This year cariboo hunting... Rifle set for 600 metres...
- Thread starter caramel
- Start date
- Location
- Somewhere on the Hudson Bay Coast
The grass eaters believe all hunting by humans is cruel and unconscionable. Most of us have a different point of view or we'd have found other interests. But where does one draw the line? For me the test is a simple one, if my actions do not produce more stress to an animal then it might experience in its normal life experience, then my actions are ethical. It is normal in nature for some animals to be hunted and killed, it doesn't matter if the predator walks on two legs or four. It is normal for an animal to feel fear and pain. But in the context of wild things, this is not cruel if it is of short duration. A moose trapped in deep snow that has a thick crust on it, enough to support the wolves but not him, will die harder than the moose taken by a single rifle bullet. But it is the nature of that animal to try to survive, and if wounded by a rifle bullet it is likewise the case.
If a wounding shot is made within typical hunting ranges, a fast killing follow-up shot can often be made in short order, but at long range, the animal might be able to move quickly out of view of the hunter before he can work out the correct firing solution. In difficult country it might take a man an hour or more to cross 600 yards, only to find the animal gone, leaving but a small blood trail if that, as the small entrance wound has closed up, and there being no exit. Now we have human inflicted misery on an animal, not because the hunter was a poor shot, but because a poor shot was made. Perhaps the animal picked a poor moment to take a step forward and now has a gut wound, or because an unexpected gust of wind carried the bullet a foot off course. The question of ethics and cruelty comes up, not because of the hunter`s marksmanship prowess, but because of the consequences of what proved to be a poor shot, and the time it requires to be in a position to resolve the problem. Open country like tundra provides the opportunity to make a longish shot, but what appears to be flat, featureless land is an illusion. An animal can disappear quickly in little hollows or behind low ridges, and the lack of features to the human eye confuses his senses. The hunter having shot, marks the position, as best he can, where he last saw his animal, but if he doesn't think to mark the spot he fired from, it will be difficult to know if he is in the right place. There are no tracks in string bogs or wet tundra, and often not in dry tundra either. So now the animal is wounded. It cannot be recovered regardless of the effort expended, and my definition of cruelty has been met.
Certainly anytime we press the trigger on a live target we must accept the possibility of wounding, not because we can't shoot, but because the circumstances surrounding the shot are fluid and can change before the bullet finds its mark. At close range the animal can be hit again if the hunter is quick on the trigger, but at long range, the problem is more difficult. Now some high thinkers have forwarded an idea that I accepted myself at one time, but no longer do; that should an animal be wounded by a rifle bullet, if it is alive 24 hours after being wounded it will survive, and if it dies within 24 hours, it is still a more humane death than what is commonly available in nature. In the first place, I doubt that is true, as an animal can survive a facial wound for example and live long enough to die of starvation. In the second place, that explanation can be simply used as an excuse rather than to follow up wounded game, just continue hunting without the burden of a guilty concionce. Game deserves better than that.
If a wounding shot is made within typical hunting ranges, a fast killing follow-up shot can often be made in short order, but at long range, the animal might be able to move quickly out of view of the hunter before he can work out the correct firing solution. In difficult country it might take a man an hour or more to cross 600 yards, only to find the animal gone, leaving but a small blood trail if that, as the small entrance wound has closed up, and there being no exit. Now we have human inflicted misery on an animal, not because the hunter was a poor shot, but because a poor shot was made. Perhaps the animal picked a poor moment to take a step forward and now has a gut wound, or because an unexpected gust of wind carried the bullet a foot off course. The question of ethics and cruelty comes up, not because of the hunter`s marksmanship prowess, but because of the consequences of what proved to be a poor shot, and the time it requires to be in a position to resolve the problem. Open country like tundra provides the opportunity to make a longish shot, but what appears to be flat, featureless land is an illusion. An animal can disappear quickly in little hollows or behind low ridges, and the lack of features to the human eye confuses his senses. The hunter having shot, marks the position, as best he can, where he last saw his animal, but if he doesn't think to mark the spot he fired from, it will be difficult to know if he is in the right place. There are no tracks in string bogs or wet tundra, and often not in dry tundra either. So now the animal is wounded. It cannot be recovered regardless of the effort expended, and my definition of cruelty has been met.
Certainly anytime we press the trigger on a live target we must accept the possibility of wounding, not because we can't shoot, but because the circumstances surrounding the shot are fluid and can change before the bullet finds its mark. At close range the animal can be hit again if the hunter is quick on the trigger, but at long range, the problem is more difficult. Now some high thinkers have forwarded an idea that I accepted myself at one time, but no longer do; that should an animal be wounded by a rifle bullet, if it is alive 24 hours after being wounded it will survive, and if it dies within 24 hours, it is still a more humane death than what is commonly available in nature. In the first place, I doubt that is true, as an animal can survive a facial wound for example and live long enough to die of starvation. In the second place, that explanation can be simply used as an excuse rather than to follow up wounded game, just continue hunting without the burden of a guilty concionce. Game deserves better than that.
x 2
Agreed. Extremely well written.
- Location
- Prince Albert, Sk
Boomer, you should write for a magazine!!
Very well put ! I couldn't agree more....
Good luck, and better luck to the cariboo that it is either a clean miss or dead flop kill. Long distance shooting/killing is not my definition of a hunter or hunting. I think that many people are influenced by the television these days, and in-return ego's need to be fulfilled at the expense of our wildlife....................sad.
some of them fancy one's I had to look up in my Webster's book 
challange your self to long distance shooting a game??
good job. two thumbs down to you. Many hunters in CGN will have an ACCURATE rifle over 800yards but who would shoot a game that far??
make it way more challanging by trying to kill it with your shank, then i will be proud of you.
i also have 340 Weatherby Mag that is zero'd at 250yards and will group less than 6" @ 600 yards and will never shoot anything more then 300 yards. Mostly will take game at 50-150 yards since it is just way more fun to pull in games to your location.
good job. two thumbs down to you. Many hunters in CGN will have an ACCURATE rifle over 800yards but who would shoot a game that far??
make it way more challanging by trying to kill it with your shank, then i will be proud of you.
i also have 340 Weatherby Mag that is zero'd at 250yards and will group less than 6" @ 600 yards and will never shoot anything more then 300 yards. Mostly will take game at 50-150 yards since it is just way more fun to pull in games to your location.
- Location
- Dah Soo,ON
I just want something to walk out at 100 yards let alone 6. What a schit hunting season.
You guys all get work out for nothing, i shoot in exces of 30 caribous in my life and i am a very ethical hunter, if i go for the shot, it will be cuz there will be no doubt that the shot will be clean, if not, i will just pass, it would be nice that my judgment is trusted here... JP.
Northman999
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Southern Yukon
JP - I think you're just going to have to go out and do your hunt and post the story with photos of whatever happened, good or bad, and let your actions in the field speak for themselves.
I'm personally not a big fan of long range hunting, but I've shot with guys who have the equipment and practice to shoot clays at 500 meters with boring regularity, so I don't see how someone like that shooting at a caribou instead of a clay is any less moral than Uncle Clem taking his dusty old rifle out of the closet after not being fired for five years and heading out into the field to try and shoot the same caribou at 100 yards...
I'm personally not a big fan of long range hunting, but I've shot with guys who have the equipment and practice to shoot clays at 500 meters with boring regularity, so I don't see how someone like that shooting at a caribou instead of a clay is any less moral than Uncle Clem taking his dusty old rifle out of the closet after not being fired for five years and heading out into the field to try and shoot the same caribou at 100 yards...
bearkilr
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Nowhere, ......just past the middle
X2 on that, i don't think he sees that it's not as simple as a clean hit or a clean miss, theres so much more to it, and i don't care how many of what, anyone shot, things happen when you least expect them to and when hunting/shooting is involved we as hunters/shooters have to give the anti-hunting, anti-gun groups as little "ammo" against us as possible and someone trying to impress yourself or someone on here or anyone by HOPEFULLY hitting an animal that you say u will PROBABLY MISS will make the anti-hunting crowed so happy they'll piss there pants and forget there last name for a week or more. . .
