is long-range sniping at deer as respectable as stalking inside 200 yards.

Imagine you're a kid of 12 years old and just passionate to learn about hunting, and you have

the choice of two mentors. You've got a grandfather who will teach you all the finer points of

shooting and set you up with a state-of-the-art rifle and teach you to read wind and how to glass

and find game at a distance and make unerring kills from far away. And you become a very

effective hunter that way. On the other hand, you have a grandfather that can teach you the way of the woods, that can take you into

the forests and help you connect with your roots there as a meat eater, an inherent predator.

Somewhere you can fill the whole cycle as a young man from the roots up and learn about the way the deer move and the way they

bed, their life cycles, how they fall in love and have fawns. Now, when I asked my two sons

this question yesterday in the truck, we were driving and Henry took about two seconds to answer.

He said, I want both. And William said the same thing. He says,

I have two grandfathers. One of each, please. So our topic today is, is it good or bad to be a long

range, dear sniper? Today I have my good friend Ron Spomer here with me to discuss this and see what he thinks.

And we're going to try and give a fair and balanced look at each side of this story.

Because traditionally, hunters were hunters and the tools they used to kill with were just the means to an end at the end.

Today, the modern guy tends to shoot far and hunt less.

Is one method wrong?

Is one method more right?

What do you think, Ron?

That's really a nice challenging conjecture.

How do you determine those things? I think they're all part of the whole but we tend

to split them just as you've done now i think that's part of our culture right now and the way

...