Totally unethical? - Should we boycott as a group?

[sheephunter]

To Sheephunter....curious if Ive ever missed a shot? Of course if you hunt, you've missed, but I knew where the round(s) went and was able to make the propper corrections to get back on target, if presented with another shot.

That was my point.....we all miss occasionally...and not only because we are shooting beyond our capabilities. Some here seem to believe that because the young fellow missed the first shot that he was shooting beyond his ability. The second shot seems to belie that fact.

 

[sheephunter]

Actually it was a 300 win mag, I was sighted in for right on at 200 yards. I was grouping 3 inches at 300 yards. I estimated it was 300 yards to the deer. There were some dips in between which threw off my judgement. I had time, I pulled out the bipod, settled in prone, and aimed right for the top of his back. He ran off. I was very confident I had got him. When I got to where he was, after pacing off 200 yards, exactly where I was sighted in for (200 yards) and holding where I held on him, there was a pile of deer hair in the snow. I followed him for 2 KMs in the snow, but never found a single drop of blood.

I'd say not only did you misjudge the distance but also the trajectory of your rifle...a common mistake that likely all of us have made in our early hunting careers. We all seem to be able justify misses in our own minds when it happens to us but very quick to point the finger when it happens to others. Typically, my best excuse is that I just had the crosshairs in the wrong place when I squeezed the trigger. Hard on the ego but typically far more accurate. It happens. The trick is not to shoot beyond your abilities and the abilities of your gear and it will minimize the percentage of poor shots....but it will never eliminate them.....outside of messageboards anyhow.

 

[jjohnwm]

The thing I do not like is that there are now multiple hunting shows, promoting this, selling hi-tech scopes, guns etc...
The commercialization/promotion of this, leads people that are not competent, into buying this gear and trying this out.

And you're right; these guys on these shows seek the longest possible shot. If they could get an animal at 200 yards, they would deliberately work out to a longer range... what the heck!?

The people that are getting paid to endorse this type stuff and of course going to support it.
The handful of people that are competent, will also support it.

People wound deer at 50 yards. Whatya gonna do?

It is not unethical.

It is not illegal.

It is not my thing.

Flame away people.

I'm not flaming you here, but I cannot agree when you state that this behaviour is not unethical. Sure, some guys will make shots at 400 or 500 yards more easily than others, but some of these shows are advocating shots at two or three times that distance. When you get that far out, the simple fact is that there is absolutely no way to know what that animal may or may no do while the bullet is moseying downrange. We're talking bullet flight times of 2 seconds or more. That sounds like a brief span, and in some contexts it is, but a hell of a lot can happen in two seconds. A target animal can easily shift far enough to cause an otherwise perfect shot to turn into a disaster. How can this be considered ethical? You are sending a bullet downrange based upon your hope that the animal will not move. This is, in my opinion (worth every penny you paid for it!) totally unacceptable.

You want to show me what a great shot you are? How skillfully you can dope wind and trajectory? How much accuracy you have cajoled out of your rifle and ammo? Great! Shoot a damned target at whatever extreme range you can...NOT A LIVE ANIMAL!

 

[Demonical]

I'm not flaming you here, but I cannot agree when you state that this behaviour is no unethical. Sure, some guys will make shots at 400 or 500 yards more easily than others, but some of these shows are advocating shots at two or three times that distance. When you get that far out, the simple fact is that there is absolutely no way to know what that animal may or may no do while the bullet is moseying downrange. We're talking bullet flight times of 2 seconds or more. That sounds like a brief span, and in some contexts it is, but a hell of a lot can happen in two seconds. A target animal can easily shift far enough to cause an otherwise perfect shot to turn into a disaster. How can this be considered ethical? You are sending a bullet downrange based upon your hope that the animal will not move. This is, in my opinion (worth every penny you paid for it!) totally unacceptable.

You want to show me what a great shot you are? How skillfully you can dope wind and trajectory? How much accuracy you have cajoled out of your rifle and ammo? Great! Shoot a damned target at whatever extreme range you can...NOT A LIVE ANIMAL!

Are you talking to me?

I do not endorse long range hunting in any way. I do not do it. I believe in getting as close as possible; that's what I always do.

I am also the guy that consistently states my preferred variable range rifle scopes are in the 1.5-6x range. Not these crazy 3.5-12X, 4.5-14X etc... that all the 'experts' on hunting shows are endorsing. Because I like to get as close as possible. I believe I'm actually hunting when I do that.

My preferred range is 25-30 paces.

Longest shot I have ever made on a big game animal was 325 paces (whitetail buck, DRT).


Back to the top, I said it's not unethical, but that is NOT an ENDORSEMENT.

I guess we are going to argue as to what is ethical. I will agree with you 100%, that the 'hunting' that was depicted in that video is fcuking retarded.

 

[bearkilr]

With Sitka camo and Gunwerks rifles, anything is possible, as evidenced.

Wasn't there a recent Greybull Precision video of a 12 year old first time hunter shooting a cow elk at 800 yards or so? Seems Gunwerks and Greybull are competing to see who can have the most inexperienced hunter succeed on the farthest kill, with vieo editing avialble of course.

Ethical? That's a subjective opinion, but IMO they're completely irresponsible retards for introducing the next generation of hunters to the sport in this fashion, only to promote their products.

 

[sheephunter]

With Sitka camo and Gunwerks rifles, anything is possible, as evidenced.

Wasn't there a recent Greybull Precision video of a 12 year old first time hunter shooting a cow elk at 800 yards or so? Seems Gunwerks and Greybull are competing to see who can have the most inexperienced hunter succeed on the farthest kill, with vieo editing avialble of course.

Ethical? That's a subjective opinion, but IMO they're completely irresponsible retards for introducing the next generation of hunters to the sport in this fashion, only to promote their products.

I'd say by the way that young shooter established his shooting position and contact with the rifle that he was far from inexperienced. A lot of long-time shooters could have learned a thing or two from him. He had some serious rifle time I'd say.

 

[bearkilr]

I'd say by the way that young shooter established his shooting position and contact with the rifle that he was far from inexperienced. A lot of long-time shooters could have learned a thing or two from him. He had some serious rifle time I'd say.

Do you generally dry fire your favorite 3/4 mile rifle a couple of times before taking a shot at a live animal? I'm thinking that set up is pretty new to him.

 

[sheephunter]

Do you generally dry fire your favorite 3/4 mile rifle a couple of times before taking a shot at a live animal? I'm thinking that set up is pretty new to him.

I've never shot those distances at a live animal but from those I have spoken with that routinely do, it is common practice. It's helps your breathing settle. Considering this was his first elk it likely was a good exercise to help settle some excitement too. Perhaps as you say that rifle was new to him, I have no idea but I can guarantee shooting wasn't. Look at his hand position on the grip and his cheek weld.....that isn't inexperience.

 

[bigbore14]

That was my point.....we all miss occasionally...and not only because we are shooting beyond our capabilities. Some here seem to believe that because the young fellow missed the first shot that he was shooting beyond his ability. The second shot seems to belie that fact.

I'm not saying this kid was beyond his capabilities at a shooting range. I am sure he has shot that distance many, many times. Just because he has, doesn't make it an ethical shot. The first shot proves this. The more distance from the target is increased, the less likely the first shot will connect.

Shooting ability on a second shot is 10 times easier than your first practice shot. The important part is how good you actually are in calling in your FIRST shot. Do you actually believe, because he "made" the second shot it was ethical to guess the wind, and thermals, at that distance on a live animal for the first shot at that distance? Because the miss, says it wasn't. It wasn't a rushed shot. It wasn't a super windy day. They could have gotten a heck of a lot closer. And he risked wounding an animal, with all that professional expertise, and experience around him.

I'm a statistics and probabilities guy. Do you know how many times, guys at that level of experience miss that first shot at that sort of distance? Care to hazard a guess? Is a 70% track record good enough to be called ethical?

 

[bigbore14]

I'd say by the way that young shooter established his shooting position and contact with the rifle that he was far from inexperienced. A lot of long-time shooters could have learned a thing or two from him. He had some serious rifle time I'd say.

I'd say they could learn a thing or two from him as well. If you're not 100% probably going to make your shot a kill shot, you shouldnt be shooting.
It wasn't a good first shot. He missed. The group missed. And they chanced wounding an animal.

He may have been handed a long range rifle while suckling on his mothers teat. The fact is, they miss on their first shot often. Many times they will take a practice shot on a rock near the animal so that they can make a correction on the live animal using that information.

 

[snomad]

It's possible to send in a laser guided smart bomb and even take out the "animal moving factor" over 2 or 3 seconds too. Would that be any more ethical? (Of course assuming that there would still be anything left to consume, which was hopefully the point in the first place.) It's all good and fine to have great gear and be confident in that gear but what happened to the quality of the hunt itself? There is more to a hunt than a kill shot, especially one made at ridiculous ranges. As stated, Murphy will come and play his part there and in fact did in this example where the first shot missed. The only thing that is really wild about Wild TV is the obscene amount of product promotion. Time the ads some time yourself over a 30 minute show.

 

[Paladin308]

It seems to me that the ethics have absolutely nothing to do with the range of the shot. If you train with your system and can reliably make kill shots at extended range in field conditions, then by all means do so. Some people will miss at 100m, does that mean we should only make shots at 50m? In the end the ethics of the situation boils down to: make your kill with minimal suffering. That ethic is incompatible with the idea of "challenging yourself" to get the longest range you can, that kind of behaviour should be reserved for practice sessions where the consequences of misses are much less.

simply put: if you are outside of your capable range, move in, if your inside, don't move out.

 

[sheephunter]

I'm not saying this kid was beyond his capabilities at a shooting range. I am sure he has shot that distance many, many times. Just because he has, doesn't make it an ethical shot. The first shot proves this. The more distance from the target is increased, the less likely the first shot will connect.

Shooting ability on a second shot is 10 times easier than your first practice shot. The important part is how good you actually are in calling in your FIRST shot. Do you actually believe, because he "made" the second shot it was ethical to guess the wind, and thermals, at that distance on a live animal for the first shot at that distance? Because the miss, says it wasn't. It wasn't a rushed shot. It wasn't a super windy day. They could have gotten a heck of a lot closer. And he risked wounding an animal, with all that professional expertise, and experience around him.

I'm a statistics and probabilities guy. Do you know how many times, guys at that level of experience miss that first shot at that sort of distance? Care to hazard a guess? Is a 70% track record good enough to be called ethical?

Knowing the people involved in the shot, I'll guarantee there was no guessing of anything.

I have no idea if they could have gotten closer as it looked like a pretty steep canyon between them. I'm not sure how you know this.

I guess we will have to disagree on whether a miss makes a shot unethical or not.....I think Murphy plays a role in some instances. I know my 163 yard miss a couple years ago was well within my ethical range.....I just screwed it up.

I'm not a long range shooter so maybe I'm out to lunch with my thoughts but seeing a person miss one shot doesn't tell me anything about his ethics other than crap happens occasionally. No idea where you came up with the 70% and I am a stats guy too. Be interested in hearing the research behind it.

 

[sheephunter]

I'd say they could learn a thing or two from him as well. If you're not 100% probably going to make your shot a kill shot, you shouldnt be shooting.
It wasn't a good first shot. He missed. The group missed. And they chanced wounding an animal.

He may have been handed a long range rifle while suckling on his mothers teat. The fact is, they miss on their first shot often. Many times they will take a practice shot on a rock near the animal so that they can make a correction on the live animal using that information.

Let those who are perfect cast the first stone.....I miss occasionally......I'm not throwing anything....sorry. Hopefully you never miss another shot in your life.......it would be a long fall for you.

 

[shawn]

Got to say I am with Sheephunter on this, nothing I saw in the vid was unethical.

Just because you cant do it, or don't want to do it, doesn't make it unethical. Clearly that kid is a skilled shooter and has the time on that rifle to make shots at that range and it even falls within the guys that say its unethical own descriptions of ethical:

But what defines an ethical shot to all of us hunters, and I think you can agree, is shooting at an animal where you know with 70% certainty, you WILL put one into the vitals on either the first, second or third shot, every time!

Of course if you hunt, you've missed, but I knew where the round(s) went and was able to make the propper corrections to get back on target, if presented with another shot.

All of which the kid in this vid did. So is it only unethical when someone else does it or when you do it too?

Shawn

 

[bearkilr]

I've never shot those distances at a live animal but from those I have spoken with that routinely do, it is common practice. It's helps your breathing settle. Considering this was his first elk it likely was a good exercise to help settle some excitement too. Perhaps as you say that rifle was new to him, I have no idea but I can guarantee shooting wasn't. Look at his hand position on the grip and his cheek weld.....that isn't inexperience.

So we agree, it was shooting, not hunting.
He's defintely an inexperienced elk hunter, as this was his first. Maybe if daddy wasn't a long range rifle maker he would have let him take his first elk at a more reasonable range,though that makes for a less sensational video to promote your product.

 

[Paladin308]

I think the real issue is that Bambi was seen to suffer, and that tugs at heart strings. If that happens because the shooter went beyond their capabilities it's unethical, if it happened due to dumb luck it sucks but it's not something to call PETA over.

 

[sheephunter]

So we agree, it was shooting, not hunting.
He's defintely an inexperienced elk hunter, as this was his first. Maybe if daddy wasn't a long range rifle maker he would have let him take his first elk at a more reasonable range,though that makes for a less sensational video to promote your product.

LOL...nice leap but the shot is ultimately part of hunting......I'm not really interested in getting mired down in semantics. He had a licence, went hunting and shot an elk....ergo he was hunting.

Likely if daddy wasn't a rifle maker he wouldn't have had that much rifle time to develop the skills to make a shot like that. No doubt their show is all about promoting long-range shooting and gear but that still doesn't make anything that happened unethical. Not a shot I would have taken but not a shot I'm about to judge either.

 

[1899]

I'm a statistics and probabilities guy. Do you know how many times, guys at that level of experience miss that first shot at that sort of distance? Care to hazard a guess? Is a 70% track record good enough to be called ethical?

It is simple math. Let's assume the rifle can hold 1/2 MOA out to 1378 yards (which I don't believe in the first place - the 1000 yard 10 shot record is ~ .4 MOA, and that is from a bench with a purpose built target rifle). That means the rifle will give you a group of about 7.2" at 1378 yards. Lets assume that they were off in their wind calculation by a mere .75 mph. Again, a TINY .75mph error in guaging the wind over a distance of well over a kilometer. That equates to another 8.1" of wind drift. Oh, what about an error in temperature estimation, it isn't actually 16.5 degrees, it is 15 degrees. There is another 2" of error.

So you could very easily be looking at your bullet landing 17.3" away from your point of aim. Again, keep in mind that this is IF the rifle can hold 1/2 MOA and IF the shooter is capable of that from a bipod. A 1 MOA shooter from that distance, which would still be incredible, would give a 24.6" group.

 

[bearkilr]

LOL...nice leap but the shot is ultimately part of hunting......I'm not really interested in getting mired down in semantics. He had a licence, went hunting and shot an elk....ergo he was hunting.

Likely if daddy wasn't a rifle maker he wouldn't have had that much rifle time to develop the skills to make a shot like that. No doubt their show is all about promoting long-range shooting and gear but that still doesn't make anything that happened unethical. Not a shot I would have taken but not a shot I'm about to judge either.

Everyone has their own ethics when it comes to hunting and it shouldn't be governed by laws. Myself, I consider this example unethical since that's an extreme distance to expose a young shooter to his first elk and the chance of a mishap of some sort is certainly amplified by that distance.
But that's just my opinion, which is as worthless as everyone else's.