haha yeah, this is true
The present trend of ultra long range hunting/shooting
- Thread starter bearkilr
- Start date
haha yeah, this is true
The grey area of fair or sportsmanlike is way to subjective to argue. I'd sooner call it a day at legal. I don't care how you hunt an animal, there will always be someone who will look down their nose at your sportsmanship. Think about all of the advantages that a typical 20th century hunter brings to any successful or unsuccessful hunt. I'd feel like I was playing a game of battle ship trying a 900 yard shot at an animal and am just as likely to run out of bullets as hit anything much over 400 but if someone can make a clean kill at that range, giver.
Other than the fair play / ethical kill argument, I find the long range calibre's sure leave massive wounds.
And I'm about the meat before the rack. The jellied meat and crater sized exit wound of magnum calibre's make for a lot more dog food and lot less people food.
But the middle ground is a matter of opinion I suppose. It could be argued that a big and slow bullet doesn't kill as humanely as a big magnum calibre; which would be true under some circumstances. Big and slow requires up close to get it done right. Whereas a big magnum will produce such a hydrostatic shock wave it'll get a job done with a margin hit.
But it involves math I don't care to study to calculate how much magnum energy is bled off at long distances.
Is the 338 still producing the massive energy at 800 +/- yards? Or is it down to 30-30 at 250 yards energy?
Someone out in interwebland might be able to figure it out, but I really don't care.
I'm a close hunter by choice.
I don't consider anything over 500 yds hunting. Shooting yes; but calling it hunting is a bit of a stretch. Man against animal? Not when you are reaching that 1/2 km+ mark. Technology has tipped the scales pretty heavily in the shooters favor.
No offence intended just my thoughts on the matter
And I'm about the meat before the rack. The jellied meat and crater sized exit wound of magnum calibre's make for a lot more dog food and lot less people food.
But the middle ground is a matter of opinion I suppose. It could be argued that a big and slow bullet doesn't kill as humanely as a big magnum calibre; which would be true under some circumstances. Big and slow requires up close to get it done right. Whereas a big magnum will produce such a hydrostatic shock wave it'll get a job done with a margin hit.
But it involves math I don't care to study to calculate how much magnum energy is bled off at long distances.
Is the 338 still producing the massive energy at 800 +/- yards? Or is it down to 30-30 at 250 yards energy?
Someone out in interwebland might be able to figure it out, but I really don't care.
I'm a close hunter by choice.
I don't consider anything over 500 yds hunting. Shooting yes; but calling it hunting is a bit of a stretch. Man against animal? Not when you are reaching that 1/2 km+ mark. Technology has tipped the scales pretty heavily in the shooters favor.
No offence intended just my thoughts on the matter
By your logic, shooting a buck at 498 yards makes you a hunter....501 yards and your nothing but a good shooter....I understand people have their opinions but at the end of the day if you are hunting within the laws laid out we are all hunters.
If anything over 500 yards isn't hunting then where does it end? Using hounds isn't hunting? Scouting with game cams? Sitting in an elevated box blind with a propane heater? Baiting bears? There are some methods and some tools that don't fit with my tastes but I don't step over the line and say that people that do those things aren't hunters....come on people.
If there were a reliable way to collect the data I would wager that more game is wounded by schmucks trying to shoot deer well within easy range than by the people with the developed skills and equipment to shoot long range.
I think it is incumbent upon hunters to decide collectively what is acceptable and what isn't. Niche tactics that are extremely damaging to our overall reputation hurt us in the long run. The laissez faire, "oh well its not for me" attitude is a cop out. Long range hunting is target practice using live targets. Legal should not be confused with ethical.
shooting a buck at 498 yards makes you a hunter....501 yards and your nothing but a good shooter...
Kind of splitting hairs, no? Everyone has to have a line, that's mine.
I wouldn't shoot a deer at that range myself, it's not my thing. I like hunting; heck I just spent about 3 days a week for the last 6 weeks stalking the bush on the creek with a bow. Didn't get anything, it's a tight year.
Had a great time. Even knowing I'd not get anything I'd do it again.
My daughter has a scope on her rifle but all mine are irons; I don't get the long range thrill. Nothing wrong with it, just not for me.
I can't shoot as good as a dedicated long range shooter, no interest there.
Long distance shooting is impressive, yes.
I just don't consider long range shooting at animals hunting. If it was a sustenance thing, do what you have to.
Just don't try to convince me you are hunting...did you stalk him down to 700 yds? ( sarcasm font).
Kind of splitting hairs, no? Everyone has to have a line, that's mine.
I wouldn't shoot a deer at that range myself, it's not my thing. I like hunting; heck I just spent about 3 days a week for the last 6 weeks stalking the bush on the creek with a bow. Didn't get anything, it's a tight year.
Had a great time. Even knowing I'd not get anything I'd do it again.
My daughter has a scope on her rifle but all mine are irons; I don't get the long range thrill. Nothing wrong with it, just not for me.
I can't shoot as good as a dedicated long range shooter, no interest there.
Long distance shooting is impressive, yes.
I just don't consider long range shooting at animals hunting. If it was a sustenance thing, do what you have to.
Just don't try to convince me you are hunting...did you stalk him down to 700 yds? ( sarcasm font).
Ethics are a personal thing, as long as someone is hunting within the law than who are you to judge their ethics? I think scoped, in-line muzzleloaders are lame but I don't discredit the acheivements of in-line toting folks and say they are not hunters.
Pretty sad state of affairs when hunters can't stand together despite not liking the methods used by others.
So, you believe that all boy scout leaders should stand together even though they don't like the ### offending methods used by others.
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. Period. There are unethical hunting methods. There are unethical behaviors that are actually legal too, so legality alone does not make some behavior ethical. It is absolutely necessary to "judge" the ethics of others when they behave unethically.
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. Every time someone agrees to allow unethical behavior in the name of "hunter solidarity", we lose ground to the anti's. 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.
I agree. I have nothing against long distance hunting if that is your thing and you practice to have the skill required. I am not a fan of the TV shows glorifying taking long shots at game, because I think they encourage the meatheads to take shots that are way outside their capabilities.
Mark
Being a ### offender is a crime.
This example you provided relates to hunting and ethics, how exactly??......wow...
Legal hunters dividng themselves is what does a disservice to the sport.
I ask again, where does the ethics debate end? Hunters legally pursuing cougars with hounds? Is that o.k. or is it unethical? How about night hunting coons or other predators in jurisdictions where it is legal? E-callers? Should we kick these guys outta the "club?" Hunting with ### scents or commercially produced calls? The list goes on and on. All of the above activities are legal hunting methods in many areas.
Some people just won't be happy 'til the only way to hunt will be the way themselves and there buds consider ethical.
The example relates because whether it is illegal or not is irrelevant to whether something is ethical or not. The collapse of the sub prime mortgage market was not due to any illegal activities. Were those activities ethical? Ethics is not law. Legality is not proof something is ethical. Another example: for many years it was legal to have slaves in many parts of the U.S. Did its legality make slavery ethical?
Your questions are exactly the kinds of issues that must be discussed. The fact that it's a big list is not an argument that we should not have the discussion; in fact, the length of the "list" as you call it, is the exact reason we must have these conversations. Whether an activity is legal according to the game laws is not an argument that it should be considered ethical.
Why are hunters so afraid of having talking about these things? Can't you all see that, if you had an ethical argument to defend the activities and methods hunters used, you could defend hunting more effectively? If your argument is that, "As long as it's legal, it's ethical," then all the antis have to do is make it illegal, and you're screwed. I don't want to become the victim of some "majority" decision again. I want us all well armed with reason, logic, and ethical arguments.
We just see the world differently rral22. I don't agree that the legality of an activity is irrelevant to whether or not it is ethical. To me the legality of an activity is the only basis one individual can use to judge someone elses ethics or lack thereof. Outside of that, I stand by what I said about it being a personal thing.
Anti-hunters want hunting gone period. They won't just stop at one facet of hunting, to them it is one victorious battle in a war. When hunters give up on their own it is just helping the people that want our sport gone to gain momentum.
That's my opinion, and I'm sticking to it
.
Anti-hunters want hunting gone period. They won't just stop at one facet of hunting, to them it is one victorious battle in a war. When hunters give up on their own it is just helping the people that want our sport gone to gain momentum.
That's my opinion, and I'm sticking to it
.
bearkilr
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Nowhere, ......just past the middle
And by that same logic sober drivers cause more accidents than impaired ones, so let's get them off the road first.
Hunting at its core should be based on fair chase principles. Arguments around what constitutes fair chase will always exist so long as new techniques/technology change the way we hunt. I do believe there is a breaking point to which technology tips the odds so much in our favour that we are merely collecting our meat and/or trophies as opposed to hunting them. The greater the manipulation of the predator/prey relationship the more we as hunters need to be aware that the non hunting world is watching. Like it or not, the less we appear to be earning our prey the more we will have to justify and defend our traditions and ways of life.
Patrick
Patrick
We just see the world differently rral22. I don't agree that the legality of an activity is irrelevant to whether or not it is ethical. To me the legality of an activity is the only basis one individual can use to judge someone elses ethics or lack thereof. Outside of that, I stand by what I said about it being a personal thing.
Anti-hunters want hunting gone period. They won't just stop at one facet of hunting, to them it is one victorious battle in a war. When hunters give up on their own it is just helping the people that want our sport gone to gain momentum.
That's my opinion, and I'm sticking to it
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.
- Location
- Saskatchewan
Do those people promoting the law as the only guide to our behaviour truly believe that there is no other discussion worth having? If we hunters can't question our own actions, who should? You must know that non-hunters will do so whether we want them to or not. Censure of other hunters because their opinion differs from yours is not tolerance, it is self serving and might even be a cover for behaviour that cannot be justified.
I would much rather have a discussion about ethics between hunters than a discussion with people who would impose an unrealistic or completely negative judgement on us. This sort of peer pressure has a very well established precedent among professionals. Doctors, Lawyers, etc. DO question and sometimes even try to modify the behaviour of members of their profession on the basis of ethics. I think hunting should not be exempt from such examination and discussion. I believe that hunting can only become better by such sharing of opinions, not worse.
I have seen on this thread several comments that more or less state "if someone has the skill to make the shot, I have no problem with it" That is a commendable attitude as far as it goes, but only addresses a small part of the problem with long distance shots. The decision to shoot or not is not just about shooting skill. Our responsibility to the animal was not addressed. The hunter must not only have the skill to make a long distance shot, but the confidence that it will be a quick killing shot, and that the animal will be found after the hit and taken into possession. And if a bad decision or bad luck results in wounded and lost game, then what? What are the consequences?
It is perfectly legal to take any safe "hope" shots a hunter wishes to take. As long as "all reasonable efforts are made to take the shot animal into possession" the law doesn't care. I do care about the welfare of the hunted animals, and for the public image of our hunting. If someone shoots at an animal and wounds it, then after not seeing it fall down, goes on to repeat the performance again and again it is marginally legal, but certainly not ethical. I have seen this happen far too often, and it saddens me.
Here is an example of a practical consequence of a disregard for the welfare of game animals. I own a considerable amount of good hunting land. I like to invite other hunters to share the bounty. But hunters who shoot with a disregard to wounding animals on my property are not invited back.
I would much rather have a discussion about ethics between hunters than a discussion with people who would impose an unrealistic or completely negative judgement on us. This sort of peer pressure has a very well established precedent among professionals. Doctors, Lawyers, etc. DO question and sometimes even try to modify the behaviour of members of their profession on the basis of ethics. I think hunting should not be exempt from such examination and discussion. I believe that hunting can only become better by such sharing of opinions, not worse.
I have seen on this thread several comments that more or less state "if someone has the skill to make the shot, I have no problem with it" That is a commendable attitude as far as it goes, but only addresses a small part of the problem with long distance shots. The decision to shoot or not is not just about shooting skill. Our responsibility to the animal was not addressed. The hunter must not only have the skill to make a long distance shot, but the confidence that it will be a quick killing shot, and that the animal will be found after the hit and taken into possession. And if a bad decision or bad luck results in wounded and lost game, then what? What are the consequences?
It is perfectly legal to take any safe "hope" shots a hunter wishes to take. As long as "all reasonable efforts are made to take the shot animal into possession" the law doesn't care. I do care about the welfare of the hunted animals, and for the public image of our hunting. If someone shoots at an animal and wounds it, then after not seeing it fall down, goes on to repeat the performance again and again it is marginally legal, but certainly not ethical. I have seen this happen far too often, and it saddens me.
Here is an example of a practical consequence of a disregard for the welfare of game animals. I own a considerable amount of good hunting land. I like to invite other hunters to share the bounty. But hunters who shoot with a disregard to wounding animals on my property are not invited back.
