Totally unethical? - Should we boycott as a group?

[sheephunter]

Everyone has their own ethics when it comes to hunting and it shouldn't be governed by laws. Myself, I consider this example unethical since that's an extreme distance to expose a young shooter to his first elk and the chance of a mishap of some sort is certainly amplified by that distance.
But that's just my opinion, which is as worthless as everyone else's.

Absolutely everyone has their own ethics and that should be respected and applauded....it's just sad when those personal ethics become the benchmark for judging others, further fracturing our already divided hunting community. I'm sure my personal ethics are diametrically opposed to some of your methods of hunting but I don't think my ethics should be the benchmark for judging your methods....but that's just me.

 

[trevj]

The only truism about ethics is that selling your own as being better than someone else, is a sure recipe for a poo fling fest.

Waddya say? IBTL?

Cheers
Trev

 

[1899]

LOL...nice leap but the shot is ultimately part of hunting......I'm not really interested in getting mired down in semantics. He had a licence, went hunting and shot an elk....ergo he was hunting.

Likely if daddy wasn't a rifle maker he wouldn't have had that much rifle time to develop the skills to make a shot like that. No doubt their show is all about promoting long-range shooting and gear but that still doesn't make anything that happened unethical. Not a shot I would have taken but not a shot I'm about to judge either.

Actually, I think you are making an error here. Just because someone made the shot (after who knows how many attempts) doesn't mean they have the skills to make the shot. At those ranges there is plenty of luck involved. I think you have to admit that the closer you are to an animal, all other things remaining constant, the less likely you are to miss or wound.

These videos are, imo, made strictly for business (to make money). I have not seen a single video posted by these companies showing a wounded animal that they had to follow up or track. Is that because they are super-human?

 

[sheephunter]

I have not seen a single video posted by these companies showing a wounded animal that they had to follow up or track. Is that because they are super-human?

No, it's likely because they'd get slagged all over messageboards for it.......

As we know, unless a shot is 100% deadly, it's unethical!

 

[Demonical]

Actually, I think you are making an error here. Just because someone made the shot (after who knows how many attempts) doesn't mean they have the skills to make the shot. At those ranges there is plenty of luck involved. I think you have to admit that the closer you are to an animal, all other things remaining constant, the less likely you are to miss or wound.

These videos are, imo, made strictly for business (to make money). I have not seen a single video posted by these companies showing a wounded animal that they had to follow up or track. Is that because they are super-human?

It's called selective editing and only showing the hunts that worked.

 

[1899]

I once saw a guy at the range who couldn't get his newly scoped rifle onto paper at 100 yards. I bore sighted it for him, put two on paper at 25 and said "try it now". He was about 8" high and a couple of inches off the centerline of the target at 100 yards. I told him how many clicks he needs to go in each direction. His response? "This is good enough for moose, I won't be shooting much farther than that anyways". To me that guy was just as bad as these guys.

 

[bigbore14]

it's just sad when those personal ethics become the benchmark for judging others, further fracturing our already divided hunting community.

Legal is legal. I do not want to fracture our hunting community. But I also have to stand up for what is right and what is wrong. The animal deserves a quick clean death. He could shoot all the hooves off of a deer, and then its jaw, and then its ears, and then its tail, and watch it slowly suffer while they laughed and high fived their buddies. But just because its legal, means as a fellow hunter you should put up with it? Thats crap.

It's just disgusting to me when a live animal is used as a target at 1376 yards, and it's clearly missed (due to plenty of reasons, not one being the shooter probably), and people think it was within his ethical distance, because he makes this shot in practice, 70% of the time first try.

When will the whole hunting community find this unethical? When they are out at 3000 yards just to beat the longest military kill, and after 7 shots, he manages to take one that breaks the skin and kill the animal? Because we all know its going there.

When will you say that is unethical due to the probabilities of making a clean 1 shot kill?

 

[bigbore14]

As we know, unless a shot is 100% deadly, it's unethical!

With a 7mm mag, shooting 1376 yards, on a standing feeding elk, do you know how many seconds it will take the bullet to get there?

 

[sheephunter]

When will you say that is unethical due to the probabilities of making a clean 1 shot kill?

When someone is shooting outside their abilities and that of their gear. There is no clear line on the ruler here. For some it could be 50 yards...for others who knows. I think it's ethical when each hunters knows and respects their personal limits.

 

[bigbore14]

When will you say that is unethical due to the probabilities of making a clean 1 shot kill?

When someone is shooting outside their abilities and that of their gear. I think it's ethical when each hunters knows and respects their personal limits.

And so you are saying that he WAS shooting inside his abilities, even though he clearly missed the first shot? Because logic says otherwise.

 

[sheephunter]

When will you say that is unethical due to the probabilities of making a clean 1 shot kill?



And so you are saying that he WAS shooting inside his abilities, even though he clearly missed the first shot? Because logic says otherwise.

I guess I'm willing to write the occasional miss off to something other than shooting beyond your abilities....as I've said many times in this thread. I have no idea as to the young shooter's abilities nor do you. It may have just been one of those things that occasionally happens to all of us.....perhaps not...I don't know.....that's what logic tells me. I realized long ago that I'm not perfect and despite confining shots to my ability and gear....I'm going to miss the occasional one. Apparently you've got some hard lessons ahead of you because I guarantee it will happen to you. See if you are so ready to judge at that point.

I'm not saying the shot was ethical and I'm not saying it was unethical....there just isn't enough information in that 6 minute video clip to decide. .....logically speaking.

 

[jjohnwm]

Are you talking to me?

I do not endorse long range hunting in any way. I do not do it. I believe in getting as close as possible; that's what I always do.

I am also the guy that consistently states my preferred variable range rifle scopes are in the 1.5-6x range. Not these crazy 3.5-12X, 4.5-14X etc... that all the 'experts' on hunting shows are endorsing. Because I like to get as close as possible. I believe I'm actually hunting when I do that.

My preferred range is 25-30 paces.

Longest shot I have ever made on a big game animal was 325 paces (whitetail buck, DRT).


Back to the top, I said it's not unethical, but that is NOT an ENDORSEMENT.

No, D., I wasn't directing that at you...though as I re-read my post now I know it can be seen that way. In fact, I was in complete agreement with you, and only pointing out that I would have gone even further than you had in condemning this stuff.

I guess I'm not as open-minded as many on here...I understand and accept that ethics are a personal thing that varies from person to person, but I can't agree that we must simply accept everything we see simply because someone else considers it ethical. Sorry, but just clamming up and ignoring it isn't enough. Nor is stating that "I wouldn't do it, but you can go ahead if you want". Never mind making the shot...that is an impressive feat and the ability to do so is something of which to be proud...but it is simply not possible to account for all the variables sufficiently to justify using live targets.

Across the canyon? Unable to get closer, for whatever reason? Running out of time and light? These are not reasons to chance a shot like this at an animal...they are reasons to PASS on that shot, and try again on another occasion...or even, horror of horrors, accept that you will go home empty-handed.

Yeah, I know...tough to edit out for TV...pity...

 

[Demonical]

Gunwerks rifles (those are the guys in the video: 'Best in the West') are built at *******, which has a relationship with ******* *****. They also build the ***, which ******* shamelessly endorses on ******* *****, a 'popular' Canadian produced hunting show.


Fill in the blanks. Everybody here knows the connections... there is no possibility of getting un-biased opionions here. Including from me, since I am on the 'side' that opposes this stuff.

Sooner this thread gets shutdown, the better...

 

[1899]

When someone is shooting outside their abilities and that of their gear. There is no clear line on the ruler here. For some it could be 50 yards...for others who knows. I think it's ethical when each hunters knows and respects their personal limits.

At some distance it is no longer about personal limits or abilities. At some distance too many factors come into play and compound error to such a point that ability takes a back seat to chance.

 

[saskboy]

I believe that kid had no ####ing business shooting at that range, he had no idea what the #### he was doing because someone else was dialing in the scope. If he knew what he was doing he would of been in control the entire time and would have done all the other work besides just pulling the trigger. Its not the kids fault either, its the stupid parent letting him do that. Besides all that I dont disagree with shooting at that range, as long as you have proven to yourself that you can make that shot clean from lots of practice.

 

[1899]

Fill in the blanks. Everybody here knows the connections... there is no possibility of getting un-biased opionions here. Including from me, since I am on the 'side' that opposes this stuff.

Sooner this thread gets shutdown, the better...

How are you biased? Just because you oppose something doesn't make you biased. You have no money to lose or gain by having an opinion. In fact, you have NOTHING to gain by stating your opinion. And I suspect you oppose "this type of stuff" because of your years of hunting and shooting experience. Because you know how stuff goes down in real life. I'd say you are unbiased and putting forward a very reasonable position.

 

[Gunslinger]

At some distance it is no longer about personal limits or abilities. At some distance too many factors come into play and compound error to such a point that ability takes a back seat to chance.

Succinctly put!

This was nothing but a promotional video with little regard to the animals potential suffering. They hit, he even says at the end "it's doable", that's hardly confident enough to start trying to kill animals with certainty at that range, and proven by their first shot miss, what if it had hit and wounded? Douche!

 

[burnaby]

Well said. Doesn't matter the sport, folks always frowns on others that are NOT doing it their way.

Too many conversation with too many non hunters that say even a second of suffering is too much, let alone a minute with lung/heart shots. If you can't get close enough to guarantee a 100% head shot/instant kill it is NOT ethical. Let's NOT even go into bow hunting.

Absolutely everyone has their own ethics and that should be respected and applauded....it's just sad when those personal ethics become the benchmark for judging others, further fracturing our already divided hunting community. I'm sure my personal ethics are diametrically opposed to some of your methods of hunting but I don't think my ethics should be the benchmark for judging your methods....but that's just me.

Statistically the next miss will have a high probability >70% to be quickly forgotten; human nature

Let those who are perfect cast the first stone.....I miss occasionally......I'm not throwing anything....sorry. Hopefully you never miss another shot in your life.......it would be a long fall for you.

 

[sheephunter]

Gunwerks rifles (those are the guys in the video: 'Best in the West') are built at *******, which has a relationship with ******* *****. They also build the ***, which ******* shamelessly endorses on ******* *****, a 'popular' Canadian produced hunting show.


Fill in the blanks. Everybody here knows the connections... there is no possibility of getting un-biased opionions here. Including from me, since I am on the 'side' that opposes this stuff.

Sooner this thread gets shutdown, the better...

Think you are confusing quite a few different shows here D. The guys in the video are from Long Range Pursuit. They are also the guys that build Gunwerks guns. The guys from Best of the West shoot Cooper rifles. They are two completely different shows. Not sure where the Canadian connection comes in but I guess I could be considered biased too because I don't shoot either brand. I think it's been a good a civil discussion.

 

[CanuckR]

The kid can shoot, I don't think anyone here can argue that realistically. The father talks about shooting to that distance and farther, fairly regularily on their home range. However the miss wasn't the shooter, it was the spotter, the kid had to make a second elevation correction. Doesn't make it more ethical really, I just don't see blaming the "kid" as the right thing.
Anybody that has missed an animal before, whether it was at 50M or 1000M, how are you any better than this kid? You missed, at what should have been a gimme range, I've missed at a gimme range on a yote this winter. If your missing at 100M what makes you better than him missing at 1300? The fact that he spotted his shot, made a fast and proper correction and made a solid second round hit on that elk should speak volumes for his shooting ability.
As well, you were certain you were going to make a clean kill on an animal at 100M and you missed. I bet there was very little doubt in their mind that they were going to miss at 1300, well you both missed, your BOTH guilty.
(I use the word "you" as a blanket term, I am by no means singling out anybody)

On a side note, how many of you run dogs for deer, yotes or cougars? You wanna talk ethics? Give me a break. I personally feel making a clean 2nd round hit at 1300M is wayy more ethical than running an animal with dogs for a few km until its soo exhausted it gives up and you can walk up and shoot it, or shoot a cougar out of a tree.
Think about you or your wife or kid getting chased through a forest or an alley while getting screamed at by their about to be murderer, until they can't go on any longer.
I bet thats about how that animal feels. Sure its not in physical pain yet, maybe. Or has it fallen and busted up its leg or something? That kind of mental anguish, is personally, every bit as unethical as making a bad shot.

I am pro hunting for sure, I think ethics in general, in every day life, has taken a back seat to promotion and personal bragging rights, I wish it wasn't like that.
In the end we can only follow our own opinion of what is ethical. Promote ethical hunting as best we can, and don't associate ourselves with people we don't find are ethical.
JMO