1016 yards Idaho Black Bear hunting...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Damn, thats what i was afraid of
~z
Click to expand...
This stuff isn't hard to figure out Z...heck I don't even hunt!:neener:

Not that the data would ever be forthcoming: but it would be interesting to pick 10 rifle hunters at random, calculate the avg distance of every shot on large game taken, then bounce that against their percentage of misses and woundings/lost game.

Then compare that data against these guys. Unless these guys miss/wound more (I've no doubt their avg range would be a lot further!), then it isn't any more unethical than the average rifle hunter.
 
Well, I lied again because I am here again. I wanted to chime in one last time because I am way past my bed time (I work nights at a factory). I know you are all down on me and that is fine. After all, I don't know any of you. In fact, it might be nice if I did because I could explain where I'm coming from. However, we are reduced to this informal discussion about something that I (maybe more of me) feel passionately about. So I am here to say one final thing.

I am appologize for passing judgement on this incredible shot. I simply do not feel that is was a good decision...and honestly I could care less about the guy's background (if that is even known). If that is what hunting is to you, so be it. However, that is not what hunting is to me. Just keep in mind that at one point in time, that sort of thing was not applauded. I guess it is now. I guess that I am old-fashioned. I just want to non-aggressively throw something out there.

A good hunter gets as close as he can without being detected (that holds true with ANY predator). A good hunter does not wound his game and/or takes great risk in wounding/losing his game. These are my opinions.

I hunt alone most of the time and never when a guide. So, when I saw, that I could not envision a good outcome. At distance, one could not even determine size. If it were the first bear you'd seen, on the first day and it was tiny, would that have been a worthwhile hunt? Maybe for some of you it would have been. I guess I would have wanted a little more. And I realize I'm talking hypotheticals here, but at least TRY and understand where I'm coming from. If there weren't other people with him, would you have even known that the bear was hit and where it went? If you didn't hit the bear well, where would it have gone and how would you go about getting it? These are the things a hunter asks himself.

I grew up in Alaska. I spend and have spent many a day in the field. I know what I am talking about and I know where I am coming from. I'm NOT here to "bash" on someone's ability to shoot. However, there is a lot more that comes into play. For instance, can I get to the animal if I down him "there?" Where will he go if wounded? Will I be able to tell if I made a good shot? Etc, etc.

Don't agree with, do agree with. All I'm asking is, if you truly hunt, is this something you would attempt (and I don't care if you are an ex-sniper, ex-spotter, a bushman, or otherwise)? I appologize for seeming as if I want to limit the sport...God knows that is the last thing I want to do. Just take what I'm trying to say with a "grain of salt," and think about it.
 
why is it so bad for a trained man to take this shot on a bear and when sniper takes a shot like this and hit a man it's amazing..... i would think ethics should come more into play when taking a shoot at a human then a bear....
 
Welcome back deacon. I’m not down on you; I’m interested in this discussion. Your points are however, frequently based on assumptions and tainted with heavy handed judgments. These are prejudiced by your life experiences and no one can fault you for that. Experience created opinion. I think if we can keep speculation out of this we will see that the shot was an ethical shot conducted by an extremely capable and experienced long range shooter: Shawn Carlock (go ahead and Google it).

There were some very challenging variables to overcome, however the tools, technology, and the shooters were up to the task of solving the equations.

I don’t condone the idea of any old Joe trying this as a parlor trick but there are those who are up to the task and have invested the time, energy, and resources to achieve the level of precision to make such a shot. Should they be chastised for being “that good”?

~z
 
While I would not do it, with conditions right, I could hit a stationary bear at 1k yds. I think a lot of negativity toward extended range shots on game stem from the fact most have never shot that far. Really, how many have a range available beyond 100-300 yds? And if you do, have you used it? By shooting at 500 yds and beyond you develop better wind reading skills, proper rifle hold, proper trigger control, etc. Shooting a 1" 3 shot group at 100 yds is easy with any decent gun for virtually anybody.

Those guys had the skill, practice, and right gear to make that shot. Luck had nothing to do with it.

Dirty Harry said it best, "A mans got to know his limitations."
 
I hunt alone most of the time and never when a guide. So, when I saw, that I could not envision a good outcome. At distance, one could not even determine size. If it were the first bear you'd seen, on the first day and it was tiny, would that have been a worthwhile hunt? Maybe for some of you it would have been. I guess I would have wanted a little more. And I realize I'm talking hypotheticals here, but at least TRY and understand where I'm coming from. If there weren't other people with him, would you have even known that the bear was hit and where it went? If you didn't hit the bear well, where would it have gone and how would you go about getting it? These are the things a hunter asks himself.
Click to expand...

Man I'm not down on you... I just don't like it when I see stuff like this. Everything you said above is based on your skills and your experiences. Such as not being able to judge size... what if he was with a guide that does this for a living and has no problem doing so at great distance? You say if there weren't other people with him... but the fact is there were..

I'd guess from what you can see in the video... they did their homework... they thought though all the possibilities of recover ... etc...

It simply seems that some people don't like the length of the shot... which I understand. I'm not able to make a 1k shot... so I'd never take it... but none the less it doesn't make it any less interesting to see someone do it that can nor should they be looked down on because they can.

As others have said... this should be a discussion about the great shot.. and teaching people to know their limitations... and making good decisions on which shots to take and which shots not to take.

There is a lesson to be learned here... and that is ... know the limitations of oneself, one equipment, and ones willingness to recover afterward... it should not be that a long range shot in inherently bad.
 
Like the others said I also am not "down on you". I don't think someone that stalks to 15 yards and shoots an animal with a bow is any more or any less skilled than the man that shot the bear at 1k yards. I do think that both are impressive feats, and both when done successfully show a very high degree of skill by the hunters involved. They just happened to use different skills to get the same result. I don't disagree with your opinion of hunting, I just think that what you find an enjoyable hunt might not be as enjoyable for another person. :)

Also one other thing to consider; if he is an ex-sniper can you think of any better way to use the skills he worked so long and hard to obtain? I don't imagine that there a lot of 1000 yard ranges outside of those used in training military snipers.
 
There is no doubt a niche in this type of hunting. Giving the proper equipment and skill I see no reason it can't be as ethical as any other style.
The wounding and loss of game has been brought up but I think that 2 or 3 guys with eyes on that hill will be able to see what the animal does and probably better than a guy at half that distance or less by himself.
I am impressed by the marriage of technology and skill, my biggest concern is that an appropriate cartridge is used when doing the long range hunting because there are some guns that can hit at that range when punching paper that won't break the big bones of animals such as elk.
 
why is it so bad for a trained man to take this shot on a bear and when sniper takes a shot like this and hit a man it's amazing..... i would think ethics should come more into play when taking a shoot at a human then a bear....
Click to expand...
I find this hilarious. Unlike an enemy combatant, bears don't shoot at you. We all hunt for sport. This is not an ethical shot.
 
HB said:
I find this hilarious. Unlike an enemy combatant, bears don't shoot at you. We all hunt for sport. This is not an ethical shot.
Click to expand...
What is it that you think made this an unethical shot? Was it because the bear couldn't shoot back? If so that would make all hunting unethical since i have not heard of any game animals that can shoot back. Do you think the shooter can't make the shot consistently? If so what leads you to this assumption? Or is it just because you wouldn't hunt that way? If so what gives you the right to tell someone else how to hunt?
 
IMO, it's an unethical shot because the chances of it going wrong and creating a wounded animal running off screaming in pain are astronomical. It "appears" to have been a clean, one-shot kill. We have no way of knowing that it in fact was. That video could have been edited a lot, who knows?

I personally don't think trying for animal kills at insane distances is right, or sporting. Target shooting at insane distances is a whole 'nuther thing. If you're an incredible shooter with great skills, prove it by shooting milk jugs full of water at 1000 yards. Taking the risk of horribly wounding an animal at 1000 yards to prove your manhood just ain't right.

Just MY opinions.

Watching the video again, it looks like it's a commercial for something, meant to promote those websites flashing on the screen or to sell some kind of products.
 
Last edited:
One can see that one man probably could not make this shot under these conditions. The shooter has to have have his (spotter) with his computer to do most of the work to tell the shooter what to do all the while with his scope he is trying to keep the animal somewhat on target as it goes through the trees. Then try to make AN ETHICAL SHOT on an animal that he only knows as a bear, not size or sex . Does he know if that bear 125lb's or 350lbs at those distances with the scope most any snip would use, NO. And without out his side kick he would be just another piss pore shooter. I doesn't matter if this is done at 125 yards by some kid just shooting brown its down or some adult shooting at 1000 yards. The scope the shooter would be useing would show detail for a target but not enough on animal to make an ethical shot on his own so again with out his spotter he is just another 12 year old shooting brown with out any real regard for what is is shooting at. Just an older child. Let him shot paire dogs at 200yards with a 17cal by him self . That takes more skill on his part. Or coyotes for a hobby .
 
Beg to differ, one person could make this shot solo. (but I dont advise it) It does not take long to range the animal, range to the opportunistic place to take the shot, read the wind meter, dial in for the shot and wait for the opportunity to present itself and take the shot. HOWEVER, it is always much much much better to have another along who is experienced in the craft to assist so all the shooter has to do is concentrate on the shot and take updated info from the spotter. The spotter is also quite valuable at the shot and after the shot. However, at that distance the shooter can typically spot their own hits.
~z
 
I agree with hardluk (if I'm reading what he said correctly...)! This shows a collective effort of several (actually, I think it was 3 guys) sportsmen to accomplish quite a feat of marksmanship. Without the ballistics work and wind doping of the spotter, the shot would have been unethical. Without the marksmanship of the shooter, the shot would have been impossible. Without the assistance of the spotter (or the third man, not sure) the bear could not have been accurately sized, identified, and even located after the shot.

As hardluk points out, there's many MANY 12 year olds and "older children" out there with a "if it's brown, it's down" mentality who do far worse at 125 yards than these men did at 1/5 of a mile.

Hats off to them for an awesome collective effort they should all be quite proud of!

-Sam

[Whoops...might have read his post wrong. Kind of hard to tell.]
 
Yup! Thought that looked strange...but it's what the caculator said! :D G.I. = G.O. as they say!

-Sam
 
The video shows 1 shot and then confirmation of a kill. I have been out in the mountains and seen/heard many consecutive shots that required a reload. These weren't 1000yd shots, but hunters doping wind and elevation without a clue. I'm betting there are more lost animals from this kind of spray and pray than with the commited and skilled hunter on the video.
 
I find this hilarious. Unlike an enemy combatant, bears don't shoot at you. We all hunt for sport. This is not an ethical shot.
Click to expand...

Everyone has their own set of values and ethics. This guy was certain he could make the shot and he did. When I bowhunted I used to argue with gun hunters over my "unethical" style of hunting.
 
Garbage In = Garbage Out.

Or, the calculator is only as good as the operator's ability to hit the right buttons and understand what he thinks he might have meant to try to type and or read.

:D

-Sam
 
Thanks, I have heard the phrase, but it didn't click I tell you what.

I mentioned that I was appalled, but I didn't really state why on this shot. Shooting over a ravine, wind is rarely steady.. it is gusty. How much wind drift can occur on a 5-10 mph wind gust? Is his scope good enough to see a .5 inch stick in bullet path? At 1k yards, that round is slowing down some, and that .5 inch twig might be enough to deflect into a gut shot or shoulder instead of a clean kill. The round still is supersonic out to 2k meters supposedly, but there is a good deal of energy lost. A 170 lb bear would bite it but how would it do against a large black bear? He can shoot, I'll give him that but there are some variables that I don't think can be accounted for in a shot that long. On paper, it is a great shot, on a live being I would like to be a bit closer.
 
Last edited:
What is it that you think made this an unethical shot? Was it because the bear couldn't shoot back? If so that would make all hunting unethical since i have not heard of any game animals that can shoot back. Do you think the shooter can't make the shot consistently? If so what leads you to this assumption? Or is it just because you wouldn't hunt that way? If so what gives you the right to tell someone else how to hunt?
Click to expand...

IMO, it's an unethical shot because the chances of it going wrong and creating a wounded animal running off screaming in pain are astronomical.
Click to expand...
Couldn't have said it better myself. There is so much that could go wrong. And in my opinion, the "ethics" of war are irrelevant. Obviously I don't go toe to toe with a bear, but come on, comparing hunting and warfare is ridiculous.
We could go into a million topics from here... And personally, I find it perfectly fine to judge people sometimes. I choose to drink 12 beers in an hour and drive. Don't judge me for what I do!
It wasn't even the style of hunting. Taking a shot when the animal has no clue from a blind at 300 yards is no more "moral" than this shot. It however, was more ethical, because it is an easy shot for an accomplished shooter.

Moral relativism, objective truth, whatever... Everybody is different and has a different system of values, but this shot was too far.
 
Does anyone hear think the guy didnt scout/stalk the bear? The way i read it, most people who think this shot is unethical assume he was just laying on the hillside and happened to see a bear through his spotting scope. I would put money on it that this guy(whos promoting a very expensive brand of rifle scope) is paid to take impressive shots and had a guide with him. The guide knows the area and more than likely has seen that bear around the area alot. So they are able to know what sex this bear is and around what size.Id also wager he had a sow tag and a boar tag and it didnt matter what sex it was to him.

This guy is an awesome shooter and is very skilled. Some say they wont take the shot because they dont think its ethical or because they arent as skilled, but you cant pass your ethics on to someone else. Some may not call this hunting, but IMO, this is more challenging than leasing property, placing a feeder and a tree stand 50yds away and shooting deer as they feed from it. Shi*, there was one hunter here who shot a deer from his boat as the deer was swimming across the river. He pulled up right next to it and shot it, but other hunters saw it and reported it to F&G.
 
Hardluk1, please put down the bottle or use spell check I have no idea what you are talking about and trying to disseminate info from your last post my eyes bleed. Curious to hear your comments though.

~z
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top