Originally Posted by
KodiakHntr
I don't think you fully read my post. Or you didn't understand it, one or the other.
I don't have a 95 mm Swarovski because for me, I can't justify the cost increase for the performance upgrade over what I have now. Same reason that I don't have a $4500 Leica spotter. I know it is a little sharper than my 65mm Swarovski, because I have used one side by side with the mine. Same way I know that the Swarovski is noticeably better than a $700 Leupold or Bushnell, I have bought and compared them side by side, and the Leupold and Bushnell are sitting on a shelf in the garage someplace. I am sure as hell not telling anyone they need to buy top of the line anything, but I am also not telling them than a Swarovski is going to be comparable to a sub $1000 whatever, because it isn't. Not in every condition, but in some there may not be much difference.
I'm not sure if you are being deliberately obtuse or not, but I'm going to assume that you aren't.
Some games are played most effectively with the correct equipment. Some equipment is noticeably better when you spend the money on it.
If you take a dedicated 25 year old who has one goal in life of say killing a grand slam, and he spends 7 days a week in the gym for 6 months prior to sheep season and arms himself with a 30/30 and a pair of gray sweats and a blue tarp and is prepared to eat blueberries and black flies he finds on the ground, he will not be as effective as the same kid with top shelf gear, proper nutrition, and the knowledge of how to use it. That first kid might get lucky and it won't rain or snow, and he might bump a ram at 25 yards on the first couple hours of walking in his Air Jordans that stands around long enough for him to be fully confident that ram is legal. OR, he might get rained on, be miserable, and not be effective and see a ram at 700 yards that is bedded and watching him slowly shiver to death.
That second kid might be under a siltarp, warm and dry in his puffy pants, sitting behind good glass watching that ram and formulating a plan to kill him.
But in both cases, that kid is out hunting to the best of his ability, with the gear he has, and no one can fault a guy for getting out there.
However, appropriate gear for the task at hand makes a difference, and in a lot of stuff it is a trade off on how much you are going to use it. Some of us actually use gear more than 5 days a year, and have bought different levels of equipment trying to find what works for us and what doesn't. Guys that have tried it all and settled on what they consider to be "good enough" have a better idea of what will actually work in most conditions.
The rest of your post simply reinforces my position (whether you realize it or not).
Some games require the right equipment to be effective. Some games can be played with minimal equipment, and you can still be successful. Nobody is saying that you need $7k worth of glass to hunt deer in the brush. I DO know that glass makes a hunter more effective in ALL situations. I know that $100 binoculars are better than no binoculars. I know that $600 binoculars are better than $100 binoculars. In optical quality, and reliability. Glass is one of the few things where cost is directly corelated to quality.
But I'm not saying that every hunter is going to know how to use glass properly, or effectively. And based on each individual hunters expectations for their overall hunting experience, it may not be important, or needed.
Glass is a personal decision based on commitment levels to the game, and life priorities. If you hunt 5 days a year by driving around on a side by side for chickens and your biggest sense of fulfillment comes from the atmosphere after the days hunt in camp and the companionship of your buddies, then you probably won't ever justify the expense of a $700 Leupold spotter.
If you are dedicated to being as effective as you possibly can so that you are seeing the most animals with the least amount of effort expended on sub par or sub legal animals, then good glass becomes a good expenditure of money. If your life priorities dictates that $700 is absolute maximum that you can spend on a spotter, then buy that $700 Leupold and learn how to use it to the maximum benefit that you can get out of it. But don't try to throw shade on the guy that spend the money on Alpha glass AND learned how to use that to the best of its ability. That guy makes a conscious decision that the money was worthwhile to him, and he will make a sacrifice someplace else to make up the difference.
Nobody is saying that spending more money will make you a better hunter, but spending good money after bad isn't a wise choice no matter what the situation.
And again, be honest with yourself and your expectations and realistic in your level of use, and make decisions accordingly. If your personal priority is hunting animals that require glassing, then decide what your personal comfort level is for spending, and then work towards that goal. If you don't achieve that goal in the time frame you are hoping and a hunt comes up, borrow whatever you can, and go hunt. More equipment won't make a person a better hunter, but it might make your hunt more enjoyable on a personal comfort level. And that might be the difference between success and failure.
If a guy is willing to hunt with gear that isn't as capable as other stuff on the market that costs more, there is nothing saying that he won't be successful. BUT, he might have to work harder, or be less comfortable doing it to get it done. Or he might get lucky. That's all. It's all a trade off. Either you trade dollars for equipment that make things easier, or you trade personal comfort and keep your dollars for other things and possibly work harder to kill stuff.
Reply With Quote