The MeatEater

Where should you start when you walk onto a completely raw property? In this episode, we break down the exact process for identifying the highest-impact locations for chasing whitetails. Joined by Adam Keith, Aaron Warbritton, Bill Winke, and Jeff Sturgis, we compare how each guest approaches a brand-new property, from reading topography and understanding bedding behavior to evaluating access, food, water, and hunting pressure. While each has a unique philosophy, you'll discover the common principles they all rely on when deciding where to begin.

Presented by Moultrie

Connect with Jake Hofer and MeatEater

MeatEater on Instagram, Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, and Youtube Clips

MeatEater Podcast Network on YouTube

Shop MeatEater Merch

In less than two weeks the Department of the Interior (DOI) made three significant changes to the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The first alters the definition of harm. A week later, the second and third changes were announced, which removes blanket protections from threatened species and determines how critical habitat is designated.

On July 10, the DOI announced that they finalized a rule rescinding the regulatory definition of “harm” under the ESA by removing “”habitat modification or degradation” from the definition.

The ESA functions by prohibiting the “take” of endangered species. According to the act, “the term `take' means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct.” Essentially, “take” is an act that kills or injures wildlife.

Now, the definition of "harm" (before this recension) elaborated that "such act may include significant habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding or sheltering.”

The department claims this definition has caused nothing but financial and regulatory trouble and that this change will “reduce unnecessary permitting, cut compliance costs, and eliminate confusion for landowners, small businesses, energy producers, farmers, ranchers, and local governments.”

While it might be apparent to some that habitat degradation is inextricably connected to a species' well-being, the DOI assures its constituents that “the ESA’s core protections remain firmly in place. Actions that directly injure or kill listed wildlife will continue to be prohibited.”

This seems difficult to enforce without acknowledging habitat—even the USGS attributes habitat loss as the primary cause of heightened rates of species going extinct in recent years. Additionally, the ESA doesn’t just protect the species on the list. Habitat protections for protected species also positively impact game species that hunters and anglers can pursue.

Take sage grouse as an example. In August of '08, Wyoming Governor Freudenthal signed a landmark executive order that began the “Core Population Area Strategy.” The goal of this strategy was to prevent an endangered species listing, and it was achieved by limiting industrial development and disturbances in crucial lek areas. By determining these areas where sage grouse are most at risk for population declines, wildlife officials were able to take a targeted approach to mitigating surface disturbances in these locations while still maintaining energy development in grouse areas. The foundation of this effort was built around the understanding that habitat modification and degradation were considered acts of harm within the ESA.

Focusing on mitigating habitat risks created a massively successful conservation movement in the western US. By September of 2015, sage grouse were announced as not warranted for ESA listing. Wyoming now has a week-long season where hunters can bag two sage grouse to meet the daily limit with a free special permit.

If the definition of harm didn’t include habitat impacts at this time, there’s no guarantee sage grouse would have such a resounding success story.

At its core, the blanket rule gives species listed as threatened the same treatment as endangered. That is, the “take” of the species is prohibited.

The removal of this rule is an attempt to take a more tailored approach to each individual species listed as threatened. This will be done by creating customized 4(d) protective regulations for each threatened species. (If 4(d) ruling sounds familiar, it’s the same framework that is allowing the proposal for grizzly bears to be managed by states.)

While a species-specific approach might sound appealing, the issue lies with implementation. Massive federal cuts have left gaps that are yet to be filled. Creating these individual rulings for the over 400 threatened species in the US will take time, effort, and funding.

And it’s worth noting, when the blanket rule is in effect, 4(d) rulings can still be made for individual species (re: grizzly bears). The difference is now these threatened species are starting without protections and needing them to be individually written rather than starting with the same protections as endangered and altering how they’re managed.

This ruling creates the least amount of change in the function of the ESA, despite what other outlets are reporting.

Section 4(b)(2) of the ESA currently states that the Secretary shall designate critical habitat ”on the basis of the best scientific data available and after taking into consideration the economic impact, the impact on national security, and any other relevant impact, of specifying any particular area as critical habitat.”

The section continues, “The Secretary may exclude any area from critical habitat if he determines that the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying such area as part of the critical habitat, unless he determines, based on the best scientific and commercial data available, that the failure to designate such area as critical habitat will result in the extinction of the species concerned.”

The DOI press release claims to revise the designation process of critical habitat to follow the law and consider “the economic, national security, and other relevant impacts"—which, as you can see above, is already written in the existing language.

Additionally, the revision also “allows an area to be excluded from a ‘critical habitat’ designation if that exclusion will not cause the extinction of the species." Again, this is already written into the section in question.

Essentially, the changes made to this section are minor word swaps in the regulatory text. According to the Federal Register, “The intended effect of this rule is to provide greater transparency and certainty for the public and stakeholders regarding the 4(b)(2) exclusion process.”

The updated definition of “harm” is scheduled to take effect on September 14, while the blanket rule rescission and critical habitat changes should be updated on August 20.

The minor language changes to section 4(b)(2) aren’t likely to impact your hunting and fishing plans anytime soon, but consider how the animals you pursue may have benefited from habitat protections included within the larger definition of “take.” The consequential benefits from endangered to game species are undeniable.

Image stabilizing binoculars have been around for a long time. In January of 2009, the Department of Homeland Security published what amounts to a taxpayer-funded review of some of the most popular stabilizing binos. Some, like the Fujinon Techno-Stabi, the Nikon StabiliEyes, and the Canon L IS WP, are still around today.

And why not? The concept is attractive, and its usefulness is intuitive. We’ve all struggled to see something in the field as we shake and wobble holding an unsupported set of binoculars. Image stabilizing binos correct that problem by automatically adjusting for the movement of the user, making the image appear steady and allowing for more precise glassing.

Hunters haven’t historically adopted the technology, largely because older iterations were bulkier and heavier than a standard set of binos. But that’s changed in the past few years. Sig Sauer introduced their ZULU6 line of image stabilizers in 2020, which were built with hunters in mind. They joined the Dutch company Kite Optics and, just last year, Swarovski got into the game when they released an image-stabilizing spotting scope. Even some of the Nikon and Canon models have cut weight and bulk and would be useful in the field.

Point is, if you’re interested in image stabilizing binoculars, you have options. But should you take the leap? What are the pros and cons of image stabilization, and is the technology worth the extra cheddar?

Before we get to those questions, it’s helpful to have a basic understanding of how image stabilizers work.

Fundamentally, image stabilizing binoculars move an internal component that shifts the image slightly to account for the external movement of the user. Some use a small lens group that shifts and tilts to adjust the image, while others move an entire prism inside the binos. The latter is used in most binos geared towards hunting because it’s more stable and offers better image quality.

Sig’s ZULU6 affixes a prism to a two-axis gimbal, which is controlled by an accelerometer. The accelerometer adjusts the prism to match your movement according to the on-board software. Others use a similar system, but the devil is in the details. Construction quality and precision, gimbal design, and software functionality all impact how well the system works. The only way of knowing for sure is to test the binos for yourself.

Most image stabilizing binos advertise plus or minus three degrees of stabilization. Some offer more, but those aren’t geared toward hunters, who value both looking at a single object and panning back and forth for game. This is one important feature to consider when you’re looking at various models. Some image stabilizing technology causes the image to float or hover while panning (and sometimes while staying still). It doesn’t exactly make the image more difficult to see, but it’s a little unnerving—and potentially stomach churning. If the binos you’re looking at include a feature designed to mitigate this oddity, that’s a good sign.

I like to eat my vegetables first, so let’s tackle the reasons you might not want to buy a pair of image-stabilizing binoculars. To help me with this, I called up Anthony Cuomo, a senior product manager for Sig Sauer. Anthony is obviously a fan of Sig’s line of ZULU6 stabilizing optics, but he was honest about what you’re giving up when you use this technology.

“The biggest thing that you're going to give up in image stabilization today is field of view,” he told me.

Field of view (FOV) describes how much of a given area you can see at one time. Your eyes have a field of view bordered by your peripheral vision. Binos have the same limitations.

Anthony said you can expect non-stabilizing wide-angle 10x42 binos to offer a 6-degree field of view while a standard 10x42 set clocks in around 5.5 degrees. Image stabilized 10x42’s reduce that FOV to just 4 degrees.

To take a more specific example: Sig’s image stabilized ZULU6 HDX 12x42 offers a FOV of 3.8 degrees, which allows you to see a width of 199 feet at 1000 yards. By contrast, the non-image stabilizing ZULU8 HDX 12x50 binos offer a field of view of 5.5 degrees, which expands the FOV to 288 feet at 1000 yards—a 37% increase.

That increased FOV might help catch that buck slipping into the treeline or the ear twitch of a frozen coyote. Seeing more landscape is always better, and Anthony told me they’re working to increase the FOV on future ZULU6 models.

The other drawback of image stabilizing binos is that they struggle to maintain edge-to-edge clarity. All the internal movement makes it extremely difficult to maintain a flat, clear image all the way to the edge of the field of vision. The focal point in the center can be as clear as any other bino, depending on glass quality. But even with primo glass, edge clarity is a tough nut to crack—and that’s true of virtually any image stabilizing binos on the market.

Cost is the final con. Image stabilizers are more expensive than comparable binos without that feature. It’s tough to find a pair for less than $1,000, and many push the $1,500 or $2,000 mark. If that’s more than you can spend—and for many hunters, it is—image stabilizing binos might not be the best financial decision.

Of course, along with those cons comes a pretty big pro.

If you haven’t used ZULU6’s or another image stabilizer, it’s hard to describe what happens when you turn the unit on. I’ve seen this technology panned as “gimmicky,” but it’s not. It really does smooth out a shaky, hard-to-see image and allow you to pick out details in whatever you’re looking at.

I was at a gun range the first time I used a set of image stabilizers. It was a cloudy, raining day, and I was having trouble seeing bullet holes in a paper target 100 yards away. As soon as I turned on the image stabilizer, I was able to see the hits clearly, despite the fact that I was holding the binos freehand.

And that’s far from the only useful application. I used a set of ZULU6’s on a mule deer hunt last fall, and I appreciated how quickly they allowed me to glass an area. I didn’t have to set up a tripod, find a good seated position, or wait for my breathing to slow (which was a factor, given my East Texas lungs). I could feel confident I’d checked a hillside carefully and move on to the next spot up the mountain.

Anthony argued that in a real-world hunting situation, having a stable image is just as important as glass quality.

“Stabilization gives you that clarity and focus that you lose in traditional binos,” he said. “And that ultimately makes us better in the field, whether it's judging animals, finding animals, or analyzing terrain.”

You might use the clearest binos in the universe constructed by aliens from Thor’s telescope. But if you’re shaking, you still won’t see that animal bedded under the sagebrush. You can increase the stability of any binos using a tripod, but that adds weight to your pack and time to your setup. What’s more, there are some situations where using a tripod is difficult or impossible.

“As a passenger in a vehicle, I can glass going sixty miles an hour down a road. On a boat, whether you're out at sea or if you're on a hunt in Alaska and glassing to shore looking for blacktail or bear. If you're on horseback, you don't have to get off of your horse to glass. You can glass directly from your saddle,” Anthony pointed out.

Older hunters with shaky hands or medical conditions will also benefit from this technology.

No one can deny the benefits of a stable image, but the best way to achieve that stability depends on how you hunt. If much of your spot-and-stalk hunting is done from a single position, it might be better to buy the highest quality glass you can afford and stabilize it with a tripod. On the other hand, if you find yourself moving around a lot, scanning hillsides and spending only a few minutes at various glassing spots, image stabilizers are an incredible luxury. They let you pick apart an area without even sitting down, which is impossible with a traditional set of binoculars.

You don’t need image stabilizing binos to be a successful hunter, but like a lot of other gear we use, they make our pursuits a heck of a lot more convenient. The only real way to know whether image stabilizers are right for you is to try them for yourself. I recommend visiting your local sporting goods store and taking a pair for a spin. Or, if you’d like to do some in-field testing, purchase a pair, keep the receipt, and return them in like-new condition within whatever window the dealer stipulates.

You might decide to pass, but if I was a betting man, I’d wager you won’t want to take them back.

Four forgotten rifle cartridges. Three American families. One international nightmare.

When American hunters are arrested in Turks and Caicos after airport security discovers forgotten ammunition in their luggage, they expect a fine and a missed flight home. Instead, they find themselves facing up to 12 years in prison, trapped inside a foreign legal system that seems determined to make an example of them.

But this isn't just a story about a harsh law.

In this three-part miniseries from Blood Trails, you'll hear firsthand accounts from the Americans who lived it—their time in overcrowded jails, the psychological toll of waiting to learn their fate, and the terrifying realization that the people they expected to protect them couldn't—or wouldn't.

As their story captures international attention, they launch a desperate campaign to win back their freedom, igniting a political battle that reaches Congress, the State Department, and the highest levels of government. Meanwhile, the spotlight brings consequences of its own, as threats mount and the fight to get home becomes more dangerous than anyone imagined.

Featuring exclusive interviews, never-before-told details, and reporting from all sides of this story, Paradise Prison asks how could one of the world's most popular vacation destinations became the setting for a nightmare—and what happens when an honest mistake collides with politics, diplomacy, and a justice system unlike anything Americans expect.

Click here to listen on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, or YouTube.

Episode release schedule:

Got a tip about this case or know about another you think we should cover? Send us an email at [email protected].

Spencer Neuharth hosts MeatEater Trivia with Cory Calkins, Nate Mason, Maggie Smith, Sarah Delaney, Cade McParland, Alyssa Smith, and Jake Wallace.

Connect with MeatEater on Instagram, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and YouTube Clips

Subscribe to MeatEater Podcast Network on YouTube

Shop Trivia Merch

Clay Newcomb and Render Crew members Dr. Misty Newcomb, Brent Reaves, Bear Newcomb, and Josh "Landbridge" Spielmaker dig into latest episode of the Civil War Summer on Ulysses S. Grant. They unpack the surprising life of a man who went from repeated failure to becoming the Union's most important general, discussing Grant's struggles with alcohol, remarkable horsemanship, complicated family ties to slavery, and the leadership qualities that ultimately changed the course of American history.

Along the way, the conversation wanders—as it always does—from Clay's disastrous attempt to turn a young hound loose on a deer, to the launch of the new Bear Grease bib overalls, branding python boots, and why "graceful form in the saddle" may be the highest compliment a man could receive.

Thank you to our sponsor, Tecovas.

If you have comments on the show, send us a note to [email protected]

Connect with Clay and MeatEater

Clay on Instagram

MeatEater on Instagram, Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, and Youtube Clips

MeatEater Podcast Network on YouTube

Shop Bear Grease Merch

This week on Future Wild I'm joined by Fitz Cahall, the renowned outdoor adventurer and host of The Dirtbag Diaries, to explore his personal journey from outdoor adventure to advocacy, and the awesome potential there is for the hunting/fishing community and the outdoor adventure community to further unite in defense of our public lands.

Thanks to our sponsor, Conservation First Bank.

Follow Future Wild on Apple, Spotify, YouTube, iHeart, Pandora, Amazon.

Connect with Mark Kenyon and MeatEater

MeatEater Podcast Network on YouTube

MeatEater on Instagram, Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, and Youtube Clips

Earlier this week, the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission made two votes that will seriously impact fur trapping in the state. The actions are at the center of ongoing, contentious debates between consumptive users and animal rights activists.

On July 16, the commission, which is politically appointed by the governor, instituted a daily bag limit on furbearer trapping—and the final action strongly diverged from what Colorado Parks & Wildlife (CPW) staffers recommended.

In the Centennial State, furbearers had previously had no daily bag limit, and CPW biologists said that one wasn’t needed, considering that trapping has limited impacts on the population fluctuations of the species.

“The current seasons and level of harvest are not causing any biological or population management concerns,” said CPW deputy assistant director Matt Eckhert in a presentation to the commission. “Setting [a low bag limit] is biologically unnecessary, affects the recreational opportunity of a larger number of fur harvesters, and increases the conflict with existing statutory directives.”

At the commission’s request, CPW put forward two management routes with bag limits. The agency’s preferred option was a 15-animal-per-species daily limit, though in its memo, the agency acknowledged that this liberal limit was one that the commissioners had already seemed “generally critical of.” The second alternative put forward by the agency involved two daily limits: eight for furbearer species “identified in statute as causing damage to crops, livestock, and personal property” and four for others.

In the end, however, the commission voted 6-5 to approve another bag limit, one that was put forward by Rebecca Niemiec, co-director of the Animal Human Policy Center at Colorado State University and a new member of the commission. She introduced a two-animal-per-day, per-species furbearer limit and argued, as reported in The Colorado Sun, that doing so would “maintain social acceptance, to make sure people feel better about hunting and trapping furbearers and about our policy decisions.”

One public comment offered a very reasonable, contrasting perspective: "I pay taxpayer money on gas and equipment to trap. Not every day will I catch anything, but I am out money. Now I am limited to two animals a day, and we might finally get a snow, and I catch five animals, and now I have to turn three loose."

Sportsmen’s rights groups have also panned the decision. “The Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission just showed us exactly where some members’ priorities lie — and it isn't science,” wrote Coloradans for Responsible Wildlife Management in an Instagram post. “There was no biological crisis to justify this. There was only a vibe…. This is a Commission substituting feelings for biology, opinion for expertise.”

The vote is sure to cause angst and negatively impact trappers, as well as outdoorsmen and women worried about the institution of politically—rather than scientifically—justified bag limits in Colorado and elsewhere in the country going forward.

The next day, on July 17, the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission voted on another contentious proposal concerning furbearers: a petition to outlaw commercial fur sales from the state’s 17 managed furbearer species. The petition was put forward by the Center for Biological Diversity and was also supported by environmental groups and animal rights activities, who argued that it led to the “commercialization” of wildlife.

In the spring, CPW recommended that the petition be denied, again citing that the trapping of furbearers and the subsequent market for pelts is not significantly impacting their populations.

But the Commission instead voted 6-4 to initiate a formal rulemaking process. During this process, CPW accepted stakeholder input and public comment, with 57% of respondents opposing the fur sale ban, which included limited exceptions such as for fly fishing flies.

Ultimately, the Commission voted 6-5 to terminate the rulemaking process for the petition, which will kill it for the time being. The close vote and lengthy debate on the subject, however, likely does not signal a definitive end to the debate in Colorado and elsewhere in the U.S., where animal rights groups are going after long-held hunting and trapping practices and traditions.

I’ve always found it odd that some fish are more popular than others. Like a high school hierarchy, some are in the cool crowd while others get overlooked. These species might lack the size or flare of other popular gamefish, but that doesn’t mean they don’t make for a good time on the water.

In fact, these fish can fight and taste just as good as those in the cool club. So, if you’re not snobby about the type of fish you catch, here are a few overlooked species to target.

Sauger have historically been considered second to walleye, and for the life of me, I can’t understand why. Not only do they look the same, to the point where many walleye anglers don’t even realize they’re catching them, but sauger are also more opportunistic and aggressive feeders. This means you’re more likely to catch them when conditions aren’t the best.

Sauger tend to live in deeper water than walleye and are generally found more frequently in rivers rather than lakes. This makes sauger more adaptable to murkier water and low-oxygen environments, so they’ll usually continue feeding during changing weather and water conditions when the walleye bite shuts down.

Sauger are also more sensitive to light than walleye, so anglers can continue to catch them late into the evening after the more crepuscular walleye have turned off.

You can catch sauger on the same baits and lures you use for walleye, using the same techniques. Sauger are generally found in deeper water, so use heavier jigs tipped with worms, minnows, or leeches.

While pike and muskie draw most of the attention in the Esox world, no one should ever overlook their smaller cousin, the chain pickerel. Though pickerel don’t grow as large as the more popular Esox species (maxing out at around 30 inches), these small but ferocious predators are the most widespread member of the pike family, ranging from Canada to Florida in the East and all the way West to the Mississippi drainage. The fish are highly adaptable and can live in almost any body of water from massive lakes and large rivers to tiny beaver ponds, swamps, and backwaters.

You can catch chain pickerel on almost any bait, lure, or fly that moves. Pickerel are reactive and fierce ambush predators—they’ll eat anything and everything from minnows to mice. They hunt in a variety of depths from 20 feet to 8 inches deep, concealing themselves in aquatic vegetation, sunken timber, or boulders. Pickerel will hold almost completely still until they ambush their prey. I’ve had pickerel strike so hard they nearly yanked the rod out of my hand. Unlike pike and muskie, which sometimes give up the ghost after a few hard runs, pickerel fight to the bitter end.

You can catch chain pickerel on live bait like minnows and shiners or lures like jerkbaits and swimbaits. If you’re a fly angler, try large streamers. My absolute favorite way to chase lake snakes is with topwater gear. Pickerel strike fast and aggressively and will completely hurl themselves out of the water. This makes lures like poppers, twitch and prop baits, as well as floating mouse and frog flies, especially effective.

Catfish are easily one of the most popular gamefish in the country. For the most part, channel cats, flatheads, and blue catfish are all isolated to the South and Midwest. Yet, there is hope for northern and western anglers, thanks to the bullhead.

Whether they’re black, brown, or yellow, every bullhead subspecies out there is worth their weight in gold. Though smaller than more popular catfish species, all three main bullhead species can be found across the eastern US, as far west as Montana and Wyoming, and as far south as northern Mexico. Bullhead can also be caught on a variety of different waters like small creeks, along backwaters, in slow eddies of rivers, and in weed beds and muddy flats in lakes and ponds.

Bullheads are mostly nocturnal fish, so it’s best to fish for them at night. Like other catfish species, bullhead are scent feeders that will be attracted to a variety of baits, from worms and cut baits, to grocery store baits like hot dogs, chicken livers, and even cheese.

Bullheads usually weigh between one and four pounds, but what they lack in size they make up for in numbers. Find the right spot and you might catch a limit in just a few hours. Like other catfish, bullhead make delicious table fare for everything from chowders to fritters to po-boys.

When anglers talk about going crappie fishing, they’re generally thinking of filling a livewell with the football-shaped, pancake-thin white crappie that dominate the panfish world. These fish are incredibly popular throughout the South. However, the black crappie is often overlooked. Not only do they have a wider range than white crappie, but also have larger, thicker fillets that are just as delicious.

Black crappie don’t tend to get the same amount of fanfare because they’re slightly more difficult to catch. Unlike white crappie, which tend to travel in smaller, more loosely knit schools that will suspend in open water, black crappie tend to live back in the sticks. They tend to travel in larger, more dense schools than the white crappie. They can be extremely structure-oriented and will push back into the thickest weed beds, brush piles, or grasses. But, for those in the know, all the snags can be worth it if you’re looking for a harder fight and a bigger slab of meat.

Black crappie have a more diverse diet than white crappie. This means you can catch them on a wider variety of baits and lures. Unlike white crappie that feed almost exclusively on minnows, black crappie feed on baitfish, small crustaceans, and insects, so you can catch them on nearly any small lure, bait, or fly.

Some of the best black crappie baits and techniques include live baits like worms and minnows suspended under a bobber, rapidly retrieving small jerkbaits and inline spinners, as well as bouncing small, buggy jigs along the bottom.

If I had to choose the most underrated freshwater gamefish, it would have to be the freshwater drum. Also known as sheepshead, gasper, and croaker, freshwater drum are considered trash fish by many misguided anglers. They think drum are boring, muddy-tasting bottom-feeders, on par with other unpopular species like suckers and carp. This couldn’t be further from the truth. Freshwater drum are one of the biggest, hardest-fighting, and best-tasting fish on the planet.

Boasting the greatest latitudinal range of any North American freshwater fish, freshwater drum are found in lakes, rivers, and reservoirs from Hudson Bay in northern Canada all the way to Guatemala. Ranging in size from one to 30 pounds, drum have a diverse diet that consists of insect nymphs, mollusks, and baitfish.

This means you can target them with a variety of different baits and lures. Though they generally inhabit deeper water between 20 and 60 feet, making them difficult to target. When you do manage to hook into a freshwater drum, you’ll know it. They are some of the fiercest fish in freshwater.

Freshwater drum inhabit deeper water, so you’ll have to troll and jig with weighted lures and baits close to the bottom. During late spring and early summer when drum are spawning, you can catch them in much shallower water, ranging from eight to 15 feet. These shallower fish are usually incredibly aggressive and are more than willing to chase down and crush fast-moving lures like crankbaits, spoons, and spinners and can even be caught on topwater lures and flies.

It’s not the fish’s fault that it gets overlooked. Anglers tend to stick to their go-to techniques, species, and waterholes. Not to mention, we’ll believe, and even perpetuate, these “trash fish” reputations. But one man’s trash is another man’s treasure, after all. Give them a shot, and you might just find they were cool all along.

I’m not sure who started the rule of buying a scope that costs twice as much as your rifle, but they probably worked in marketing. While it might provide a general rule of thumb for some Western hunters, this hyperbole hardly applies to the rest of us and our budgets.

The truth is most hunters are buying and using way more scope than they’ll ever need. By “way more scope," I mean a lot of hunters buy scopes that are probably overkill for the majority of their hunting needs. I’m not saying good glass isn’t worth the cheese, but you don’t need the magnification of a long-range hunting scope if the majority of your hunts occur in a ladder stand.

On the other hand, there are times when it’s worth saving for a good scope, and I’ve never regretted having premium glass. If you’re in the market for a new scope, here’s a few points to consider.

Location plays a much bigger role in determining the best rifle scope for your hunting situation. I’m sure most hunters east of the Mississippi are tired of hearing this, but we could get away with using a fixed power scope, especially for thick, timbered areas. I can see the argument for a little more magnification for hunters who shoot to 300 yards, but there are plenty of capable and affordable second focal plane (SFP) scopes for that. In fact, a standard 3-9x40 would cover most hunting scenarios you’ll encounter.

For Western hunters who regularly shoot beyond 300 yards, a first focal plane (FFP) scope probably makes sense when you need to make quick holdovers or buck the wind. In these situations, it’s imperative that your scope track as precisely as it should, and that often means forking out more money.

Speaking of money, FFP scopes typically run more than SFP scopes due to assembly costs, not because they’re inherently better. If you need a hunting scope for shots within 300 yards, there are plenty of scopes within the $500 range that are more than capable.

When it comes to glass, scopes under $1000 can offer good clarity and sharpness, but they probably won’t wow you. Whenever I would show someone a scope during my days as a firearms salesman, I would basically plead with folks to take them outside. Most customers would look through a scope in the shop, nod, and tell me to wrap it up. This is how most folks evaluate a scope’s glass. To be fair, a lot of those hunters just needed anything that would show them whatever deer appeared in their food plot first. That’s not a knock either. If that’s you, you have your pick of the litter for affordable hunting scopes.

In this case, edge-to-edge clarity, image sharpness, and optimal light transmission aren’t nearly as important as they are for the hunter who’s trying to decide if the mule deer across the canyon in a highly coveted unit is a bonafide shooter. While your scope might seem to check all those boxes during the daytime, they become glaringly apparent at dusk and dawn.

If you want to see this difference, go to your local sporting goods store and see if they’ll let you compare two scopes. If you’re considering an upgrade, compare a $500 scope and a $1500 scope. Just be sure to compare them at last light; that way you get a good idea of how your scope will perform when it’s prime shooting time. Cheaper scopes will exhibit flares, blurring around the edges, and darker image quality. Scopes above $1000 shouldn’t display those traits, barring the exceptions. Of course, there’s the matter of first and second focal plane reticles to consider as well.

A brief understanding of FFP and SFP reticles might illuminate which scope better fits your hunting and shooting needs. At the front of your scope, the larger end is known as the objective lens. The end closest to your eye is called the ocular lens. FFP reticles are located near the objective lens (the first focal plane), while SFP reticles are located in the rear, behind the magnification lens (second focal plane). An easy way to remember this is that FFP reticles are located near the front of the scope, and “first” and “front” both start with an “F.”

Between those two planes lies a scope’s erector system. This is the middle portion of the scope where your turret controls sit. Based on the reticle location, this is why an FFP reticle will appear to increase while an SFP reticle remains the same.

Somewhere in the wake of the long-distance shooting craze, SFP scopes developed a reputation for being less desirable. If you’re reading this and you just discovered that your scope is an SFP, don’t worry, it’s just fine. The fact is, they have advantages and disadvantages relative to particular hunting situations.

The advantage of an FFP scope is that the reticle size appears to change as you adjust the magnification. As you turn the magnification up, the reticle enlarges and the subtensions become increasingly visible. Unlike SFP scopes, the subtensions remain the same whether you’re shooting at 2x or 15x. You don’t have to worry about doing a few math problems just because you turned the magnification up. For these reasons, a lot of precision or long-range shooters prefer FFP scopes.

SFP reticles, on the other hand, stay the same size regardless of the magnification setting. This makes them ideal for hunting, especially in low-light scenarios. Where FFP reticles can overshadow your target at dawn/dusk on greater magnification ranges, the SFP remains the same. This is why most affordable hunting scopes are SFP.

A lot of rifle hunters tend to crank their magnification all the way up when it’s time to take a shot. Everyone has likely been guilty of this at some point. While it might give you a closer image of your target, you probably don’t need that much magnification most of the time. Nor will you always have the time to get a shot off if you’re fumbling with the magnification wheel.

Unless you’re regularly shooting beyond 300 yards, you’re probably carrying more scope (and weight) than you need. Most of my scopes have variable-power settings, but I typically set them around 5 or 6x, and they don’t really move. I’d argue that most hunters could probably get away with a similar setup. Either 5 or 6x magnification will give you plenty of zoom from zero to 100 yards, so if you need to make a quick shot, you won’t have to worry about adjusting your scope.

That’s not the case if you leave your scope cranked way up to 15x and a deer bounds out in front of you. By the time you make an adjustment, you’ll be lucky to see a white flag bounding out of sight.

For hunters in Western states or long-range shooters, you can likely justify the cost of an FFP over an SFP. Still, that doesn’t mean you necessarily need a scope that can identify landmarks on the moon or that requires a second mortgage. An SFP scope with holdover marks can serve you well. Just know that those subtensions will vary at different magnification ranges, whereas the subtensions on an FFP stay the same.

The next time you need to buy a scope, be realistic about your hunting situations. As someone who used to work in a gun store, workers can sometimes pressure you into buying more scope “just in case” you need it. Instead, consider that many of the hunting rifles from the mid- to late part of last century relied on fixed-power scopes, even for hunters in sheep country.

If you have to upgrade your scope, consider investing in premium glass, rather than paying for magnification ranges you may never see. You’ll probably find that what you actually need is just a little more practice, not more zoom.