John B,

You are right about one thing, we can strongly agree to disagree.

Whether it be " tree" squirrels or " ground" squirrels is even more irrelevant than I have just realized. Shooting at an elk or a deer at these ranges is questionable enough, then reducing the target size down to a " type" of squirrel is even more questionable. Correct me if I am wrong here, but the ground squirrels that I know of are just about the size of the palm of my hand. Crosshairs would just about cover up an animal of this size at 400+ yards, thus leaving the shot in question. It sounds like I am knit-picking, but I will give the benifit of the doubt to the guy and assume that he has a pretty high powered scope to bring the target in better. But I still do not agree wth the shot.

I have seen long range shooting before, and I do know what is possible. This is my point. Being above timberline or not, there is no difference. The possibility of missing a shot is greatly increased at longer ranges for anyone, while the " pursuit" ability for lack of better words, or skill of the stalk (getting close to the game, undetected) decreases. We have had opportunities at game here in Missouri at these ranges. Missouri River bottoms can sometimes stretch for a mile or two of flat (2-3 feet difference in elevation) ground. But we (my hunting companions and I) do no take these shots. Usually, the only ones around here who attempt these shots at game are usually doing it out the window or across the hood of their truck.

Now, that being said, in no way do I intend to associate you with poaching or anything close to that.

I have some (all be it limited) experince shooting out 300+ yards with great results. But the point I am trying to make is that where is the skill of the stalk, the rush to get close undetected? If what you are saying is true, that everyone can obtain these skills, what will this do to hunting as a sport?? All woodsmanship and skills as a hunter, meaning the ability to get close to game undetected, is gone. There would be no worry about an animal seeing, winding, hearing, ect., a hunter at these ranges.

Another point I want to make, even though you did not enter it into the subject, but someone else did, somewhere else, is the " military training" or the likes of it, arguemental point. I have heard some say this, " I can hit targets at these ranges due to my training in the military." or " I was trained to hit targets out to 1000 yards in the Marines." Now, I have nothing against anyone in the military, and thank the good Lord they do what they do. But this arguement doesn' t hold water here. I am proud, and expect those who know this from military training, to take shots at enemy targets at these ranges. That is what the training was intended for. Wounding or gut-shooting, or ranging from the first misplaced shot, is alot different when the chance of being fired upon is there. It is a different set of circumstances than hunting a game animal.

I do not doubt that you can hit targets at these ranges you speak of, but I do question the lack of getting closer, and the increased chance of a misplaced shot at these ranges.