Is long range hunting fair chase? Ethical??

Is long range hunting ethical and fair chase?

  • Total voters
    110
Status
Not open for further replies.
I think it depends what is going through the mind of the hunter. I'll illustrate.

Hunter A mind: I've stalked as close as possible. My range finder says that it's X yards away. I have scope data for that range (come ups). The animal is broadside,undisturbed and not moving. The light is good and the wind is quiet. My field rest is excellent. My rifle is MOA at that range. My loads are tested and MOA at that range. The ballistics of the load will ensure some expansion at that range. I'm in no rush for time AND I've accomplished this same shot on paper at the range many times with this rifle and load and hit well inside the kill zone. I feel confident.

Hunter B mind: I wonder if I can make this shot???????


I'll let you guys decide which hunter (A or B) is the ethical one.
 
Suka said:
I've no problem with someone hunting how they can get it done. I know through lot's of practice what my limitations are. As long as others do, I have no problem with it.

If they have a false sense of capability? Then it's just not right.
Click to expand...

starvin said:
Shots fired per dead animal should be the test of a hunter no matter how you go about it.
Click to expand...
CGN really needs a like button.
 
Hunting must involve the risk of detection and failure if there is to be any honor in having overcome the superior senses and survival instincts of the hunted.
Click to expand...



In many cases, that's about 200 yards, sometimes closer.


The furthest I've shot an animal is just under 400 yards, the closest basically just off the end of the barrel of my rifle. Neither one of them were aware of me although I wasn't exactly hiding. One of my hunting partners had a buck walk right up to her in a pop up ground blind a few weeks ago. Is using a blind also unethical because it removes a factor of the animals defense system ?

This is such a subjective topic.
 
Respecting the animal even if you want to kill it means obtaining every advantage in your control. Distance included.
 
This thread is a mechanism for virtue signalling. One hunter’s too far is another hunter’s chip shot. Unless you are a trad bow hunter, you are a just a killer for fun. Sarcasm folks….
 
Yes, a challenging question that isn't easily answered for the myriad of aforementioned reasons.

To me the reasonable test is the end result...was the animal successfully killed cleanly and recovered, or was it shot (wounded or cleanly killed), and not recovered...and for this we look at the number of animals that are found wounded, or dead, that were shot at long distances and not properly followed up on and recovered, or were not found because of a lack of persistence, or inability to catch up to a wounded animal and finish it off. While this can occur in any type of hunting, the likelihood of it occurring occurs more frequently with long range hunting (and again a challenging thing to define for everyone).

Our local conservation officers have reported a much higher incidence of this since long range shooting has become a fad, with the advent of the newer technologies in firearms, optics and projectiles, resulting where they often cannot locate the point at which the shot originated from. This leaves the case unsolved. In most instances, this is contributed to the much greater distances that shots are being taken at on game. This wasn't an issue in the past.

This is the reason why I would vote it as being unethical and not fair chase...but this is just my opinion, and why I choose to get within my self imposed range for taking a shot at unwounded game in which I am confident that I can make an accurate shot for a quick, clean kill, and recover the animal (based on proven skill and field experience on game). In 38 years of hunting a wide variety of game, in a wide variety of terrain, taken with numerous rifle/cartridge combinations, my average shot distance is 127 yards (rifle and archery combined).
 
45ACPKING said:
seems to me topics like this just serve to divide the hunting community.
An ethical shot is an ethical shot..... whether it's 20 ft away or 1000 yards away.

My opinion is this..... if the hunter has the right equipment and the time behind the rifle to make clean long range kills..... who the phuck am I to judge ?
If the animal dies a quick sudden death it doesn't matter how close you are, it's an ethical kill.
We , as a group, should not be so quick to fall into these arguments.
My most productive deer hunting spot is all close range , even as close as 10 yards but like long distance hunting, the deer can't smell me, they can't see me, they have no idea I am there laying in wait. I could be 10 yards away.... I could be 1000...... when the bullet strikes the vitals it makes no difference.
So to me the whole argument is nothing but a bunch of divisive nonsense and I think Boone and Crocket's stance on the whole thing is dead wrong
For the record, my longest shot (measured shot) on a game animal is an honest 295 yards with the leupold range finder. I know I have taken at least 2 animals at further distance but they are guesses , not measured..... but both under 400 and probably in the 350-ish range. Some hunters call that long range hehe
At the end of the day if the hunter is skilled and is able to consistantly strike vitals at 700 to 1000 yards and the animals are killed quickly and efficiently...... who am I to judge?
Click to expand...

^^^^^^^^ What he said ^^^^^^^ I have my varmint/predator scopes set at 200M to nail Coyotes across wide open pastures. I can count on one hand the number I've shot at 350M,but,every one of them were clean kills. For me,anything out past that I let go,just my personal preferrence,but,I never condemn others if they decide to make an attempt.
 
I think B&C is trying to find the line between shooting (long range or not) and hunting. Of course you can’t successfully kill on a hunt without a shot. However you can shoot without actually hunting. As in a range with targets. But when you substitute the targets with animals it is the opinion that it isn’t hunting. Like gopher shooting isn’t gopher hunting. Unless you make it such. With different effort and attitude. Does the size or quantity of the animal determine how much you respect it? Often not for some. Is the animal or the shot the trophy/memory? It obviously would be nice if it were both.
 
Is a man who uses multiple multiple trail cameras and kills an animal at 50 yards or less more of a hunter than the man who uses a spotting scope for hours and hours and kills an animal at 800 yards?
 
Buckmastr said:
Respecting the animal even if you want to kill it means obtaining every advantage in your control. Distance included.
Click to expand...

So at what distance should a hunter consider it respectful to kill an animal? What distance is not respectful? Why?

Just curious. I know what my personal limitations are.
 
crazy_davey said:
So at what distance should a hunter consider it respectful to kill an animal? What distance is not respectful? Why?

Just curious. I know what my personal limitations are.
Click to expand...

My answer to that is determined by the terrain I've hunted. Interior rainforest, and now coastal ....jungle. I've hunted 50 years, the longest game I've taken 275 yards. Perhaps if I hunted in southern Alberta or Saskatchewan my answer would be different.

All calibers, including the new fast twist high bc wonder calibers, start doubling their drop every 50 yards past 300. Would you consider it ethical to shoot a Elk with a 22 hornet? 22 hornet energy is what your hitting that Elk with at 800 yards. If you can hit it with 10ft of drop and 3ft of wind drift.

Me I'll stick to 300yards, but then I walk in the thick. That's were I run into animals once the big rifles start to talk in September. My method of hunting suits bayonets more than range finders.

Another of my windy analogies. Previously, I was a rather fanatical golfer. Owned early range finders, but was pretty good at range estimation. At my height I was a 4 handicap. Anyways, what separates a 4 handicap from someone who can't break 100 is work, talent, and consistency. A 》100 golfer can hit a 300yd drive, knock a 8 iron to 4 inches. They just don't do it very often. A 4 handicaps miss is the green apron, a 》100 golfers is the middle of the pond. There are a lot of average shooters who don't have the gear, talent, or shoot enough to take that 800 yard shoot. They're telling you how they shot They're animal at 800 yards, but in hunting your not washing a Titleist in the pond. They're gut shooting a living Creature. You don't get mulligans on ego driven cruelty.
 
Last edited:
crazy_davey said:
So at what distance should a hunter consider it respectful to kill an animal? What distance is not respectful? Why?

Just curious. I know what my personal limitations are.
Click to expand...

It is the distance at which you are confident you can make an effective shot. That distance however can vary widely. Your ability, equipment, weather, field conditions, position of the animal and a host of other factors would be involved.
 
hawk-i said:
How "bout shooting over bait?
Click to expand...

Baiting being legal one place, and illegal down the road in another is a hard argue.

How about shooting a deer over bait at 800 yards? One that you’ve got on trail cam?? One that you could also shoot at 100 yards…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom