Has long range hunting gone too far?

[Big Fin]

None of this was intended to use distance as some sort of guideline. The TV episode comment was about the notion of moving back for the sake of one's personal best, which came across as ego fulfillment and no consideration for the animal or the image of hunting.

The podcast discussion was to talk about a few things I try to make distinctions on.

1. Long range shooting v. long range hunting - I have friends who are lights out when at the range. They amaze me with their talent, equipment, and dedication to knowing every possible variable and mastering such. Yet, even though they are precise long range "shooters," they are very adamant that they are not long range "hunters." They cringe when they see some of the stuff that they know has great likelihood of creating a mess when the bullet arrives.

2. "Lethality index" (my preferred term) over a distance - Trying to discuss this in terms of yardage is of little value, given the huge spectrum of differences in talent, practice, knowledge, equipment, and conditions, whether it be a bow or rifle. All of the variables that affect a shot come to a focus in the discussion of lethality, far greater than when measured in terms of distance and allows distance to be one of the factors that makes up the lethality index.

I hope the discussion generates some thoughts. We all have our own confident feeling of "I've got this," which means we are within our lethality index. Where that falls in terms of distance will differ with every single one of us.

I think we can all agree that if we are not disciplined in how we portray our interactions with live animals, as differentiated from paper targets, society with impose their view of proper discipline to the situation and that is not a scenario that benefits any of us. That is what I hope comes from this discussion and the discussion Janis and I had on the podcast.

A few more love letters showed up overnight, so I must have hit a sensitive spot for some people. When those do show up in my inbox, with threats to call sponsors, ranting that I am worse than anti-hunters, I remember good advice my great grandmother gave me, "Those most offended are usually those most offensive."

 

[sneakem]

I think its more of a question about ethic's... It changes from generation to generation as some things become more acceptable over time. My grandfather would roll over in his grave if he saw what hunting has become today. He never kept heads or antlers, it was strictly a means and method for feeding his family. He would most likely have the same response to the way children are disciplined now a days, or I should say lack of...

Really its our own fault for allowing it to become what it is... Shooting 1000 yard, advancement in bows and muzzleloaders, equipment etc.... We all fuel the fire to some extent, maybe not as much as others.

Personally I choose to make the kill as humanely as possible. I know I can shoot 1000 yards, my kids know it, I just choose to show them the difference between what is capable and what is ethical. For me.... closer with a failed stalk is better than success with a 600+ yard shot. I shot my bow proficiently to a 100 yards last year, but I killed my elk at 6 feet. I'm not saying anybody is wrong for doing otherwise, I just choose to set a different example...

 

[1_pointer]

One persons chip shot is another persons long range. I won't go there. I do wonder what technological advancements in weapons effective range will do to season length and tag availability.

The portion I highlighted sums is up for me and one of the best things about hunting to me. Within the laws, I can make of a hunt what I want to for the most part. One of the best hunters on this forum has taken big mature critters with a traditional bow as well as at ranges exceeding 900yds. I don't fault him in either instance. IIRC I've read posts from him that being able to shoot long is just another tool in the toolbox. I can easily relate to that. The popularity of long range shooting/hunting is not going away and any attempt/proposal I've read to date to change the laws/rules against it is a slippery enough slope and fraught with enough holes that I could not support them. I'll be hunting pronghorns with my "longrange rig" in September. With this I've taken my longest shot on a critter at 437yds. If I feel the need/want I'll shoot that far again and if I don't I won't...

 

[James Riley]

I remember good advice my great grandmother gave me, "Those most offended are usually those most offensive."

Oh, I'm stealing that!

 

[quarterhorse]

Yes, long range shooting at animals has gone too far. Especially if people are backing up even further just for bragging rights. Unfortunately, for many, hunting has become a contest between hunters instead of between hunter and hunted. Ethical debates are important to have just to make us assess our own actions. What seems to generally be missing from a hunters personal assessment of themselves is whether or not they are taking advantage of the animals ability to evade danger at the ranges modern rifles can shoot. Having the tools, the skills, and it being legal doesn't make it right. We all need to determine for ourselves what is right.

 

[buckbull]

A good read on the subject from Boone & Crockett.

http://www.boone-crockett.org/about/LRS.asp?area=about&ID=6B455080&se=1&te=1

 

[HSi-ESi]

I do like the term "Lethality Index". It could encompass weapon type (rifle, bow, muzzle-loader, etc) and you can work many other factors into it. Probability of placing the projectile into the "kill-zone", Projectile lethality (velocity at impact, bullet / broadhead type, projectile expansion, etc). We could really expand that based on factual data.

Break the "Index" into a quick range - 0 (being not lethal) and 10 (being 100% lethal) - all of us would fall into different acceptable ratings of risk. This would help steer the Hunting Communities internal discussion and give us concrete variables to debate.

It won't help with the non-hunting perception (to a great degree) - but I could see it lessening bloated internet threads.

I haven't had a chance to listen to the podcast yet - maybe Janis and Randy worked all that in.

 

[Melman]

I've received my share of "love letters" since commenting in last week's TV episode of the disgust I had when I watched a TV show where a guy backed up to a longer distance so he would have his "personal best." Enough comments were received that I decided the podcast for last week would take on the topic in further detail.

My opinions are laid out in that podcast :

Stitcher - http://www.stitcher.com/podcast/hun...rg-unfiltered-hunting-conservation?refid=stpr

iTunes - https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/ep-001-randy-newberg-talks/id1012713381?i=345687547&mt=2

when you said that in the episode the first thing I though was how many people would be upset with that comment. I commend you on speaking your mind, especially in such a public setting, even at the risk of offending or angering your audience. I 100% agree with your statements and am glad you voiced your opinion. Also enjoyed the rest of the episode as well. keep up the good work/hard work!

 

[jhunt8]

I love shooting long range, for fun, at a target. But for me the "hunt" comes down to how close I can get to the animal. Around here we have a lot of wide open space. When I get within 40 yards of something my heart starts pumping and that's what it is all about for me. Shooting 1000 yards at something would pretty much be impossible where I live and I don't find it interesting at all, at that distance, its no longer hunting, its killing.

 

[mdhunter]

I would like to know how many "long range hunters" are practicing at those long range distances regularly. Just because the gun can shoot that far doesnt mean the hunter can.

BTW, where are all those filmed hunts when the shots dont go as planned? Must never happen I guess. Some of you guys are just bad ass

 

[Sytes]

In my humblest of opinions, when a hunter holds the intent to advance his/her skills at shooting at a distance s/he would consider "long range", then yes... long range hunting is a notch down from what I believe to be ethical hunting. Skilled Chris Kyle or not... if the range from an animal may be improved then improve the range... If one sees an animal on the other side of a drainage and opts to not get of his/her lazy ass and improve the range and would rather take that "long range" shot then I hold less respect for such a hunter.

 

[James Riley]

One more comment: It's thin ice when you get to second-guessing a person's subjective mental state. But I like thin ice: If you are all about marksmanship, and the skill set of long range shooting, that is fine with me, even in hunting. Good on you. Go for it.

But what I don't like is the "militaristic" mindset of a Hathcock/Kyle wannabe who brings a "combat sniper" mentality to an animal. F.U. Sign up and go find someone who shoots back. Hunting is not war and you ain't "all that" just because you can kill an elk a klick out. If you are wondering where this rant came from, I've seen/heard it.

Make hunt, not war.

 

[Gr8bawana]

For me a 400 yard shot is a long shot. I don't have a scope that you dial in the yardage just a plain old duplex reticle. We just recently boke down and bought a rangefinder for bowhunting but we use it for rifle hunting too since it's good out to 550 yards. My rifle is sighted dead on at 300 yards so any big game animal within 400 yards allows me to "hold on hair". If I have to hold over it's simply too far and we either get closer or don't take the shot. The majority of my animals have been taken between 200-300 yards.
IMHO there are just too many variables that can go wrong when shooting at an animal at 1000-1500 yards that could result in a wounded animal and those animals deserve our respect. They are not just targets to shoot at.
While shooting at animals half a mile or more away may be legal it's just not ethical to me but ethics are a very subjective thing.

 

[DeepCountry]

None of this was intended to use distance as some sort of guideline. The TV episode comment was about the notion of moving back for the sake of one's personal best, which came across as ego fulfillment and no consideration for the animal or the image of hunting.

The podcast discussion was to talk about a few things I try to make distinctions on.

1. Long range shooting v. long range hunting - I have friends who are lights out when at the range. They amaze me with their talent, equipment, and dedication to knowing every possible variable and mastering such. Yet, even though they are precise long range "shooters," they are very adamant that they are not long range "hunters." They cringe when they see some of the stuff that they know has great likelihood of creating a mess when the bullet arrives.

2. "Lethality index" (my preferred term) over a distance - Trying to discuss this in terms of yardage is of little value, given the huge spectrum of differences in talent, practice, knowledge, equipment, and conditions, whether it be a bow or rifle. All of the variables that affect a shot come to a focus in the discussion of lethality, far greater than when measured in terms of distance and allows distance to be one of the factors that makes up the lethality index.

I hope the discussion generates some thoughts. We all have our own confident feeling of "I've got this," which means we are within our lethality index. Where that falls in terms of distance will differ with every single one of us.

I think we can all agree that if we are not disciplined in how we portray our interactions with live animals, as differentiated from paper targets, society with impose their view of proper discipline to the situation and that is not a scenario that benefits any of us. That is what I hope comes from this discussion and the discussion Janis and I had on the podcast.

A few more love letters showed up overnight, so I must have hit a sensitive spot for some people. When those do show up in my inbox, with threats to call sponsors, ranting that I am worse than anti-hunters, I remember good advice my great grandmother gave me, "Those most offended are usually those most offensive."

The sting in any rebuke is the truth....

 

[James Riley]

The sting in any rebuke is the truth....

Ha! Another good one!

 

[shoots-straight]

This was written in regards to what's taken place in archery, but applies to long range shooting also. I have asked Gene if it was alright to replicate and he is all in.

You might not agree with everything that Gene writes here, but it will make you think. (I hope)

When Hunting Became Shooting
By Gene Wensel
Since I became an official senior citizen, I’ve been accused several times of teetering somewhere between senility and wisdom. Someone now has to push almost seventy candles into my annual cake.
I remember when camo was only available in military issue or red and black checkered shirts; when deer camps all smelled like Hoppe’s #9; when four wheel drive vehicles were all Jeeps; when the color blaze orange had not yet been invented. There were no ATVs…..no snowmobiles. Snowshoes and treestands were all made out of wood. Luggage and bows did not have wheels. Boys built slingshots. Kids caught night crawlers and sold them with the help of a sign in the front yard. We played “Cowboys and Injuns,” constructed “forts,” both underground and up in trees. We had BB guns, shot tweety birds stone dead without eating them, did daily chores unpaid and rode bikes without helmets. We carried “milk money” to school every day. Boys fought without knives, and in our hearts we knew that all girls had “cooties.”
When I was still a teenager, I visited the Orvis rod plant in Manchester, Vermont. From a rack in the front of their factory store, I lovingly fondled a featherweight split bamboo cane fly rod. It was only 5 feet long (much shorter than most fly rods) and was made for a 5 weight line…. perfect for many of Vermont’s small trout streams. It wore an all cork handle and a reel seat of simple split rings. If I remember right, it weighed a mere 1 7/8 oz. It was a supreme example of artistic elegance and pure class. I wanted it very much, but the price tag on it said exactly $100, way more than I had to my name. Today that same rod sells for well over $2000.
Prices have changed. Times have changed. People have changed. Society has changed. We are now several generations removed from the farm but still need to grow things. Half a century ago, the term “politically correct’ was nonexistent. “Boy scout” has taken on a whole new meaning, if you get my drift. Today’s youngsters spend all their free time in front of television sets, computers or at malls instead of out in the woods. Kids feel naked without their very own cell phone within reach. People previously known as “whippersnappers” now play violent video games or watch television when not texting or talking on their phones. Teens quit doing chores for under $50 an hour. They also carry charge cards. They don’t walk anywhere they can ride. No more roving lawn mower or snow shoveling jobs are solicited. Boys wear earrings and necklaces. Girls get boy’s names tattooed onto various body parts. Our “Commander in Chief” thinks he’s an emperor but looks and acts more like Steve Urkel than John Wayne or General George Patton. You get the picture…..
Our wind figuratively changed when hunting became an industry. In my opinion, it all started when television stole much of our free time. Interest in the “Big Three” hunting magazines soon waned. Television was King! So was Elvis. We had to endure live action bowling. Ed Sullivan offered us not only Elvis and the Beatles, but special talent acts like a guy spinning dinner plates on under-spined arrow shafts. We had Howdy
Doody and a talking horse named Mr. Ed. I even watched Lassie right up until the episode where the kid got his foot caught in a huge bear trap, then sent his loyal dog rushing back to the barn with instructions to bring back a C-clamp. A dog smart enough to fetch a C-clamp? Gimme a break.
Television went through understandable growing pains. Then about twenty years ago, actual hunting shows were born, finding an uncomfortable niche right alongside Star Wars, horror films, I Love Lucy re-runs, fifty new sit-coms and soft porn. Never again did we have to watch Ozzie Nelson walk around his own home wearing a suit and tie when he had no apparent job. Mr. Ed went to the glue factory. Howdy Doody came down with mildew or dry rot, I’m not sure which, but the painted freckles fell off his face.
Today we’re offered full season, weekly TV episodes about people who catch turtles for a living, “exterminators” who don’t kill much except insects, gator hunters who seemingly talk with marbles in their mouths to the point TV producers have to subtitle whatever they say as if they’re speaking in a foreign language. The hunt for Bigfoot continues. One of these days sasquatch hunters might consider leaving a bunch of trail cameras out for more than a few days at a time. On the TV menu are weekly shows about driving trucks on icy roads, logging, towing vehicles, raising little girls with double chins, the trials and tribulations of “Little People,” the fine art of junk picking and hoarding at it’s worst. Five year old girls are painted up for beauty contests. We’re even treated to one about the perils of being a meter maid. Drama choices are endless! Had enough? Apparently not yet.
With hunting shows, celebrities seemingly came out of nowhere, all jockeying not for entertainment or educational value, but for pole positions of name recognition among their peers, potential sponsors and new followers. Our attention and interest were tested with lots of whispering, poorly hidden commercials, bad acting by people trying to be funny, and shameless, even embarrassing, high five whooping and hollering rants. It didn’t take long to realize far too many celebrity hosts and guest hunters have a very hard time differentiating love from lust.
Television hunting shows made hunting look easy, programming youngsters to expect success without ever really earning it and getting quickly frustrated when “it” didn’t happen soon enough. Commercialized gadgets were invented and promoted to eliminate much of the process. Hunters became “athletes.” Hunting became a “team sport.” People right out of puberty decided to go “Pro,” with deadly intentions but foggy direction, skipping any degree of apprenticeship or woodsmanship skills along the way. I continue to see six year old kids posing their best “bad ass” faces for hero photos. Kids young enough to wear pajamas with the feet attached are regularly seen posing behind trophy bucks. Youngsters who still get a lollipop whenever they sleep dry are shooting big game. Deer are now “whacked,” “popped,” or “smoked” from long ranges. Arrows became “meat missiles,” while bullets became “pills.” Just this morning I saw a photo of a bowhunter posing with his dead critter. On the horizontal rib cage of his prize sat an open can of beer. The words “awesome” and “That’s what I’m talkin’ about!” have risen to far more than standard verbiage.

 

[shoots-straight]

Part 2

With the “help” of television celebrities, who often seem to think of themselves as somehow very special, hunting slowly but surely lost it’s romance. Our “music” increased in tempo but lost it’s rhythm. Many hunters don’t even get into the woods anymore. There is no story attached to 90% of the deer killed on television these days.
“Just put me in a good spot” is all they expect. Traditional deer camps were sold…. or only used for poker, booze, smoking, or to test drive new girlfriends.
Hunting became shooting. “Bows” that look more like James Bond tools came to be known as “weapons.” Instead of trying to get as close as possible to big game, the challenge evolved to how far away one could “whack” a deer with either bows or guns….it didn’t really matter. Just last night I watched a celebrity bowhunter “whack” his “biggest buck ever” (home grown to boot) from 56 yards. That buck deserved better.
Primitive black powder firearms grew into nothing more than single shot rifles without the brass, using pellets rather than powder, big scopes, thumbhole stocks, bipods, etc. I even saw a muzzleloader dude carrying two of them in case he needed a second shot! I made a mental note to myself: “There could be a market out there for double barreled muzzleloaders....maybe even repeaters.”
Pre and extended primitive “weapons” big game seasons, those fought hard for and established by none other than our bowhunting pioneers, were quickly infiltrated by hundreds of thousands of opportunists simply looking for an easier way to fill their entitled “extra” tags.
“Hunting” shows often display sniper talent. Now, before someone takes a bead on me, I want to admit I’ve always admired and respected long range shooting skills of snipers. I’ve bought and read stuff by and about guys like Carlos Hathcock, Chris Kyle, Simo Hayha, etc. But, when hunting is confused with long range shooting, one can’t help but realize sniper talent often emerges as little more than superb target shooting at live targets. Again, no disrespect to long range sniper skills, but in my opinion, anything over 400 yards is a whole lot more about shooting than hunting. The only real hunting part is spotting the animal from afar and stalking or crawling into position to set up for the shot. I might also mention here that I am an NRA “Lifer,” and by no means an anti-gun person whatsoever.
Back in the “Golden Age” of deer hunting, many if not most deer were killed with open sighted .30-30s. I once commented to my dad that a seemingly higher percentage of big bucks were taken in “the good old days,” even though total deer numbers were not nearly as high in that era. Dad pointed out the biggest reason was possibly because most hunters used open sights. Few carried, nor could afford, binoculars or scopes. Since shooting doe deer was not cool in those days, spikes and forkhorns with small antlers were not easily identified as bucks from long range, and so were not shot at. Huh….
In long range shooting, with either gun or bow, the absolutely necessary and noble relationship between predator and prey is remarkably reduced or even eliminated. From greater distances, a game animal’s ability to even be aware of a hunter by way of their normal senses is reduced to all but worthless levels. Because of that fact, there is no longer any real connection with the animal, and therefore not much of a hunt. Elevated “shooting houses” set up on the edges of food plots are correctly named.
Many, if not most, modern hunters are opportunists. Fred Bear himself put that philosophy into motion with his “two season hunter” concept, which in truth was little more than a shrewd marketing plan, at least at the time. Most opportunists are essentially the definition of the word. They choose expediency over basic principles. A big problem surfaces when opportunists sacrifice principles. Opportunists not only despise failure, but most cannot handle it. They dislike eating tag soup, preferring to kill their game “the
easiest legal way.” Going home with no blood on their hands apparently leaves a bad taste in their mouths.
Most opportunists don’t belong to much of anything, because many are simply users who don’t really care. There is a big difference in having an interest in something and being passionate enough about anything to really care.
Hunters need to encourage and embrace the challenge instead of the “kill at all costs” attitude. Risking an unfilled tag will require re-education of the general public to the sweetness of maybe accomplishing things a harder way, which is often also a simpler way. It becomes a values thing.
Slipping the crossbow mentality and justification into archery seasons under the disguise of it being a “more efficient weapon” (there’s that weapon word again) is little more than an opportunist’s excuse and a money driven marketing ploy. I had a hard time not laughing when an able-bodied neighbor of my brother lobbed off two of his fingers the very first time he took a shot at a nice buck with his new crossbow.
True disabilities aside, there is simply no reason to allow crossbows outside of gun seasons. When states dump the truly physically impaired requisite, we end up with 90% being mere opportunists. Once again, our biggest problem comes along when these opportunists sacrifice principles. Our deep outdoor passion should never be thought of as any sort of “entitlement,” which unfortunately is the way the majority of users interpret things today. In reality, opportunists might have efficiency, but they display very little class.
Using bows and arrows at ultra close range puts the hunt in hunting. Was a big buck shot from a vehicle hunted or simply shot? Was he an accomplishment to be proud of or closer to nothing but a victim? In truth, many “sport hunters” have little or no desire (or time) to honestly engage an animal up close and personal, instead following the simplistic philosophy that getting a job done the quickest, easiest way is the best way. This last sentence in itself is a sad reminder that the hunting process has been watered down to pathetic levels. We need to get back into the woods! Shortening the learning curve that comes as a part of any apprenticeship is not the answer. Hunting needs to once again become a “values” issue, accepting challenges but not pushing past them. Extending one’s personal range limits quickly takes our passion from the level of a challenge to that of a stunt, often justified solely by the fact they saw someone on TV pull it off once.
Respect for wildlife continues to diminish. Deer are not targets. We are not at war with wildlife. Product names need not imply death, destruction, fury, evil, or hatred.
Who could have predicted egotistical hunting celebrities would someday show up in tour buses and pickup trucks that look more like they belong in a parade? Who would have guessed that hunting celebrities would make statements like, “I wouldn’t think of going hunting without wearing Brand X camo.” Who “woulda thunk” broadheads would sell for $40 each and the hunting industry would get to where breast implants would become a deductible business expense?
Hunting, our beloved passion, needs to be redefined and fixed...reborn if you will.
For those not aware of by now, PBS has a brand new official “Preservation of Bowhunting Committee” to implicate and connect more real bowhunters with serious yet passionate people who already belong to PBS. I’m excited about this. Members of the
Professional Bowhunters Society are among a very unique group, self-limiting their standards in equipment, techniques and values by their own free will. Their hearts, as well as their values, are in the right place. Self imposed rules of conduct can and should be shared, shown, and encouraged by wise, strong-willed people with good values. As things play out now, right or wrong is too often cast aside during the process of interpretation.
It has always fascinated me how flyfishermen can smoothly pull off crusading their passion and beliefs with mass acceptance. They have their very own organizations, seasons, stretches of water, their own magazines, TV shows, mail order catalogs, outfitters, etc. without seemingly offending other fishermen using bait, spinning rods or high tech gear. They express and even flaunt class right before the eyes of gill crushers with minimal opposition. How can they do that? One of the reasons is that fishing can be a non-consumptive catch and release pastime, while death is a part of hunting that cannot be avoided nor denied quite as easily.
I can’t help but ask myself why high-tech hunters, once they “master” their hunting tools, don’t naturally and instinctively realize such and revert to increasing personal challenge levels one way or another rather than pushing onward.
PBS will regain our identity only by embracing the journey…. selling the process rather than the product. There is nothing wrong with intensity, but we must express love of the hunt rather than lust for the hunt! Admitting and agreeing that there is in fact a problem that clear thinking could help is a step in the right direction, even if addressed one hunter at a time.
If you haven’t read or contributed to the multiple posted threads concerning the future of PBS as a voice to be heard, by all means join the conversation with opinions and ideas on our www.probowsociety.net website.
PBS is in the process of putting together a short film about our philosophies. Your help will be appreciated in any capacity. What the Montana Bowhunters Association has put together will give you an idea of a similar vision for and about PBS. I invite you to view the MBA’s video at www.mtba.org
Those in our circle have been talking about the dilemmas within modern hunting practices and the truth that there is a need to do something about them, but until now, the answers have been unclear. Translating these tasks to actions will be our biggest new challenge. We need to educate the masses to realize that at least right now, more of them are guilty than innocent.
In truth, this opinion article you are reading would never be seen published in any mainstream outdoor media because it would piss off multiple advertisers enough for them to jump ship. When principles face profits, the outcome is seldom positive. Outdoor media needs to first recognize the fact that currently they are part of the problem more than the solution.
PBS is a very unique group, one you should be proud of. It is not for everyone, but each of us reading these words know people who should belong to this organization but don’t. Our future is looking bright once again, mostly because it’s time to put the hunt back in hunting. Pass the word!

 

[James Riley]

Good read. I'm a'feared it may be too late, the tipping point may have passed. A few dinosaurs might larn a kid or two, but those kids will be outcasts. But I can be a cynic. Maybe things will turn around with the motivation of the folks he refers to.

 

[The Hedgehog]

shoots-straight. You pasted that article, or another version of it years ago.

http://onyourownadventures.com/hunt...When-Hunting-became-shooting&highlight=Wensel

I like Gene, but think he's a bit one dimensional. He's the whitetail deer whisperer, no doubt. To each their own - hunting is different for everybody.

I think between all the Mr. Ed and Howdy Doody good 'ol days drama, there's a ton of hypocrisy in Gene's article. Give Gene a precision rifle and a MT general elk tag on public land. Then have him make an effort for just a young 6 pointer, and be sure to come back and tell all about how there wasn't much hunting to do before finding that animals to shoot at from 400 yards. Different strokes for different folks.

Who “woulda thunk” broadheads would sell for $40 each

https://www.amazon.com/Woodsman-Glu...469488069&sr=8-6&keywords=woodsman+broadheads

 

[beginnerhunter]

LR shooting and success rates will probably lead, naturally, to fewer tags. Some of the issues Gene Wensel mentions could be addressed by decreasing automobile/ATV access and having mobility impaired hunts for those who need them.

Or we could ban scopes hahhaha.