I am not a fan of long range shots at game animals, because a much larger percentage of the animals hit at long range are lost and wasted or wounded and left in pain. Plain and simple.
If someone wants to spend their hunting time fiddling with technology and enjoys range finders, target turrets, ballistics charts, wind meters, tuning loads for sub MOA, magnum cartridges, muzzle brakes, bipods, etc. etc, they should do that! I do some of the same and thoroughly enjoy the techno - geek approach to a lot of my shooting.
BUT animals are living breathing creatures and this IS a discussion about ethics, which makes far too many hunters uncomfortable. That is kinda sad in my opinion. Ethics are important! They are a big part of what makes us human, and the values that we uphold as hunters really do matter to our own self worth and to society. I think this discussion really comes down to a culture of entitlement that has crept into modern hunting through the relentless "progress" of technological improvements and marketing.
I believe that if a shot at a live animal is to be ethical, there must be a commitment on the part of the hunter pulling the trigger to take only shots that are within their skill to make, and that person has to assume the consequences of his or her actions.
So, what are the consequences of shooting at a big game animal at very long range?
1. It is much more difficult to determine if the shot connected at all, even good hits, and even with a "spotter" watching through binoculars
2. Bullet speed is reduced, increasing the possibility of a wounding shot even with good placement
3. Wind and mirage may make the possibility of a wounding shot more likely even with perfect "aim"
4. At extreme long range, the animal has time to move between the best placed shot and the bullet actually arriving
5. If a shot connects but the animal is not dead, the possibility of a quick and merciful finishing shot is often precluded by brush, terrain, or movement
6. It is much more difficult to find the spot where an animal was standing in order to check for hair, blood, or tracks and confirm that the shot was a clean miss.
7. The distance involved in long shots makes many long distance shooters fail to walk all the way over to the spot where the animal was standing to confirm that the shot was a clean miss, and unfortunately many of those shooters do not possess the tracking skills required to find and follow up wounded game.
So, when is a shot ethical and when isn't it? I won't presume to tell anyone else what is right for their skills and equipment and I would hope that others accept that I am the right person to decide for myself. We should be personally responsible for our own actions and not impose our judgement on others. However, if there are no personal consequences from a wounding shot causing suffering and waste, human nature says: why not take whatever chances come along, the next chance might work!
There is no mystery to the fact that very few long distance or "hope" shots are taken in Africa where every animal shot, whether actually bagged or not, results in a trophy fee charged to the hunter. I propose a simple but challenging test for hunters in Canada if they want an unambiguous way to decide when to shoot and when not to. Take any shot you feel confident in making. BUT If you draw blood, the hunt is over! Whether or not you recover the animal, choose notch the tag, and hang it up. It is that simple.
Are the long distance shooters or the rest of us up to that challenge? I hope so.
