wouldn’t consider for one minute believing that someone else was a lesser person if they didn’t.

Nor would I...I may criticise or question the behaviour, but I would never, EVER, believe someone was a lesser person.

And I sure as $hit wouldn’t start a thread on the internet suggesting a public argument on ethics.

This is where I dramatically disagree with you. Notwithstanding my previous comments, this forum SHOULD be the place to have these debates. I'm never going to hide the fact that there are ethical considerations/issues in hunting. That essential to the experience of being a hunter. As for any non-hunter, anti-hunter or "neutral" member of the public perusing this site, I would rather have them witness us engaging in a thoughtful and considered discussion on serious issues than have hunters engaging in thoughtless and inconsiderate behaviour in the field.

Jake

[Puk]

at what point do YOU all surrender???????

i say good topic jacob. dont feel bad for discussing it.

Apologies Jacob if you feel that way.

rereading my posts i came across badly. it looks like i am against discussions on ethics. Not so. If we can nail down what we are talking about they are a good thing. In fact, when i am able to subscribe to a particular code of ethics (As i do as a minister, and as a member of organisations like Trophy Takers) i take them very seriously and abide by them to the letter. That is what they are for.

I suppose i was just lamenting the slippery nature of the concept (language is a tricky thing), and the fact that there is such a wide range in standards between different hunters. they all fall under the heading of "ethics". I would be happy if we had to subscribe to a particular code of ethics to be on this site. At least it would clear up some of the confusion and avoid idiots like me going off half-cocked on well meaning posts like this one Jacob started.

Apologies again. Sometimes i hit the send button a bit early and then regret it later. :?

Jacob, it was a good topic. It got me thinking. Hope it hasn't gone too far south on you.

Puk

[Jacob Goodwin]

Puk,

Thanks for your post...I appreciate your comments. Apology happily accepted.

I agree that ethics can be a slippery and yet sticky topic!!! However, I am very glad to receive the views of the TBGA community on this thread. It's given me a great deal of insight.

Jake

[jindydiver]

As for any non-hunter, anti-hunter or "neutral" member of the public perusing this site, I would rather have them witness us engaging in a thoughtful and considered discussion on serious issues than have hunters engaging in thoughtless and inconsiderate behaviour in the field.



Are you seriously saying that this forum (or even the internet as a whole) is so important to bow hunting in Australia that to not discuss issues like whether or not we should use rangefinders on it would to be tantamount to a decay in the behaviour of Australian bow hunters? Were there no ethical bow hunters before the advent of the internet? Before the internet was it common to come across bow hunters who were “engaging in thoughtless and inconsiderate behaviour in the field.”? What about the club scene?
Like I have already said, I would prefer that we didn’t have people posting what they think should be the ethical model we should aspire too especially when we know that there will be counter views put forward that by default will look like people arguing for a right to do whatever they want (in this case don’t use a rangefinder = increase the wounding rate of your target animals).
You can just see the posts on the vegans websites about discussions like this

And did you see all the guys who were debating that it should be their right to decide to increase the risk of wounding those poor animals? Bowhunters are just barbarians. :roll:


If we remain "content" do we, as a hunting community, ever grow and mature?


If you are right and we must constantly search for new and better ways to place ourselves on a higher ethical footing, we might as well just go for broke and join Animal Liberation now and save ourselves all the angst meanwhile.

Anyway
I hope I have made my argument clear enough by now, I don’t have the energy to continue

[Jacob Goodwin]

Jindy,

I have to say that your perspective and associated conclusions are certainly...creative :shock: :shock: :shock:

I too no longer have the energy to continue.

Jake

[LongReach]

I think you guys that say they dont shoot over 30 mtrs need to get a RF so you know you are less than 30 mtrs. :D :wink:
Cheers KIM

LOL Judging up to 30meters is not hard.

Everything I have shot on a recent trip, 3 weeks ago on goats, 5 nice ones for the week. All shot within 7-25meters. Every arrow found it's mark all one arrow kills one animal made it 25 meters the rest on the spot or within a couple of strides.

This was because I made the effort to get in a close as possible........One big billy that would have been my biggest saw me and bolted :cry: oh well, next time :D

Now who would use range finders to judge 7-25 meters? If you cannot judge that then................OMG use rangfinders please!!!!! :shock: lol

[wazza_X force]

longreach i like that last comment.... i fancy myself as a fairly descent shot... that is from a distance that i have paced out.... on the last trip i went on, i took three goats. im glad to say that i only missed one shot but that was due to downhill.... i wouldnt for the life of me be able to look at something and tell you how far away it is within 5 metres... if i visually count every metre im not that bad, but even still, human error left one of my shots low in the chest...(still not a bad shot but low none the less)... when a shot presents it self from 40 metres on a 4 billion point buck(sorry about the sarcasm) i sure as hell dont wanna be standing there visually counting those metres... I THINK I NEED A RANGE FINDER!!!!!!! i know a whole heap of people that could stand 53 metres away from something and tell me its a bit over 50 m away... these people dont need rangefinders, but i cant, so i do...

the only way true ethics comes into this is when people are taking shots that they know that they will probably shot too high or too low.(not implying anyone here would do that)

[Luke]

puk and jindy...

puk. i know you understand debate....

jindy. i think you should realise that this forum is SMALL. we SHOULD and CAN say what we want without too many people watching.....'cause they DONT!!!!!

who cares whom is watching anyway?????? and what can they do????

ive seen muslim forums defend suicide bombers, (and i can give you all an enlightened view if you want) ive seen gays defending same sex marrage....... so why cant we defend our sport, discuss our concerns, and show our humanity towards game animals.

what comes out of all this, is the realisation that we all love the environment, and do our best to protect it.

aaaannnndddd, we do our best to limit the suffering of our game, while giving them the best chance possible.

also, most of us take home some meat. compare that with what the national parks and wildlife service do to brumbies, or and animal for that matter!!!! (guy fawkes)

man is a hunter. period.

Sorry to disagree with you mate.

TBGA is THE largest and most frequented bowhunting website in Australia. Small maybe...compared to other sites I visit (4wd forums for eg, Archery Forum as another). BUT being the largest (and best ;)) of a very small few and in a very small population of total national bowhunters only serves to magnify every post on this forum. I am not over empowering or emphasising that what happens on here will make or break bowhunting, but, as is the magnifying glass on our actions and our posts - the roll-on effect is there and we don't want to be the ones to kick it off.

Having said that I see nothing wrong at all with debating the likes of the content of this thread or "defend our sport, discuss our concerns, and show our humanity towards game animals". As it stands, all of the Management Team have been watching this thread closely (some participating) and as you can see it has remained, obviously indicating we all think healthy and positive discussions are a good thing.

As for who cares who's watching and what can they do? Well in the 5 years of TBGA's existence we have been hacked and crashed twice. I have my suspicions as to the responsible parties and safe to say I don't think it was at all by chance or mere internet "vanadlism" rather the act of some very powerful, highly financial and well resourced anti hunting lobbies (not forgetting misdirected ;)). So, who cares? I and all the members of the Management Team along with (IMO) a VERY high number of the other members as well.

So, in essence, what is said here, indeed needs to be thought about as it does indeed have the potential to reflect negatively on the entire bowhunting community of Australia. Many eyes are watching and while the Admin and Mods of TBGA encourage healthy debate and well directed discussions we monitor all goings on very closely to ensure we are showing the best possible picture of our past time to anyone whom might drop by.

Luke

[Luke]

While I share your enthusiasm mate, I am not so sure on the "method" in your madness. ;)

I agree that hiding our head in the sand is not the answer, however, neither is breaking the law to crash other "interest" group's sites. 8)

We have a pretty good standard and IMO a healthy medium on here at present. Let's keep the good discussions and healthy debates going to show them we are responsible about our hunting and that we do care how it is perceived by Joe Public.

8)

[Puk]

:lol: :lol: :lol:

[Jacob Goodwin]

Luke..have you received my PM?

[ricochet]

i got a bit excited eh? :lol:


:lol: :lol: 8) :)

Rick

[E-man]

who cares whom is watching anyway?????? and what can they do????


Well said R-K.

Sometimes I wonder why people are so freakin concerned about what "Others may think", when those very same "others", could'nt give a flying @#$% about bowhunting or an outdoors lifestyle.

Get on with enjoying hunting, and stick together instead of argueing ike children, over ridiculous stuff like using or not using rangefinders.

[Luke]

Wake up to it E Man for crying out loud...

The "let's keep our heads in the sand" did real well for the rifle boys when the anti's lobbied after Port Arthur didn't it? :roll:

How do you think the outcome would be any different for us if we do likewise?

As for who is watching? If you haven't read this thread ( http://www.aussiebowhunter.com/viewtopic.php?t=5582&start=0) I suggest you do.

Additionally, you may have missed what I wrote earlier.


Sorry to disagree with you mate.

TBGA is THE largest and most frequented bowhunting website in Australia. Small maybe...compared to other sites I visit (4wd forums for eg, Archery Forum as another). BUT being the largest (and best ;)) of a very small few and in a very small population of total national bowhunters only serves to magnify every post on this forum. I am not over empowering or emphasising that what happens on here will make or break bowhunting, but, as is the magnifying glass on our actions and our posts - the roll-on effect is there and we don't want to be the ones to kick it off.

Having said that I see nothing wrong at all with debating the likes of the content of this thread or "defend our sport, discuss our concerns, and show our humanity towards game animals". As it stands, all of the Management Team have been watching this thread closely (some participating) and as you can see it has remained, obviously indicating we all think healthy and positive discussions are a good thing.

As for who cares who's watching and what can they do? Well in the 5 years of TBGA's existence we have been hacked and crashed twice. I have my suspicions as to the responsible parties and safe to say I don't think it was at all by chance or mere internet "vanadlism" rather the act of some very powerful, highly financial and well resourced anti hunting lobbies (not forgetting misdirected ;)). So, who cares? I and all the members of the Management Team along with (IMO) a VERY high number of the other members as well.

So, in essence, what is said here, indeed needs to be thought about as it does indeed have the potential to reflect negatively on the entire bowhunting community of Australia. Many eyes are watching and while the Admin and Mods of TBGA encourage healthy debate and well directed discussions we monitor all goings on very closely to ensure we are showing the best possible picture of our past time to anyone whom might drop by.

Luke

[Garden Gnome!]

Hear Hear Luke.

Gnome!

[LongReach]

Sorry but have to put my 2cents in here.


The cat shot in that artical was not a 'feral cat' it was a owned domestic cat. Shot at 5meters??? because it was tame?

Sorry i may offend some but..................that is not hunting, We as ABA members shoot 'feral' animals only. Dispatching a domestic cat from a neigboring property to me regardless of being on your land is 'killing' a animal that is not feral or wild and is easily approached. I shoot animals for the challenge not for the kill.

He shot this cat where not only 1 person but 2 saw him..........obviously not in area that i would say if safe for other persons around.


Sorry but i would not give him my support. The last thing we bowhunters need is ya-hoo's with bows acting stupidly with bows for others in the comunity to see.

I know i may cop some flak for this but..................he is the sort of 'person with a bow' who will ban our sport for all. Not someone who goes far enough into the bush to harvest true 'feral animals' well out of sight from the animal libbos.

Maybe that is why the ABA won't support him.............he did not abide by the ethics/code of conduct of the ABA.

[HOOD]

Ok then..................

Back on topic.

Last weekend when I was at the club just out of curiosity I walked around the club course with another member and he was shooting while I was just watching.
I had his range finder, he would estimate the distance to the target as would I then he'd shoot, then I'd use the range finder to see who was closest. And to my surprise some of the distances we guessed where way out by nearly 10-15 meters. A couple of the bad guesses I must admit were desieving especially when looking through a bush or around trees or over a rise.
There are some guys at the club that 99% of the time are with-in half a meter with their ranging by sight only and then there are others that couldn't tell if something was 5meters away or 12meters away (I kid you not)
I shocked myself thinking that I was pretty good with my ranges I'd say that after this little exercise I'd have a 80% success rate with my ranging by sight giving the distance with in half a meter. But in saying that I have just added a range finder to my shopping list. As I don't want to be in that situation of having to guess a distance to the animal and being decieved by bushes rocks or trees as to what the distance really is especially on the 30m plus distances to a prize stag/pig and blow it cause I THOUGHT I knew the distance.
Nikon 440 on the way :D

[excelpoint]

Nice Hood. I had a Busnell Yardage pro 450 and just got a Leupold RXII. Havnt had a chance to try it on game yet but I did try it out on some domestic goats in a gully. Worked great.

[Jacob Goodwin]

....I have just added a range finder to my shopping list. As I don't want to be in that situation of having to guess a distance to the animal and being decieved by bushes rocks or trees as to what the distance really is especially on the 30m plus distances to a prize stag/pig and blow it cause I THOUGHT I knew the distance

Hood,

I'm glad to hear you're investing in a rangefinder. More impressively, your reasoning behind the purchase indicates your self-awareness and willingness to admit that cleanly killing the game you're hunting is more important than your ego.

Well done.

Jake