The present trend of ultra long range hunting/shooting

rral22 said:
Real anti-hunters are a small minority. All the studies show that the majority of non-hunters are perfectly willing to allow hunters to hunt, as long as "ethical", fair chase methods are being used. You are correct that the issues of ethics will seldom sway a true anti-hunter, because they seem to be immune to reason and logic (That's my opinion, and I'm sticking to it ) and react out of emotion. When we allow/condone/support, unethical behavior that the tolerant majority cannot support, we create more anti's from those who don't hunt, but are quite willing to allow it - IF they can see it is ethically acceptable.

If we insist that only the legality of a behavior can be its ethical defense, then we will have no argument once they make it illegal. The gun registry was a perfect example of how easy it is for a "majority" government to agree to make something illegal that has a long history of acceptability, recreation, and harmlessness. We must stop making that "legal is ethical" argument, for our own security.

We must also refuse to have opinions that we will not change, even in the face of rational argument, because that is EXACTLY what the anti-gun lobby does. They believe guns are bad, because that is their opinion, and they are sticking to it. No other reason.
Click to expand...

I respect your opinion rral22 however I do not agree with all that you say.

I have in fact had my opinion swayed before but I can't see myself doing that in this case. I firmly believe that there is nothing unethical about taking game at long range. Yes, there are animals that get wounded by people that have no business taking part in the long range hunting game. These people exist in all factions of hunting. Do you see what I am driving at?

The long range hunting thing is certainly a trend right now and I believe it will pass in due time. People will continue to hunt at long range after the trend passes just like they have before it became the "cool" thing to do.
 
rral22 said:
Come on! Ethics is not just "a personal thing" where anything someone decides to do is ethical, just because it is his personal thing. There are behaviors that are unethical.


Hunters MUST begin to sort out their own ethical standards so that ethical hunting can be defended from the attacks of animal rights activists and anti-hunters.

Hiding behind the mistaken idea that ethics is some sort of personal, impossible to define, anything legal goes, kind of argument reveals a complete failure to understand the field of ethics, and does a disservice to all hunters. These discussions must happen on hunting forums too.
Click to expand...

You contradict yourself.Ethics/morality is subjective. While is may be societally influenced, everyone has their own sense of right and wrong. PERSPECTIVE has a lot to do with it. Imagine if you heard a story about a poor moose in NFLD that was snared with aircraft cable and shot with a cut shell. That falls in the "not cool" column for most of us here, I would imagine. To the guy who did it to feed his family over a winter, well, it seemed necessary and his children's full bellies are worth more than your "ethics".
 
mwjones said:
You contradict yourself.Ethics/morality is subjective. While is may be societally influenced, everyone has their own sense of right and wrong. PERSPECTIVE has a lot to do with it. Imagine if you heard a story about a poor moose in NFLD that was snared with aircraft cable and shot with a cut shell. That falls in the "not cool" column for most of us here, I would imagine. To the guy who did it to feed his family over a winter, well, it seemed necessary and his children's full bellies are worth more than your "ethics".
Click to expand...

I doubt anyone would consider subsistence hunting to be unethical. THAT is what ethics are about - making decisions about what is right and what is wrong. You are the one who is inconsistent. You say ethics are "subjective", then give a really good concrete example of a perfectly ethical reason to hunt - feeding your kids. Food is not a "subjective" reason for hunting, and no ethical person would suggest someone should let his children starve. THAT would be unethical.

I hope your argument that "everyone has their own sense of right and wrong" does not mean you believe that whatever I want to do is "right" just because I say it is. Paul Bernardo did stuff that I have no problem labeling as "unethical". Even if he thinks it is just fine to do that, he's wrong. It isn't. Colonel Russel Williams was completely unethical. No problem saying that as a certainty.

Stop making the subjective or legal arguments as some sort of excuse to avoid making ethical decisions about what hunters should be doing. There is such a thing as right and wrong. YOU argue that in your post when you say that feeding children is ethical. I am also saying it's OK to make decisions about what is and what isn't ethical hunting, and that HUNTERS should do that before non-hunters make the choices for us. Denying the issue exists will not help our hunting future.
 
Gatehouse said:
I'm not against shooting within your capabilities.

Everyone hunts the way they like because that is what excites them. For some, it's getting up close and personal. For some, it's long shots. And for most of us it's whatever we are presented with within our abilities and the abilities of our gear. Some guys like to hunt in the mountains, others like to hunt on a road, some like to sit in a treestand, some use bait and some use hounds. The Long range thing is the exact same debate hunters have been having forever, and that debate is: "What is REAL HUNTING?"

Some cry foul when they hear of bait, road hunting...whatever. Most times it's guys not approving of any other type of hunting other than THEIR way of hunting.

I'm not going to tell someone that their way of hunting is wrong just because I don't happen to be enamored of it.

One thing I do notice about both the long range hunting shows and seeing long range posts by hunters on the intraweb is that for the most part,the hunters are in it for the shot, and the size of the animal is secondary. Not many 'big" trophies getting shot via long range, the guys want to make a perfect shot. Whether it's a small buck, doe or cow, what gets them excited is making the shot. Which is somewhat a contradiction from most hunters, that dream of the giant buck or bull.

I've got big problems with guys shooting BEYOND their capability, but that goes for guys that buy a long range rig and start shooting at animals without enough practice, as well as most hunters who frankly have no business shooting past 150 yards with their 30-06.
Click to expand...

Very well said!
 
Ethically, I have no problem with someone taking a shot they are capable of, 100 yards or 1000 yards.

As for antis and the general public- They are much more likely to be offended by hunting with dogs, hunting over bait, or road hunting. They don't really know the difference between a 350 yard shot at a 700 yard shot. If they are going to have an issue with one, they will have an issue with the other, because their perception is that a hunter is using a scope and a high powered rifle and can just pick off animals at will.

About the only thing I have seen the general public have a consensus on about hunting methods is that it's okay to creep through the woods and sneak up on a deer and shoot it with a 30-30. Magnums, scopes, bait, drives, hounds, road hunting are all cheating. And using a bow can be too cruel, you know.
 
The primary difference between target shooting and shots on game is that target shooting is usually on a stationary target and even if a time limit is imposed, the shooter knows how much time he has. Shooting at a big game animal is fluid, and unlike the rifle range,the circumstances in the field are in a state of constant flux. If it takes several seconds for your bullet to reach the target, that's plenty of time for that animal to move, changing the point of impact, the angle of the bullet tract, or both. The difference between a kill and a wounding shot is only a step away.

There are numerous elements than can conspire to cause an experienced hunter to wound a big game animal at close to moderate range, and when long range is considered we add the elements of marksmanship error over distance, range estimation, time of flight, reduced impact velocity and diminished terminal performance, and the time it takes to get to the downed game in addition to short hours of daylight being added to the mix. Unlike Africa, Australia, or even some parts of the US, big game hunting in Canada occurs when the weather makes good shooting the most challenging. Low light conditions, or a sun that sits low in the sky on a clear day, over a broad snow field, causes sufficient glare to confuse the accuracy of a laser rangefinder. Gusty winds, snow squalls, fog banks, and rain frequently limit visibility, maybe allowing sufficient to time shoot but insufficient time to see the results of that shot. Then comes the problem of achieving a solid rest to shoot from, our thick bulky clothing so necessary to keep warm, interferes with our relationship to the rifle. Then there are ground conditions to contend with; its tough to make yourself go prone in a foot of slush, and even if you do, how long before the cold interferes with your hold?

Long range shooting by definition suggests wide open expanses of land devoid of features, yet land that can have many hidden obstacles preventing the hunter from travelling in a straight line to his quarry, in some circumstances it might take hours to transit several miles to a point a mere half mile from your shooting point. Even though you've you've plainly marked your firing position and target angle, now that you are on low ground, its difficult to know where you are relative to where you last saw your animal, and the lack of features confound the senses. We are prepared for the eventuality that our shot might result in a wound rather than a clean kill, but should we make a wounding shot, and not be able to make a kill shot while the animal is within sight, our chances of bringing the situation to a satisfactory conclusion is dependent upon getting to that animal quickly. You can't do that from half a mile.

These are the reasons that I won't take long shots on unwounded game animals.
 
Boomer said:
The primary difference between target shooting and shots on game is that target shooting is usually on a stationary target and even if a time limit is imposed, the shooter knows how much time he has. Shooting at a big game animal is fluid, and unlike the rifle range,the circumstances in the field are in a state of constant flux. If it takes several seconds for your bullet to reach the target, that's plenty of time for that animal to move, changing the point of impact, the angle of the bullet tract, or both. The difference between a kill and a wounding shot is only a step away.


There are numerous elements than can conspire to cause an experienced hunter to wound a big game animal at close to moderate range, and when long range is considered we add the elements of marksmanship error over distance, range estimation, time of flight, reduced impact velocity and diminished terminal performance, and the time it takes to get to the downed game in addition to short hours of daylight being added to the mix. Unlike Africa, Australia, or even some parts of the US, big game hunting in Canada occurs when the weather makes good shooting the most challenging. Low light conditions, or a sun that sits low in the sky on a clear day, over a broad snow field, causes sufficient glare to confuse the accuracy of a laser rangefinder. Gusty winds, snow squalls, fog banks, and rain frequently limit visibility, maybe allowing sufficient to time shoot but insufficient time to see the results of that shot. Then comes the problem of achieving a solid rest to shoot from, our thick bulky clothing so necessary to keep warm, interferes with our relationship to the rifle. Then there are ground conditions to contend with; its tough to make yourself go prone in a foot of slush, and even if you do, how long before the cold interferes with your hold?

Long range shooting by definition suggests wide open expanses of land devoid of features, yet land that can have many hidden obstacles preventing the hunter from travelling in a straight line to his quarry, in some circumstances it might take hours to transit several miles to a point a mere half mile from your shooting point. Even though you've you've plainly marked your firing position and target angle, now that you are on low ground, its difficult to know where you are relative to where you last saw your animal, and the lack of features confound the senses. We are prepared for the eventuality that our shot might result in a wound rather than a clean kill, but should we make a wounding shot, and not be able to make a kill shot while the animal is within sight, our chances of bringing the situation to a satisfactory conclusion is dependent upon getting to that animal quickly. You can't do that from half a mile.

These are the reasons that I won't take long shots on unwounded game animals.
Click to expand...

But wounding at long distance is legal so who gives a sh*t? ;)
 
Boomer said:
The primary difference between target shooting and shots on game is that target shooting is usually on a stationary target and even if a time limit is imposed, the shooter knows how much time he has. Shooting at a big game animal is fluid, and unlike the rifle range,the circumstances in the field are in a state of constant flux. If it takes several seconds for your bullet to reach the target, that's plenty of time for that animal to move, changing the point of impact, the angle of the bullet tract, or both. The difference between a kill and a wounding shot is only a step away.

There are numerous elements than can conspire to cause an experienced hunter to wound a big game animal at close to moderate range, and when long range is considered we add the elements of marksmanship error over distance, range estimation, time of flight, reduced impact velocity and diminished terminal performance, and the time it takes to get to the downed game in addition to short hours of daylight being added to the mix. Unlike Africa, Australia, or even some parts of the US, big game hunting in Canada occurs when the weather makes good shooting the most challenging. Low light conditions, or a sun that sits low in the sky on a clear day, over a broad snow field, causes sufficient glare to confuse the accuracy of a laser rangefinder. Gusty winds, snow squalls, fog banks, and rain frequently limit visibility, maybe allowing sufficient to time shoot but insufficient time to see the results of that shot. Then comes the problem of achieving a solid rest to shoot from, our thick bulky clothing so necessary to keep warm, interferes with our relationship to the rifle. Then there are ground conditions to contend with; its tough to make yourself go prone in a foot of slush, and even if you do, how long before the cold interferes with your hold?

Long range shooting by definition suggests wide open expanses of land devoid of features, yet land that can have many hidden obstacles preventing the hunter from travelling in a straight line to his quarry, in some circumstances it might take hours to transit several miles to a point a mere half mile from your shooting point. Even though you've you've plainly marked your firing position and target angle, now that you are on low ground, its difficult to know where you are relative to where you last saw your animal, and the lack of features confound the senses. We are prepared for the eventuality that our shot might result in a wound rather than a clean kill, but should we make a wounding shot, and not be able to make a kill shot while the animal is within sight, our chances of bringing the situation to a satisfactory conclusion is dependent upon getting to that animal quickly. You can't do that from half a mile.

These are the reasons that I won't take long shots on unwounded game animals.
Click to expand...

You touch on prettry well all of the reasons why I personally don't take part in long range hunting. I shoot quite a bit and feel very confident that I can make clean kills out to 350 meters in a variety of conditions while sitting or laying on cold, wet ground. I do shoot further than that at targets but to stretch a shot 100 yards further on a game animal I require ideal shooting conditions. To date I have not been in a situation where I felt I needed to take a shot at that distance and had the conditions to do so. Enough of my personal stories....

I believe the reality is that there are people out there that have the confidence and abilities to shoot accurately at long range in a variey of conditions thrown at them.

What is everyones take on running shots? I am certain there are hordes of deer wounded by shots when people are pushing bush or doing the drive around windrows and clumps of bush in your pick-up waiting for a buck to burst outta cover type of thing. Very few people practice running shots yet shooting at running deer is deemed ok b/c that's what Uncle Bud and Pops did and they taught you how to hunt...

What I am trying to get at is that there are slob hunters in every form of hunting. TO pick on long range hunting b/c you personally don't like it just doesn't seem right to me.
 
Running shots can be far more challenging than 500 yard shots. And it's pretty easy to practice shooting long range, but difficult to practice rifle shooting at moving targets.
 
Gatehouse said:
Running shots can be far more challenging than 500 yard shots. And it's pretty easy to practice shooting long range, but difficult to practice rifle shooting at moving targets.
Click to expand...

Uh....I thought everyone shot running game like Franz-Albrecht Oettingen-Spielberg....

 
I've seen that before, and it's impressive. Wish I could speak German. :)

Interesting to note where he shoots. Open road only, not taking any chance of hitting a tree.
 
I hunt for fun, now. I kinda gave up on .300M or 7mm mag. I use an ugly Savage M170 pump in .35 Rem. If I shoot it up close...I don't have to walk so far to get it!
 
Gatehouse said:
I've seen that before, and it's impressive. Wish I could speak German. :)

Interesting to note where he shoots. Open road only, not taking any chance of hitting a tree.
Click to expand...

There is one video where he shoots several, including one as it is moving through the forrest. My friend has the full length video from Germany and he lent it to me. Franz-Albrecht explains many techniques in the video, and he also talks about the critical importance of a correct fit (LOP, etc). The guy is on a different level. From me anyways.
 
730 yards? Either he is totally irresponsible or this is BS. You do your father no honor by making such claims.
 
When I think about all the physical and instinctive advantages most species of game have over us humans, I have no problem using whatever legal technology I can. I hate it when guys truck hunt. I wouldn't feel that great about shooting deer over bait; that's why I stopped bear baiting. I love the thrill of archery hunting. I believe in making as quick and clean a kill as possible and following up on wounded game. But that's just my personal set of ideas. At the end of the day, they're just animals. When they die, nothing more is really gone than when you cut down a tree or rip up a weed. How or why we do it makes a bigger difference to us than it does to them. Anyway, the whitetail rut is about to heat up and ive got a hunt to plan. You all have a good day.
 
I see it pretty simply - kill it, but try to avoid excessive suffering. It's obviously not as simple as that for others - those who fancy themselves as being the moral compasses for others typically support the following:

- it doesn't matter how you kill (or wound) an "ugly" animal like a coyote, groundhog, crow or the like. Watching vidoes of ground squirrels being vaporized is hilarious, especially to music;
- with more "pretty" animals, killing is fine, but they have their positions on "fair chase", distance, bait and the like; and
- for "sacred" animals like dogs, cats, horses and the like - the kind you anthropomorphize (e.g. name, kiss (open mouthed for dogs is optional), mourn, etc.) killing, except for euthenasia, is simply off-limits.
 
I for one feel that long range shooting is far better left to the range and targets. Wounded targets do not go to far. I agree with Boomer on his post.I also think the majority of those who want to be long range hunters have no idea of what it takes. Most of those I have seen do not have a sighting system that will let them take a thousand yard shot. Have you ever tried to hold your rangefinder on an animal sized obect at 900 yards? If you have found a way I would like to see it as I cannot with mine. Where do all of these long range hunters practice. There are not many ranges that give you that opertunity. And yes, I have a range on my farm that is used constantly by myself. I do know what it takes to shoot at distance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom