As I read the article, it struck me as really contradictive to itself. Sundra tries to be impartial and unbiased but you can hear his underlying view of anti-long range hunting coming through. Then towards the end of the article, he tries to side with long range guys by sort of implying he looks for the long range shot when he can. Sounds like he's trying to please both sides.
I have a question for John: When did the question of hunting or not hunting become a matter of distance? Since "ethical" shooting distances have more than tripled since the 1700's, does that mean that our ancestors would have had the right to call modern hunters "shooters" since our 30-06's can kill game five times further than a musket?
I thought hunting was more of intent. If I am trying to kill something, it doesn't really matter how I do it or how far I do it, it is still "hunting" in my book. After all, I'm in the woods but I'm not looking for sheds. I'm not hiking for my health. I'm not painting a scenic picture. I'm there to find and kill game. Period. The other things are side benefits.
And if your definition of hunting comes from which method you use, sitting and glassing a distant hillside or pushing and stalking techniques, then what about the long range hunters previous scouting trips to find the hillside to "hunt"? Does the long range hunter not have to find areas holding game just like the bowhunter or muzzleloader hunter? I know I scout my sheep areas more than any bowhunter or stalker on the planet so does that mean I'm not hunting because I can take the long shot when required?
The anti long range hunters are kidding themselves and lack practical thinking. They have no gripes that hold any water. I think it just boils down to jealousy. And Sundra just joined the ranks of the antis in my book.
