More long range pondering

[Lefty-Canuck]

From an article, not stating my personal opinion just sharing the article and video.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jEsBISbJ0Wc

"Let's be very clear: the 1,010 yard shot shown in the video showed incredible skill on the part of the marksman.

But is this fair chase hunting, and is it ethical?

Over at Empty Cases, Richard Mann gave same thought to the ethics of long range hunting, and opines:

I don’t know a single human that must hunt for food to survive. If one exists, I could care less the techniques they employ to get their animal. When a whitetail backstrap is all that stands between you and starvation, ethics seem much less important. However, for the sport hunter, ethics is and always will be part of the equation. Some trek only a few hundred yards from their truck. Others climb to the top mountain. Some use dogs for deer – legally. Others think it near the equivalent of a sin. Some hunters struggle to hit a deer at 100 yards; others can put them down with regularity at five times that distance.

The ethical answer is not what others consider appropriate. Ethics is you operating within the law and your abilities. When you step outside of either, hit or miss, you have bridged the ethics gap.

Hunting is about hunting but all hunting is about the shot. Regardless the animal, only shots within your abilities should be taken.

Bottom line: Don’t let your inability to perform a task result in labeling it as unethical. Every man has to know his limitations, those who operate – hunt and shoot – within those limitations are ethical. For those who can shoot, long-range is a lot further than it is for those who cannot. Long-range hunting is definable by the individual, not the hunting community.

I do feel compelled to note that Mann's article only specifically referred to shots of 500 yards and in, not double that distance.

Writers at Peterson's, Outdoor Life, Sports Afield, and other outlets seem to all hold that 400-600 yards is the maximum distance for an ethical fair chase shot, and those are opinions from very seasoned hunters with thousands of hours afield and a great deal of skill.

Boone & Crockett have obviously been disturbed by the trend towards ever-longer shots, and felt compelled to offer a position statement on the matter.

The Boone and Crockett Club believes the term “long-range” shooting is more defined by a hunter’s intent, than any specific distance at which a shot is taken. If the intent of the individual is to test equipment and determine how far one can shoot to hit a live target and if there is no motivation to risk engagement with the animal being hunted, this practice is not hunting and should not be accorded the same status as hunting.

The Boone and Crockett Club maintains that hunting, at its most fundamental level, is defined by a tenuous and unpredictable relationship between predator and prey. This is an intrinsic, irrefutable and intimate connection that cannot be compromised if the hunter is to maintain the sanctity of this relationship and any credible claim that hunting is challenging, rewarding, respectful of wild creatures, and in service to wildlife conservation. This connection is built upon many complex components that differentiate hunting from simply shooting or killing.

The Club finds that long-range shooting takes unfair advantage of the game animal, effectively eliminates the natural capacity of an animal to use its senses and instincts to detect danger, and demeans the hunter/prey relationship in a way that diminishes the importance and relevance of the animal and the hunt. The Club urges all hunters to think carefully of the consequences of long-range shooting, whether hunting with a rifle, bow, muzzleloader, crossbow, or handgun, and not confuse the purposes and intent of long-range shooting with fair chase hunting.
I can (and have) made first-round shots on targets out to 960 yards on targets, but I've never thought about attempting a shot beyond 350 yards while hunting game animals. I typically still hunt or stand hunt in terrain where the longest shot I will likely see is well under 100 yards. That gives game animals a chance to see me, hear me, and smell me. That makes it a challenge. That makes it fair chase hunting.

Sniping a deer over 1,000 yards away? I'm not sure what it is, but is isn't fair chase hunting."

Now as a comparison there is this video with basically the same rifle...

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nfFZ1m_5hro

Are these the same or different?

LC

[TanksNHank]

Great article!!

[dmcbride]

Bottom line: Don’t let your inability to perform a task result in labeling it as unethical. Every man has to know his limitations, those who operate – hunt and shoot – within those limitations are ethical. For those who can shoot, long-range is a lot further than it is for those who cannot. Long-range hunting is definable by the individual, not the hunting community.



Too bad us hunters are always trying to push are own ethics on everybody else.

[Don K]

I feel 100% confident on anything up to 500 yds. I would take a shot at 750 yds in the right circumstances if it was all I had... I have friends that would stretch that to 700 and 1000 yds. Not me, but they practice and are proficient shooters at long distance.

On the opposite end I know guys that consider 200 yds a "long shot" and wouldn't go much past there. The difference is they couldn't shoot a 5" group at 100yds from a bench...

Everyone is diferent and it's best to know what your capable of and govern yourself accordingly.

Jmo

[pikergolf]

The Boone and Crockett Club believes the term “long-range” shooting is more defined by a hunter’s intent, than any specific distance at which a shot is taken. If the intent of the individual is to test equipment and determine how far one can shoot to hit a live target and if there is no motivation to risk engagement with the animal being hunted, this practice is not hunting and should not be accorded the same status as hunting.

Bingo, to many guys playing video games and watching sniper videos wanting to be called hunters. They are not like me and I'm not like them. I don't identify with or support them, not matter what the we are all in this together crowd says.

[Windago]

If thats what B&C belives it must be true

[blgoodbrand1]

I happen to have hunted with dartman. He know his stuff and is very good at what he does. Like almost of us, for him hunting is a form of recreation and not survival. This how he chooses to do it and good on him for being at the top of his game.

[dmcbride]

Thought this was a good read. A little long.

http://riflemansjournal.blogspot.com...-shooting.html

[expmler]

Originally Posted by pikergolf

The Boone and Crockett Club believes the term “long-range” shooting is more defined by a hunter’s intent, than any specific distance at which a shot is taken. If the intent of the individual is to test equipment and determine how far one can shoot to hit a live target and if there is no motivation to risk engagement with the animal being hunted, this practice is not hunting and should not be accorded the same status as hunting.

Bingo, to many guys playing video games and watching sniper videos wanting to be called hunters. They are not like me and I'm not like them. I don't identify with or support them, not matter what the we are all in this together crowd says.

Ah yes, the organization that turned hunting into a competition lecturing on ethics.

[edmhunter]

I say it's ethical, provided the shooter knows what he or she is doing and has the right setup.

Pot shots at that distance by amateurs with the wrong rifle and scope is definitely unethical and less then iffy!

[JD848]

Originally Posted by pikergolf

The Boone and Crockett Club believes the term “long-range” shooting is more defined by a hunter’s intent, than any specific distance at which a shot is taken. If the intent of the individual is to test equipment and determine how far one can shoot to hit a live target and if there is no motivation to risk engagement with the animal being hunted, this practice is not hunting and should not be accorded the same status as hunting.

Bingo, to many guys playing video games and watching sniper videos wanting to be called hunters. They are not like me and I'm not like them. I don't identify with or support them, not matter what the we are all in this together crowd says.

I have to agree with you on this longrange hunting,i have no problem banging targets at 1000 but will I shoot at an animal that far the answer is no,i had some guests make bad shots and had to anchor a few that were wounded and made it from 300 to 1000 plus and was just happy not to let that animal suffer.I trust my gun and myself but just not my thing.All it takes is something 1/4 of an inch thick and if that bullet hits it she gone, I do not have anything that can pick up something 1/4of inch at that distance and I have one off the top spotting scopes, so that is the reason I will not do this.

[dshaw]

So how long until the boone and crockett club doesn't accept long range kills into their record books? They can't possibly know if the intent was to just see how far a guy can shoot or if he was really hunting. I think it will get interesting here within the next few years as to what is accepted into the record books with this long range shooting. everybody has their opinion on it and I don't see it as hunting for myself as I like to get in close and beat the animal at his own game but each to their own.

[expmler]

Is long range hunting any less hunting than sitting in a tree beside a game trail for hours until an animal walks by.

[skidderman]

Define ethical please? Is it:
1) Going hunting without sighting in your gun?
2) Never practicing until an animal walks out?
3) Taking a bad shot, i.e. in the rear end or?
4) Using a caliber too small for the intended target?
I expect that a long range hunter practices a lot & likely has a better chance of making an ethical shot than others. I've seen game wounded at such close range that one would wonder how it is possible. Seems like hunters have to pick on each other or else are never happy. Why can't hunters mind their own business and be encouragers rather than cut down for this reason or that. As long as it it within the law I don't understand anyone be it a person or a group questioning it. Some people are born to whiners!!!!

[Lefty-Canuck]

Article on Ethics, long but a good read.

Hunting Ethics
Changing values in changing times
By Mitch Lane - Administrative Sergeant
Published in Utah DWR Magazine -- Wildlife Review: http://wildlife.utah.gov

It's a cool fall afternoon during the deer hunt, and you've been hiking all day. You're looking for a big buck and have decided to hike a little farther than the rest of your hunting party. You've shot several small deer in years past and now you want a "trophy".

Hunting Ethics
You're in prime deer country and you've seen a lot of fresh sign. It's rugged terrain-just the place to find an elusive, mature buck. You left camp several hours ago and the short fall day is coming to an end.
Then you see him across the canyon. It's the buck you've been picturing in your mind the whole time you've been hiking to an area few hunters would dare go.
As you kneel down to survey the situation, thoughts begin to race through your mind. You don't have time to sneak up on him. By the time you get close, if you even can get close, it will be too dark to shoot. You could shoot at him from where you're at, but the shot will be well over 300 yards and most of your target shooting practice has been at targets not more than 200 yards away. If you hit and injure him, you'll never be able to track and find him because it will be dark by then.

Do you take the shot and chance wounding the buck and never finding him? Or do you not take the shot and return to camp with another story about the one that got away?

Defining ethics
Young hunters today are taught the importance of being ethical. Teaching young hunter's ethics helps ensure the image of hunters and hunting isn't tarnished in the eyes of those who either oppose hunting or merely chose not to participate themselves. The idea of ethics in hunting isn't new, but what constitutes ethical behavior has changed over time almost as much as hunting itself has.
So, who is and isn't an ethical hunter today?
To understand what an ethical hunter is, we must first define the word "ethical." The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines ethical as "involving or expressing moral approval or disapproval." The words "moral" and "ethical" are used synonymously in the dictionary, and an ethic is defined as "the principles of conduct governing an individual or a group."
Stated in simple terms, ethical behavior is that which is accepted as good rather than bad and right rather than wrong. Unfortunately, because of everyone's unbringing, past experiences, personal beliefs and values, what is ethical to one person might not be ethical to someone else.

Ethics change over time
Not only can ethics vary from one person to another, but ethics also change over time as society and its values change. For example, at one time, market hunting (killing animals and selling them for their meat) and hunting to sustain your family were generally approved and were probably thought to be ethical. Eventually, due to changes in social and biological attitudes, people began to approve less of these activities. Now they're considered unethical and are usually illegal.

A more recent example is "party hunting." Party hunting happens when hunters take game, not only for themselves, but also for others in their party who have a license. Party hunting results in some hunters taking an over limit of game and other hunters in the party unlawfully lending their permits to them. Party hunting allows some hunters to take more than their legal share of game, while other hunters don't get a chance to take their legal share.
While this practice has always been illegal, it was generally approved of and was quite common only a couple decades ago. Today the biological and legal ramifications of party hunting are more widely understood, and most hunters know that party hunting is both unethical and illegal.

Ethical hunting issues today
Many other ethical dilemmas also face hunters today. For example, is it ethical to use off-highway vehicles to pursue big game? If so, at what point does OHV use become unacceptable? Most hunters agree that OHV use is unethical when it damages the environment or when the vehicles are used in a manner that provides hunters with an unfair advantage over the game they're pursuing. But what about the gray areas in between?
What about the use of bait to attract or lure wildlife into the effective shooting range of a waiting hunter? In many cases, such as in waterfowl hunting, baiting is prohibited by law. In other hunting situations, however, baiting is not prohibited and is a commonplace practice in some areas of the country.
What about long-range hunting, where hunters take aim and shoot at game that can be several hundred yards away? These hunters use large-caliber rifles, usually with precisely hand-loaded cartridges, and spend many hours practicing long-range shooting. They can shoot game without stalking the animal and before the animal even knows it's being hunted.
Another ethical dilemma involves the use of traditional equipment versus more modern, technologically advanced equipment, such as electronic range finders, in-line muzzleloaders, and electronic decoys and game calls. Some of this equipment takes away the need to acquire skills, abilities and knowledge that a traditional hunter must have to be successful.
Do these modern devices provide hunters with an unfair advantage? Do they detract from the original concept of hunting, in which the skills, abilities and intelligence of humans were necessary to outsmart and stalk a wild animal and make a well-placed shot?

People used to hunt out of necessity and learned and developed the most effective methods to provide for their needs. Now people hunt mainly for sport, recreation or trophies. We do this by choice and not by necessity, yet we are still intent on employing the most effective method to give ourselves the greatest advantage over our prey.

A virtual hunting reality
One of the latest controversies regarding hunting ethics is the advent of Internet hunting. Now hunters don't have to leave their home or office to hunt. They can log on to a website and shoot an animal from the comfort of their computer terminal, using a rifle that is connected to a computer and a web camera.
The California legislature recently passed a bill prohibiting the use of computer-assisted hunting sites and the import and export of any animals taken by such means. At that time, 14 other states and Congress were also considering similar legislation.

Groups in support of the legislation claim Internet hunting is unethical and unsporting. Those opposed to the legislation say the Internet could provide hunting opportunities to people with disabilities who might not be able to participate in hunting activities otherwise.

Fair chase
With all of the ethical questions facing hunters, and the many more that will arise as technology advances, now more than ever, the fundamentals of ethical hunting-fair and good rather than unjust and bad-must be kept in the forefront of hunters' minds.

A good basis to determine whether a hunting practice is ethical is the concept of fair chase. Fair chase forms a balance between the hunter and the hunted in which a wild animal usually escapes unharmed but is sometimes taken by the hunter. Fairness to the animal and its chances to escape unharmed could be the best way to measure whether a behavior is ethical or unethical because any practice that tends to give the hunter an unfair advantage over his prey is often deemed unethical.

Instilling ethics in young people
In hunter education classes, students are taught that to be a true sportsman, they must adopt and adhere to their own code of ethics. A code of ethics is a set of rules based on respect for what is safe and fair. Students are taught to respect wildlife and its habitat; landowners and their rights; other hunters and non-hunters; and game laws and firearms. These students are taught that to be ethical, responsible hunters, there are unwritten laws, as well as written ones, that they must follow.

Even as good as the hunter education curriculum is, by the time these students are the age when they can legally hunt, chances are great that their ethics and morals have already been formed. Hopefully by this time, family members and others they know will have taught and exposed them to positive attitudes and behaviors that will help them become ethical hunters.

You must decide
If these young students could be taught that the difference between ethical and unethical behavior in the same as the difference between legal and illegal behavior, what's ethical and what's unethical would certainly be easier for them to understand. Unfortunately, the laws and rules that govern hunting only set guidelines within which every hunter must make a personal, ethical decision. Even though most hunters probably consider most infractions of the law unethical, there are many acts that are not illegal that many hunters still consider unethical.

Each person develops their own ethical standards, but it's the collective decisions and behaviors of all hunters that will dictate how hunting is viewed by other hunters and non-hunters in the years to come. The actions of one hunter, good or bad, affect how all hunters are viewed. Aldo Leopold summarized the complexity of hunter ethics best in A Sand County Almanac when he wrote: "A peculiar virtue in wildlife ethics is that the hunter ordinarily has no gallery to applaud or disapprove of his conduct. What ever his acts, they are dictated by his own conscience, rather than by a mob of onlookers. It is difficult to exaggerate the importance of this fact."

LC

[edmhunter]

My take on this entire issues is as follows and I am a bow hunter as well as a rifle hunter.

At 20 yards with a bow or 1000 yards with a rifle, dead is dead. Don't forget that there are many groups that want to ban hunting as they see any form of it as unethical.

As hunters, we should not be giving them any more ammunition or reasons to promote their agendas.

I am considering bear hunting with a spear, does that make me unethical?

[Lefty-Canuck]

Originally Posted by edmhunter

As hunters, we should not be giving them any more ammunition or reasons to promote their agendas.

To expand on this, IMHO social media will is not the best our hunting passion...look at how many folks post questionable things for all to see. Also look at how hunters get portrayed by the anti's in social media. We will never sway an anti but we CAN sway someone on the fence one way or the other by our actions and portrayals

LC

[edmhunter]

I'll say it again, "Dead is dead."

Ethics are up to the individual, as you have stated LC, you either have them or you don't and in most cases that comes from how you are raised.

Infighting amongst hunter groups on choice of weapons or killing distances in anti-productive, snobbish and pathetic IMO.

Enjoy the sport or in my case the "Lifestyle Choice". Hunt On!

[Arnak]

At one point in the history I'm pretty sure someone said the use of a rifle for hunting isn't very ethical and gives next to no chance to the animal. Today we agree it is but wonder if using them at full capacity is.

In my humble opinion, whatever the distance, if you are confident and know all ods are in your favor at that distance, then no problem. However if it's more like a 25% chance of failure at that distance, I don't care if it's just 100 yard, it's too far for you and not ethical.

As for the rest, for me it's just a question of taste. Personally the idea of getting as close as I can to make a shot trills me a lot and it bores me to think about shooting games from orbit. But that's just my personal taste.

[Lefty-Canuck]

Originally Posted by edmhunter

I say it again, "Dead is dead."

Ethics are up to the individual, as you have stated LC, you either have them or you don't. Infighting amongst hunter groups on choice of weapons or killing distances in anti-productive, snobbish and pathetic IMO.

Enjoy the sport or in my case the "Lifestyle Choice". Hunt On!

Dead is dead...but the mode and method can cause instantaneous death (or close to) or agonizing hours of suffering leading to death. Are these details inconsequential because the end result is death?

LC

[Speckle55]

sometimes we over think things

I, however, view ethics as an individual decision. My ethics are mine - and I won't explain or justify them to anyone else. I seek nobody's approval, just that of my own conscience. "

In North America hunters.. in all forms have hunted for food and still do

I am one of those

Food for Thought

David

[edmhunter]

Originally Posted by Lefty-Canuck

Dead is dead...but the mode and method can cause instantaneous death (or close to) or agonizing hours of suffering leading to death. Are these details inconsequential because the end result is death?

LC

LC, in my 49 years of shooting and hunting, I have seen more hunters that can't shoot then hunters that can, nuff said.

[Lefty-Canuck]

Originally Posted by edmhunter

LC, in my 49 years of shooting and hunting, I have seen more hunters that can't shoot then hunters that can, nuff said.

Ok, so you are saying there is more unethical Hunters than ethical ones because of that?

LC

[CritterCommander]

Having the right gear to "long range" hunt doesn't make a long range hunter. Having the ability to use that gear at long range with a high probability of success likely does but still isn't clear in my mind. Most long range shooters I know are very humble about their abilities and although they practice a lot (often weekly) are realistic about their chances. Most will tell you that it takes a lot of set up and input to be able to make consistent shots at long range and I doubt that any of them would think of themselves as long range hunters. Guys who shoot thoese distances know there are way too many chances of 1 small thing going wrong.

[Lefty-Canuck]

Originally Posted by CritterCommander

Having the right gear to "long range" hunt doesn't make a long range hunter. Having the ability to use that gear at long range with a high probability of success likely does but still isn't clear in my mind. Most long range shooters I know are very humble about their abilities and although they practice a lot (often weekly) are realistic about their chances. Most will tell you that it takes a lot of set up and input to be able to make consistent shots at long range and I doubt that any of them would think of themselves as long range hunters. Guys who shoot thoese distances know there are way too many chances of 1 small thing going wrong.

Well said. Personally no matter what the range or weapon I strive for a one shot kill. That being said I have not always achieved that goal but more often than not I have and thats really all you can ask for. I have heard stories of guys losing 3 or more animals in a season every season and I can't help but cringe and wonder.

LC

[densa44]

Say what you want, hitting anything at that range is a lucky shot. The drop is about 22 feet and the wind drift at 10 mph would be over 5 feet. The animal was moving so range would vary while the shooter was adjusting his scope.

If you care about ethics, IMO you are taking a shot with a lot of variables that you can neither control or accurately measure.

The fact that the shooter hit the deer doesn't change the luck aspect.

[expmler]

Originally Posted by Lefty-Canuck

Dead is dead...but the mode and method can cause instantaneous death (or close to) or agonizing hours of suffering leading to death. Are these details inconsequential because the end result is death?

LC

Does a deer gut shot at 100 yds mean that 100 yd shots are unethical?

[Lefty-Canuck]

Originally Posted by expmler

Does a deer gut shot at 100 yds mean that 100 yd shots are unethical?

Not necessarily, need more info on the scenario....was a pool noodle involved?

LC

[edmhunter]

Originally Posted by Lefty-Canuck

Ok, so you are saying there is more unethical Hunters than ethical ones because of that?

LC

Nope, what I am saying it that these kinds of topics or infighting and arguments are harmful to people that hunt, more then helpful.

Personally I have the ability and set up to shoot up to 850 yards, my longest kill shot to date is around 500 yards and to be honest I prefer bow hunting up close and personal.

Funny thing, I purchased my longer range rifle and scope to hunt mule deer on the prairies. On my first hunt with it, the mule deer buck I killed was at 75 yards. lol What can I say I like hunting and stalking.

Now if I were hunting elk with it and see an elk and the only shot I have is lets say 750 yards, with a clean line of view and reasonable winds or no wind, I'm taking the shot!

[Lefty-Canuck]

I think peer concensus and peer opinion are good things, especially when it comes to new and inexperienced folks. Avoiding these discussions doesn't make certain issues go away.

Many people hunt by themselves so they can't ask an opinion of "should I shoot? Or not?" It's what you do when no one else is watching that defines ethics IMHO....certain things like shooting extreme ranges without a spotter can lesson your chance of clean kills and recovery.

In the video at the bottom of my first post, the hunters miss....then take a sighting shot....then take another shot, all while the game feeds a long ways away. But the moose died in the end so it's all good

LC