Long Range Ethics

[Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow]

But have you any idea how high a poacher can levitate when he hears "GOOD MORNING!" from about two feet off his left ear?

Would pay GOOD money to see that.

 

[sscoyote]

Well put X-Rap!! "U gets the "Best Reply So Far" award. I'll let u know if anybody beats u--it'd be hard tho.

 

[coloradokevin]

X-rap,

I'm not so much debating the "style points" (for lack of a better term) that a hunter should receive as a result of their chosen method, but rather the issues of wounded/lost game that might naturally occur with extreme distance shooting.

I fully recognize that a hunter who shoots at LONG distance may not always do so, but I am also trying to recognize that a hunter who shoots at that distance also may not always score a well-placed shot to the vitals on the game animal.

A "bad" hit is one thing on paper, or even in a military conflict where wounds are still "hits", but it is a bad practice on live game animals, at least in my opinion. My opinion has always been that I want to kill the game animal as cleanly and humanely as possible. I also won't take a shot where I doubt my ability to do so. I believe that most users of this forum, yourself included, probably also feel that way!

Obviously bad shots sometimes happen, and even good shots don't always have the intended outcome that we might expect. But, when the distance of the shots increases to the outer edge of the shooting envelope, it seems like the opportunity for error increases exponentially (as do the problems with trying to locate and kill a wounded animal).

So, I guess one of the main questions I'm posing is this:

How likely is it that these extreme-distance hunters will merely wound a game animal, rather than quickly killing it, even if they are very skilled?

Personally, I believe that the odds of such an outcome are probably high enough that the ethics of taking such shots may be questionable. Each shooter has a different set of skills and equipment, and we clearly don't all shoot the same. That said, landing well-placed shots at over 1,100 yards is a noteworthy feat even for the best shooters, in the best conditions!

 

[Double Naught Spy]

I fully recognize that a hunter who shoots at LONG distance may not always do so, but I am also trying to recognize that a hunter who shoots at that distance also may not always score a well-placed shot to the vitals on the game animal.

Well gee, short of contact shots, hunters don't always score well placed shots at any distance.

So, I guess one of the main questions I'm posing is this:

How likely is it that these extreme-distance hunters will merely wound a game animal, rather than quickly killing it, even if they are very skilled?

If the hunter has the proper skills, then the chance of just wounding the animal instead of quickly killing it isn't very big. Once again, there are several factors involved including using the right equipment for the job.

Let me ask you this, at any distance, what is the chance of a hunter merely wounding an animal instead of quickly killing it? You can find countless stories here and on other forums of members who have managed to no quickly kill an animal with a first shot from very reasonable shooting distances. These stories often go hand in hand with stories about how to track wounded animals.

I ask because you seem to have a concerned fixation on about the actions of a very limited number of hunters and hunting events when the real problem exists in much greater numbers at a much more basic level. In short, there are a lot more hunters who don't have the basic shooting skills necessary to make well placed shots at close range who still take those shots with considerable regularity.

 

[X-Rap]

Distance is relative to the weapon and how its equipped. I don't see much difference between a 150-200 yd attempt at a whitetail at the edge of a hay field in the Wisconsin woods with an iron sighted Marlin or Winchester lever and an 800 yd shot at a Mulie on an open hillside with a 300RUM utilizing a rangefinder and ballistic table.
The fact is I see a huge difference, the later is a much more ethical shot IMO.
We can play this out to any weapon and almost any distance, take the 50yd bow shot and all the variables that can affect it or the muzzleload or handgun shot that is taken to quick or pushing the distance limits.
Add to that the fact that we are all different and what may be out of the realm of ones capability is far from difficult to another.
The ethical question to me is clear. Can I make this shot?

 

[jimmyraythomason]

"Let me ask you this, at any distance, what is the chance of a hunter merely wounding an animal instead of quickly killing it?" The odds of it happening are increased with distance. I don't think it is unethical for a hunter who is "skilled" at long distance shooting,(i.e.,knows his bullet drop at a given distance,knows the exact distance of his quarry and can dope the wind drift accurately), to take a shot at an animal(game or non-game species). I DO think it is unethical for ANYONE to take a shot at a great distance who does NOT possess the afore mentioned skills.

 

[pwillie]

How many times have you taken a "can't" miss shot,only to miss the game you are shooting at? My hunting buddy went Colorado and shot an Elk @ 460 yds. He comes back home,and at our deer club,he shoots a doe @ 120 yds and miss's...? The story line is anyone can miss are hit at any time.Shoot at what range you feel comfortable with!Also have a setup that works at those ranges.One mans poison is another mans pie.

 

[jimmyraythomason]

^^^I think that about sums it up,pwillie.

 

[coloradokevin]

I ask because you seem to have a concerned fixation on about the actions of a very limited number of hunters and hunting events when the real problem exists in much greater numbers at a much more basic level. In short, there are a lot more hunters who don't have the basic shooting skills necessary to make well placed shots at close range who still take those shots with considerable regularity.

My "fixation" you speak of about extremely long distance hunting is mostly because these people are specifically trying to take the hardest shots possible, rather than trying to take a shot which likely has the greater probability of success. Some of these folks seem to push the distances as far as possible, and I believe that a number of them are doing it for the sake of "bragging rights". Poor hits because of such behavior do not seem very sportsmanlike to me.

 

[pwillie]

The more time you have to hunt,the better you can come up to higher standards.Being a good shot at the range does'nt mean your a better hunter.Hunting conditions,and bench shooting hardly ever come into place.Making a 400yd shot sitting in a ladder stand with a north wind blowing 14 knots is not bench shooting. So,do your homework,and don't take "probable" shots. Good equipment is essential.Practice is important.

 

[desidog]

Its ironic that those shows on TV are trying to support hunting (and sling product) but manage to cast a negative light on the practice, in the eyes of seasoned shooters here on THR.

My experience, with the exception of Benning, is that the guys who want to take those shots are generally morbidly obese and out of touch with reality. They have neither the shooting skills nor the woodcraft to ethically attempt it, and a stuffed trophy and bragging rights at a later date is more important to them than being out in nature, making a clean kill, and eating it.....there's nothing worse than hunters who don't know how to field dress their quarry.

 

[pwillie]

Shooting game is the termination of the hunt,now you take it home and prepare it.

 

[X-Rap]

My experience, with the exception of Benning, is that the guys who want to take those shots are generally morbidly obese and out of touch with reality. They have neither the shooting skills nor the woodcraft to ethically attempt it, and a stuffed trophy and bragging rights at a later date is more important to them than being out in nature, making a clean kill, and eating it.....there's nothing worse than hunters who don't know how to field dress their quarry.

My experience is much different, they are mostly tall busty bikini models who don't like to wear underwear. we all have our own stereotypes:banghead:

 

[pwillie]

X Rap: I can't beat that one!! LOL!!!

 

[Loyalist Dave]

My personal viewpoint is that long range shots are not "fair chase". That's just me, and I wouldn't want to impose my aesthetics on other hunters.

LD

 

[pwillie]

Why shoot at all? Do like my ancestors did,chase the deer till its heart burst....about 25 miles.....

 

[Loyalist Dave]

Any discussion can fall into fallacy via illogical examples. Thanks for the illustration.

LD

 

[~z]

LD, just curious, can you explain why it is not 'fair chase' in your view?
~z

 

[Loyalist Dave]

I pointed out that it's aesthetics not ethics in my case. As long as a person obeys game laws and uses a method that provides a humane end to the animal, that's fine. Where I am, the deer simply have very little if any chance of detecting a quiet human hunter beyond 200 yards, and recognizing the threat. They are just accustomed to humans too much. So I don't find it "fair", if there is no challenge for me. I could blow an airhorn and shout and I'd be lucky if they did more than glance my way. I don't use a stand, and I don't do any scent reduction to my hunting clothes other than plain lye soap, and I get the deer in to 100 yards or less with my hunting method. I get deer every year, no worries. Again, it's more aesthetics than ethics. Some areas of our country the deer or other big game is much more wary, and you simply can't get closer than a couple a hundred yards. I've never hunted in such conditions, but my father has hunted pronghorn which requires much longer shots than I need to take here in the East.

LD

 

[pwillie]

I hunt a lot of clear cut woods,and you would starve for venison if you tried slipping in on a deer in that setting.Most of the cuts are 40 acre blocks,thats 440 yds corner to corner! I wish we had a lot of tall timber,I like to stalk hunt the best.

 

[inherentical]

If'n you ain't dropping out of a tree or popping out of a bush in naught but a loincloth and cutting your prey's throat with your flint-knapped knife, it ain't really hunting.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

If'n you ain't dropping out of a tree or popping out of a bush in naught but a loincloth and cutting your prey's throat with your flint-knapped knife, it ain't really hunting

You say that, maybe in jest, but the first account I heard about somebody doing that I was amazed. It was Louis Leakey, the anthropologist. It had been argued that the crude stone tools of Homo habilis were not very useful and offered little to survival. So Leakey ran down some small artiodactyl and killed it with replica Homo habilis stone tools and proceeded to butcher the animal with them.

 

[Ankeny]

I'll simply offer this observation, without proof, editorial, or further discussion on my part. I have visited with several game wardens in my area and all of them agree that the trend towards long range hunting has become very problematic.

 

[Todd1700]

At 1,000+ yards there is just so much going on that it seems like even the best shooters would be at a huge risk of wounding and losing their game animals.

They are risking a bad hit. Under field conditions with no way to perfectly dope the wind on a 1000 yard or greater shot the risk of a bad hit is very high I don't care who you are.The notion that some people can just be "SO GOOD" that these unknowable factors cannot affect their first shot is laughable and mostly the product of watching too many Rambo and sniper movies. LOL!

it takes the same amout of skill to get within 10 yards of you prey then it does to regulate your breathing and take an animal at 1000+ yards.

No it takes two entirely different skills. But here's the difference. If that animal busts me at any point in my stalk and runs away then so what. Worst case scenario, I don't kill him that day. If you misjudge the wind speed or direction the tiniest bit at 1000 plus yards then you may easily hit the animal in it's @$$ instead of behind it's shoulder. After all across a 1200 yard gap the wind might be blowing three different speeds and in several slightly different directions. And how well you control your breathing, your ballistics program, your 5000 dollar custom rifle and the quality of your trigger finger won't help you guesstimate the proper first shot click adjustments with such varied and inconsistent conditions.

My "fixation" you speak of about extremely long distance hunting is mostly because these people are specifically trying to take the hardest shots possible, rather than trying to take a shot which likely has the greater probability of success.

Yeah, despite some claims to the contrary a lot of these guys are not attempting these shots out of necessity but purely because they want to see "if" they can make them. They are basically using animals as long range living pop up targets. I say get on a range and shoot at paper or steel gongs. Because quite frankly hitting a steel gong and hitting a deer at 1000 yards is the exact same accomplishment. It's a good shot, if you pull it off. Nothing more. And you can't cripple or wound paper or gongs with a slightly misjudged 1000 yard shot.

On the other hand, getting within 50 yards of a bedded mule deer and putting a bullet or arrow behind his shoulder, now that's a hunting accomplishment. Something to brag about on a "HUNTING FORUM" rather than a target forum.

 

[HunterBear71]

Todd1700 understands the concept. However, you will never convince a sniper wannabe that he is not hunting.