Moose shot at 1100 yards

bearkilr said:
You're painting trophy hunters with a pretty broad brush. I've found the opposite actually. Those who spend lots of money on hunting generally practice the most and are more disciplined.
Farmer Bob who goes after his yearly doe with a pocketfull of mismatched ammo and a rifle that was sighted in 25 years ago is far more prone to wounding and lobbing shots at anything out there. At least that's been my observation.
Click to expand...

Nope, I will not include high spending trophy hunters in tmy statement. I agree that they do shoot more and tend to be more exact in their techniques, including stalking to within the closest didstance they can before shooting. I am talking about the guys who shoot 20rds a year, but ONLY want the rack. They don't have the patience.
 
rookie wildcat said:
Boomer,
I will totally agree with your first statement. However, it took at least 20-30 minutes. Was that ethical or humane? I was hoping to get out of this complete s**tstorm of a thread, but, no such luck.

Those of you who have criticized my attack on the original shooter as unethical, please forgive me. I had no right to force my ethics or views on another. The only thing we have to conform to in our lives and society is the absolute legal interpretation or any situation. There is no gray area. It is either legal or illegal. If it is legal, no matter by what loose but justifiable interpretation of the law, then it's all good. Yet, just how many things are not illegal yet are unethical. You are not legally bound to report someone who may have modified his car so as to make it totally unsafe, and you are not legally prosecutable for that lapse, but if it killed someone, would you not have been ethically bound to do so, simply to prevent that?
Lead on, MacDuff..teach me about ethics. I have only had a course or two myself, so I can still learn at the feet of the master.
Click to expand...

The trouble with ethical arguments is that everyone has his own idea of what's right and what's wrong and those beliefs can be strongly held. I can no more change your core beliefs than you can mine. Debate however can be a good way of self examining our personal beliefs to determine if they are balanced or askew, note I did not say right or wrong.

An ethical hunter is one who assumes he has a reasonable expectation of making a successful shot, the length of the shot does not come into question, only the question of his ability under the conditions of the moment. Does his health and physical condition allow him to make a steady shot after a few hours of arduous hunting? In some locations, fall time weather can be just awful, and if you hunt in such weather it is unlikely you will be successful in making a shot of much over 100 yards due to wind, blowing snow, fog, freezing rain, whatever. Sometimes the wind is so strong the only position that is useful is prone, but if vegetation is in the way, you have to get closer, or move back to the top of the hill for a clear view. Someone who attempts an off-hand shot under such conditions has a low chance of success, so the question of taking that relatively close shot becomes an ethical problem; yet the range is easily within the ability of most competent riflemen under better conditions.

How often do we hear that when a deer bolts at the shot, the proper thing to do is to sit and have a smoke or two while the animal lays up and stiffens? The trouble is that the animal suffers for the half an hour you wait, and continues to suffer if you are unsuccessful in tracking him. Is that ethical? On the other hand, if you follow up immediately after the shot, the deer could continue to travel for quite some time before it collapses from blood loss. Is that ethical? Yet once we press the trigger and our target disappears, it is clearly unethical to do nothing, so we must choose the lessor of the evils which ever choice that is.

In some localities hunting big game with dogs is perfectly fine, other places not so much. Some people like ranch hunting, others call it a canned hunt. In some places shooting over bait is fine, in other places, no. Some folks disapprove of trophy hunting, others thrive on it. Some folks prefer to hunt dangerous game as they would any other big game animal, shooting it while it is in a relaxed undisturbed condition, while others prefer to get in close, confront their quarry, and if possible instigate a charge. Behind all of this is what we call ethics, the challenge is to find the right balance. But we must also accept that what is right for us might not be for others, and what is right for others might not work for us.
 
rookie wildcat said:
Nope, I will not include high spending trophy hunters in tmy statement. I agree that they do shoot more and tend to be more exact in their techniques, including stalking to within the closest didstance they can before shooting. I am talking about the guys who shoot 20rds a year, but ONLY want the rack. They don't have the patience.
Click to expand...
The guy that shoots only 20 rounds a year , only goes after the rack but takes chancey shots is NOT a true trophy hunter.
the trophy hunters I know sometimes go for a few years without taking an animal, and will not take an "iffy " shot, be it outside their comfort zone, or a bad angle , partially hidden kill zone, etc.
The guys i have met that don't practice yet brag about all the deer they have shot yet look down on a person for shooting a doe because of their misguided views of hunting are the ones i think you are talking about.
these people are not trophy hunters in my mind, but then I am not a trophy hunter either, I will take a doe every time over a rack....
Cat
 
Thankfully sniper t went to bed at a respectable hour last night. His mom probably shut the lights off.
School starts by 9am,... and theres plenty to learn there, and here from many hunters, and ex military.
An amature can become tired and overwhelmed pretty fast.:D
 
I wanna meet this guy. I really really wanna meet this guy. I personally couldn't give a #### about 1100meter kills right now, or the ethics of hunting etc etc. I just read through 23 pages of mostly drivel to see if anyone else would mention it....
If that kid didn't have earplugs in and muffs over top he deserves a good swift kick in the face. Way to #### up your kid's hearing pal.
 
canuckgunny said:
I wanna meet this guy. I really really wanna meet this guy. I personally couldn't give a f**k about 1100meter kills right now, or the ethics of hunting etc etc. I just read through 23 pages of mostly drivel to see if anyone else would mention it....
If that kid didn't have earplugs in and muffs over top he deserves a good swift kick in the face. Way to f**k up your kid's hearing pal.
Click to expand...


:rolleyes:
 
canuckgunny said:
I wanna meet this guy. I really really wanna meet this guy. I personally couldn't give a f**k about 1100meter kills right now, or the ethics of hunting etc etc. I just read through 23 pages of mostly drivel to see if anyone else would mention it....
If that kid didn't have earplugs in and muffs over top he deserves a good swift kick in the face. Way to f**k up your kid's hearing pal.
Click to expand...

:jerkit:

. . . as if he used his kids shoulder as a rest.
 
canuckgunny said:
I wanna meet this guy. I really really wanna meet this guy. I personally couldn't give a f**k about 1100meter kills right now, or the ethics of hunting etc etc. I just read through 23 pages of mostly drivel to see if anyone else would mention it....
If that kid didn't have earplugs in and muffs over top he deserves a good swift kick in the face. Way to f**k up your kid's hearing pal.
Click to expand...

I'm wondering where you got the idea that the kid did not have hearing protection on?
Cat
 
I would not take anything near that sort of range even with an abundance of practice, kodos to him for taking his daughter shes adorable.
 
Boomer said:
The trouble with ethical arguments is that everyone has his own idea of what's right and what's wrong and those beliefs can be strongly held. I can no more change your core beliefs than you can mine. Debate however can be a good way of self examining our personal beliefs to determine if they are balanced or askew, note I did not say right or wrong.

An ethical hunter is one who assumes he has a reasonable expectation of making a successful shot, the length of the shot does not come into question, only the question of his ability under the conditions of the moment. Does his health and physical condition allow him to make a steady shot after a few hours of arduous hunting? In some locations, fall time weather can be just awful, and if you hunt in such weather it is unlikely you will be successful in making a shot of much over 100 yards due to wind, blowing snow, fog, freezing rain, whatever. Sometimes the wind is so strong the only position that is useful is prone, but if vegetation is in the way, you have to get closer, or move back to the top of the hill for a clear view. Someone who attempts an off-hand shot under such conditions has a low chance of success, so the question of taking that relatively close shot becomes an ethical problem; yet the range is easily within the ability of most competent riflemen under better conditions.

How often do we hear that when a deer bolts at the shot, the proper thing to do is to sit and have a smoke or two while the animal lays up and stiffens? The trouble is that the animal suffers for the half an hour you wait, and continues to suffer if you are unsuccessful in tracking him. Is that ethical? On the other hand, if you follow up immediately after the shot, the deer could continue to travel for quite some time before it collapses from blood loss. Is that ethical? Yet once we press the trigger and our target disappears, it is clearly unethical to do nothing, so we must choose the lessor of the evils which ever choice that is.

In some localities hunting big game with dogs is perfectly fine, other places not so much. Some people like ranch hunting, others call it a canned hunt. In some places shooting over bait is fine, in other places, no. Some folks disapprove of trophy hunting, others thrive on it. Some folks prefer to hunt dangerous game as they would any other big game animal, shooting it while it is in a relaxed undisturbed condition, while others prefer to get in close, confront their quarry, and if possible instigate a charge. Behind all of this is what we call ethics, the challenge is to find the right balance. But we must also accept that what is right for us might not be for others, and what is right for others might not work for us.
Click to expand...

Problem is he marginalized every advantage a hunter seeks with that shot:

-Shot placement: There's no way he'd tell you in honesty that shot was going in the vitals and nowhere else, and he didn't make it, he spined it.

-Caliber: Whatever caliber he was shooting, by 1100 yards it's beyond marginal for moose.

Given the size of a moose, he likely hit a couple feet from what 95% seek in shot placement, giving him say a four foot radius of possible shot placement on pulling the trigger, two feet either side the vitals.

I know both you and I extoll the virtues of using enough gun, and shot placement, in other threads and this guy took advantage of neither of those factors, by choice. He also failed in the eyes of everyone but a sustenance hunter who only cares if an animal goes down and not how. We don't need to blindly avoid speaking ill of other hunters in a whipped vote type motion, when something stinks it's alright to point it out. This guy took a shot he couldn't tell you he'd make, spined an animal more than a kilometer away, and posted it online as a triumph. That's bound to attract criticism as poor decision making, and reasonably so.
 
canuckgunny said:
I wanna meet this guy. I really really wanna meet this guy. I personally couldn't give a f**k about 1100meter kills right now, or the ethics of hunting etc etc. I just read through 23 pages of mostly drivel to see if anyone else would mention it....
If that kid didn't have earplugs in and muffs over top he deserves a good swift kick in the face. Way to f**k up your kid's hearing pal.
Click to expand...

Might have just told his kid to stick his fingers in his ears....:p
 
Ardent said:
Problem is he marginalized every advantage a hunter seeks with that shot:

-Shot placement: There's no way he'd tell you in honesty that shot was going in the vitals and nowhere else, and he didn't make it, he spined it.

-Caliber: Whatever caliber he was shooting, by 1100 yards it's beyond marginal for moose.

Given the size of a moose, he likely hit a couple feet from what 95% seek in shot placement, giving him say a four foot radius of possible shot placement on pulling the trigger, two feet either side the vitals.

I know both you and I extoll the virtues of using enough gun, and shot placement, in other threads and this guy took advantage of neither of those factors, by choice. He also failed in the eyes of everyone but a sustenance hunter who only cares if an animal goes down and not how. We don't need to blindly avoid speaking ill of other hunters in a whipped vote type motion, when something stinks it's alright to point it out. This guy took a shot he couldn't tell you he'd make, spined an animal more than a kilometer away, and posted it online as a triumph. That's bound to attract criticism as poor decision making, and reasonably so.
Click to expand...

explain
 
Ifs he's an ardent shooter who knows his limitations then good shot. I'm be a bit more concerned about leaving his toddler unattended(possibly, given that i see no one else in the vid) in bear country with a fresh kill.
 
I knowlittle of the guy, other than the fact that he spined an animal at 1100 yrd, which I have seen done a number of times at less than 400 yrds.
He pulled the shot a bit, ... and spined the animal. I have shot an animal at 50 yrds and spined him... Gun was 3 high at 100 and I was jittery...

The fact that thuis guy took the moose at 1100 yrds gives me a thought he might know what he is doing... pulled it a little or was a hair off on a calculation.

Should there be some legislation as to where the margin of error is not acceptable?

200 yrds, 300 yrds, 400 yrds...

I don't think so. He is accountable to himself and the law, and by both he did well.
 
Last edited:
BlazinDayz said:
Ifs he's an ardent shooter who knows his limitations then good shot. I'm be a bit more concerned about leaving his toddler unattended(possibly, given that i see no one else in the vid) in bear country with a fresh kill.
Click to expand...

They are on an island, the chance of a bear making his way to the toddler before buddy can get to his gun?
Crap, I think I'd have a better chance winning the the lottery than betting on that!:cool:
Cat
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom