Shooting vs Hunting / A Growing Ethical Issue

[Altitude sickness]

The Backfire YouTube channel should be given some accolades. He is a proponent of accuracy, and long range shooting. But also clearly shows in several videos. Using proclaimed accomplished long range shooters, that cold bore shots on target vary greatly from walking rounds in. Firing for effect. Or shooting groups.

Most don’t have the knowledge or skill to overcome current atmospheric conditions.
I include myself in this group.

 

[HankBuck]

Exactly.

Communities of interest police their own through various mechanisms depending on the community. Stuff like shame, public disgrace, mocking, instructing, mentring, ostracization are traditional ones you see in less formal communities. And it builds from there to more formal structures in the right environment.

Let me give an example. In Ontario lawyers are a self governing profession. We recognize that when individuals lawyers do "bad shit" it hurts the whole profession and everyone in it. Depending on what that bad shit is we have different means of dealing with it that don't involve the government regulating something in a ham handed manner. Sports, religious groups, neighbourhood organizations, all do the same thing. It's really part of making communities functional.

Same thing for hunters. When individual "hunters" do things that are bad for the community as a whole I don't think it is wise to just sit back and say "to each their own." It's a naive perspective.

I think hunters and the hunting community need to act in the same way. If we don't police ourselves, someone else will do it for us, and I suspect we won't like the results.

@RLD I agree with you there should be Ethics in Hunting and everything in Life - it’s defining “ethics” that can be problematic because it has no clear definition. Because it has never had a clear and agreed upon definition. Any attempt to enforce “hunting ethics” would be even more subjective, random, and selectively applied than Canada’s current and ongoing Firearms restrictions (a never ending process). Society can’t even agree on Gun laws that pertain to Visible physical objects - how could there ever be consensus on an ideological Concept? At best you propose a Nobel cause (Holy Crusade?) that is unattainable and unenforceable…. I am comfortable that good Hunters will reflect their own ethics and Bad Hunters never will —- thats why we have Laws that can be enforced. If we have a serious concern then propose and pass a specific law that can be narrow, defined, understood, and enforced.

 

[HankBuck]

Aw shucks.. I assure you I’m nothing special haha

@Wishfulthinker580 - You have COMMON SENSE —- which is Uncommon

 

[sgt_zim]

I found this article very timely. Because we hunters hesitate to regulate ourselves (the 'if it is legal it must be ok' mantra is tossed out on this site regularly) wannabe's using game animals as targets, I assume to demonstrate their manhood and latent sniper skills, are becoming enough of an issue that the Wyoming Legislature is getting involved.

One antelope apparently was killed at a reported 2,000 yards. I have no idea what the shooter thought of himself, but "hunter" is not a word that applies to him.

Lawmakers Ponder What, If Anything, Can Be Done To Regulate Extreme-Range Hunting

Wyoming legislators on Friday discussed what can be done, if anything, to regulate extreme-range hunting. In one much talked-about instance, a hunter in…

cowboystatedaily.com

I do my part here and on Quora to discourage this sort of thing.

 

[Rubberhead]

So, it's a delicate balance between "self-policing" (which I agree with) and creating an exploitable seam in our ranks that can be used by the anti-hunter movement (which I don't agree with).

All in all, I'd rather put up with "hunters" shooting game at 600 yards and CBL "hunts" than give the anti-hunter any seam. Hunters make-up only about 5% of the US population so our political front is already a very small minority - we don't need to make it any smaller.

 

[sgt_zim]

So, it's a delicate balance between "self-policing" (which I agree with) and creating an exploitable seam in our ranks that can be used by the anti-hunter movement (which I don't agree with).

All in all, I'd rather put up with "hunters" shooting game at 600 yards and CBL "hunts" than give the anti-hunter any seam. Hunters make-up only about 5% of the US population so our political front is already a very small minority - we don't need to make it any smaller.

Not to derail this thread into politics/philosophy, but a free people must be self-policing.

What I can do is a very different thing than what I should do.

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. -- John Adams

 

[Wishfulthinker580]

So, it's a delicate balance between "self-policing" (which I agree with) and creating an exploitable seam in our ranks that can be used by the anti-hunter movement (which I don't agree with).

All in all, I'd rather put up with "hunters" shooting game at 600 yards and CBL "hunts" than give the anti-hunter any seam. Hunters make-up only about 5% of the US population so our political front is already a very small minority - we don't need to make it any smaller.

With all due respect I see it completely opposite. Things like the long range stuff and CBL “hunts” ARE the seams that are exploitable. The seams are created by unethical behavior. It’s better to try and be beyond reproach than to defend fringe practices (that’s putting it mildly). It does more harm than good. IMHO

 

[Field28]

Let's say your hunting in a place like Eastern Cape or Free State where there are some chances for long range shots.

Do you have more respect for a PH that wants you to take all your shots at at 300-600 yards, or the PH that can consistently get you to 100-250 yards?

I know what my vote would be.

 

[RLD]

@RLD I agree with you there should be Ethics in Hunting and everything in Life - it’s defining “ethics” that can be problematic because it has no clear definition. Because it has never had a clear and agreed upon definition. Any attempt to enforce “hunting ethics” would be even more subjective, random, and selectively applied than Canada’s current and ongoing Firearms restrictions (a never ending process). Society can’t even agree on Gun laws that pertain to Visible physical objects - how could there ever be consensus on an ideological Concept? At best you propose a Nobel cause (Holy Crusade?) that is unattainable and unenforceable…. I am comfortable that good Hunters will reflect their own ethics and Bad Hunters never will —- thats why we have Laws that can be enforced. If we have a serious concern then propose and pass a specific law that can be narrow, defined, understood, and enforced.

Just because something cannot be done perfectly does not mean it should not be attempted.

I agree ethics cannot be defined in a complete manner but there are certain ethical ideas that are held broadly enough to be called a consensus or a reflection of community values. And I think that people who care about that community should speak out to defend it and to condemn poor conduct.

To give you an example, I think there is a clear consensus that prey suffering should be minimized in ethical hunting.

Or, to put it in the context of this thread, the fact that some dog hunters may think that hunting over bait is unethical is no excuse for hunters and hunting groups not to speak out against 2 km shots that are causing legislative authorities concern.

I am probably less ambitious than you think I am. I just think that Flbt's argument that ethics are meaningless when we can't achieve unanimity is false and harmful.

Interestingly the province of Newfoundland has published their own hunting code of ethics:

Hunting Code of Ethics - 2020-21 Hunting and Trapping Guide

Safe Positively identify your target before you shoot. Shoot only at appropriate targets or legal game. Always practice safe gun handling. Practice shooting skills and be sure your rifle or bow is properly sighted in. Pattern your shotgun and know how it shoots. Avoid hunting from roads. It is...

www.gov.nl.ca

I will go a step further in my ambition, I think every hunter has an ethical obligation to act as an ambassador for hunting, to represent the pursuit well, particularly when dealing with non-members of the hunting community.

 

[HankBuck]

Just because something cannot be done perfectly does not mean it should not be attempted.

I agree ethics cannot be defined in a complete manner but there are certain ethical ideas that are held broadly enough to be called a consensus or a reflection of community values. And I think that people who care about that community should speak out to defend it and to condemn poor conduct.

To give you an example, I think there is a clear consensus that prey suffering should be minimized in ethical hunting.

Or, to put it in the context of this thread, the fact that some dog hunters may think that hunting over bait is unethical is no excuse for hunters and hunting groups not to speak out against 2 km shots that are causing legislative authorities concern.

I am probably less ambitious than you think I am. I just think that Flbt's argument that ethics are meaningless when we can't achieve unanimity is false and harmful.

Interestingly the province of Newfoundland has published their own hunting code of ethics:

Hunting Code of Ethics - 2020-21 Hunting and Trapping Guide

Safe Positively identify your target before you shoot. Shoot only at appropriate targets or legal game. Always practice safe gun handling. Practice shooting skills and be sure your rifle or bow is properly sighted in. Pattern your shotgun and know how it shoots. Avoid hunting from roads. It is...

www.gov.nl.ca

I will go a step further in my ambition, I think every hunter has an ethical obligation to act as an ambassador for hunting, to represent the pursuit well, particularly when dealing with non-members of the hunting community.

@RLD - I agree that there are some Ethics held by a majority of Hunters and “No suffering” is likely one of them. If you want to see this thread really come alive just ask for thoughts on CBL hunting or hunting behind a High Fence - then you will see deep and sharp divides. And no matter where you stand on those two issues at least they are both generally defined and understood vs. Long Range shooting where it’s hard to even define how long is “Long Range” etc. Then for more arguments add hunting over dogs, bear over bait, deer over bait, Cross bows, Bows for Elephants, etc…. It is Endless. I agree just because we can’t be perfect is Not a reason to not try and be Good but trying to enforce, impose, or all follow the same Ethics is no more possible then following the same religious beliefs —- let’s just be Good People and Good Hunters
BTW those Newfoundland code of “ethics” read more like safety issues then conceptual ethics ie: positively identify your target before shooting? Only shoot Legal targets or game? thats a big “duh” and most might consider that Safety or the Law and Not ethics.

 

[BRICKBURN]

Bordering on the ethics topic. Safety for those fellow human beings running around out there.

After having bullets shot directly over top of me while stalking Pronghorn Antelope on the prairie (while dressed in blaze orange) I have an extreme dislike for the dangerous folks that shoot at distances where they can have no reasonable clue what is in line with and beyond the target when they pull the trigger.
Distance here compounds that issue in my mind.

Get to a rifle range and have some fun at some steal targets in a controlled environment and save the rest of us from the risk of being shot please.

 

[skydiver386]

@RLD - I agree that there are some Ethics held by a majority of Hunters and “No suffering” is likely one of them. If you want to see this thread really come alive just ask for thoughts on CBL hunting or hunting behind a High Fence - then you will see deep and sharp divides. And no matter where you stand on those two issues at least they are both generally defined and understood vs. Long Range shooting where it’s hard to even define how long is “Long Range” etc. Then for more arguments add hunting over dogs, bear over bait, deer over bait, Cross bows, Bows for Elephants, etc…. It is Endless. I agree just because we can’t be perfect is Not a reason to not try and be Good but trying to enforce, impose, or all follow the same Ethics is no more possible then following the same religious beliefs —- let’s just be Good People and Good Hunters
BTW those Newfoundland code of “ethics” read more like safety issues then conceptual ethics ie: know your target before shooting? thats a big “duh”.

The unethical things some hunters do defy logic.

When I was stationed at Ft. Hood, Tx, I frequently shopped at Brocks Gun Shop in Copperas Cove. Mr. Brock was a retired Vietnam Vet with numerous combat tours, yet was extraordinarily polite...most of the time. One afternoon during the Tx deer season an old Coot was talking loudly of his morning hunt. He didn't see any deer, but fired several "Sound Shots"! Mr. Brock asked what the heck he was talking about and the Old Timer explained whenever he heard something moving in the brush, he would fire several shots in the general direction in order to flush out whatever might be making the sound.

This older gentleman received a dressing down I've seldom heard since, and was told he would never be sold guns or ammunition or anything else in that shop. Being a young guy in my early 20's, I wasn't sure what to make of the entire episode, but now in my 60's things are a bit clearer.

The old Coot in question had probably never been told that what he was doing was wrong. Until a group of his peers lit his rear end on fire, he would have continued in this type of unsafe and unethical behavior.

Would a Hunter Safety Course have helped? Possibly, but frequent reminders from our peers can be just as effective.

 

[MS 9x56]

@Wishfulthinker580 - thanks, you must be “clairvoyant” and wise beyond my comprehension… I’m gonna have to go back and read more of your posts so that I can “Up my IQ” and keep up with others on AH (I think I’m falling behind).

Don’t feel bad Hank it took me a few years to catch up with this lot!

 

[MS 9x56]

As previously mentioned but a key note worth driving home, influencers and youtube hunters have WILDLY overstated the practical distances in which one will generally encounter game at, specifically when talking about hunting western big game but I’m sure many a green young east coast hunter has fell victim to this trope as well. I’ve hunted the western part of the United States my whole life and have never had to take a shot at any animal beyond 400 yards, not that I believe in arbitrary distances creating a threshold for when one crosses into “long range hunting” but it is my belief it’s somewhere just beyond the MPBR of most modern cartridges.
Often times in videos and discussions there is little if any emphasis on the “stalk”’ portion of “spot and stalk” . This agenda has obviously been pushed in order to bolster the market for the latest greatest gear for financial incentives. I watched a video a few months ago when there was a lot of chatter about the new 7mm back country, I don’t remember what they were hunting but they were trying to showcase the cartridges performance. The individual holding the rifle said “we’ve had several opportunities on game but none were far enough away”. That statement goes completely against the Boon and Crockett’s stance on what dictates ethical hunting distances.
“The Boone and Crockett Club believes the term “long-range” shooting is more defined by a hunter’s intent, than any specific distance at which a shot is taken. If the intent of the individual is to test equipment and determine how far one can shoot to hit a live target and if there is no motivation to risk engagement with the animal being hunted, this practice is not hunting and should not be accorded the same status as hunting.”

I don’t believe the government should have any involvement in this matter, nor am I to talk anymore out of deciding to purchase whatever gear they feel necessary to be successful with, or even what distances they should be hunting at. A flood of new generation hunters are consuming this content and idolizing many of the influential creators in the hunting space. The older generations know this but more discussion should be had and awareness brought to the notion that distances in which are typically acknowledged as “long range hunting” are the exception, not the rule, no matter where you’re hunting geographically. Nor should one should one be engaging in “long range hunting” just for the sake of doing so.

If I cannot see the animals eyes and nostrils I don’t consider that an encounter anymore than sighting bison and cows at a distance Incant tell one from the other.

 

[Rubberhead]

With all due respect I see it completely opposite. Things like the long range stuff and CBL “hunts” ARE the seams that are exploitable. The seams are created by unethical behavior. It’s better to try and be beyond reproach than to defend fringe practices (that’s putting it mildly). It does more harm than good. IMHO

I completely understand your view point so I really can't argue with it.

I gun hunt whitetail with a 1.5x to 5x scope and a gun that can't shoot much beyond 150 yards. At some point, without the 600 yard gun "hunter" to defend me, the antis will eventually come for me, the guy that gun hunts but can't/won't shoot beyond 200 yards. I can only hope the bow hunters will come to my side instead of staying silent or, even worse, voting against me and my way of hunting. I can only hope...

 

[MS 9x56]

Back when we used to have to use shotguns or muzzleloaders to hunt big game in NY I used to do deer drives with a group of farmers that owned a lot of land and enjoyed organized deer drives. I asked them if it was Ok to bring a fellow I worked with along one time and the said Ok. On a particularly long drive of a hillside he was put on the lower end of the drive as a watcher. Here he was watching over a thick section of brush that bordered a cut cornfield. About 1/2 way through the drive I heard him shoot twice. After the drive I walked down to see whether he had connected. I found him in a tense conversation with one of the farmers. As I got close enough to hear the discussion I found the farmer dressing him down for taking sound shots without a word I walked up to my acquaintance took his gun from his hands quickly unloading it while loudly explaining to him he would no longer be welcome hunting with me or anyone I knew. I put his shells in my pocket and escorted him to his vehicle and saw him on his way. Upon returning to the group I apologized profusely. Those farmers clapped me on the back, shook my hand and put me on stand not allowing me my turn to drive the rest of the hunt. After we were done for the day the landowner invited me to his barn where he produced a bottle of scotch whiskey and offered me a glass. We were fast friends from that day on and he told me I could hunt his farm whenever I wished from that day forward. I was a young g 30 year old at the time but that day taught me a kid long lesson. If you see something say something, know who you are hunting with and their safety habits before you hunt with them. Do not put up with unsafe acts. Apologies when you are wrong. Never turn down another man’s drink!

 

[Wishfulthinker580]

I completely understand your view point so I really can't argue with it.

I gun hunt whitetail with a 1.5x to 5x scope and a gun that can't shoot much beyond 150 yards. At some point, without the 600 yard gun "hunter" to defend me, the antis will eventually come for me, the guy that gun hunts but can't/won't shoot beyond 200 yards. I can only hope the bow hunters will come to my side instead of staying silent or, even worse, voting against me and my way of hunting. I can only hope...

I get that viewpoint.

“First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.”

—Martin Niemöller

I just think it doesn’t apply in this instance. We have to have laws and regulations out of necessity. Bad or unethical behavior must be dealt with, not tolerated.

 

[mdwest]

this is an incredibly difficult thing for me... on one hand I don't want the government (state or federal) telling me what I can or cannot do.. I really don't want to see regulations passed that limit or further define what "hunting" is or isn't.. I believe deeply in personal freedoms..

that said.. its clear some people lack the ability to self regulate and act in a morally sound and/or an ethical manner..

if there arent defined rules in place, there's always going to be someone pushing the boundaries well past what any reasonable person believes they should, to the point where neglect, negligence, or straight up reckless endangerment occurs..

For me, I know 400 yards on something like a deer sized target is about my max range for an ensured clean kill.. I can keep a 4-6" group easily with any of the rifles I regularly use at that sort of range.. and I know the ballistics of those rifles and understand how much energy they are delivering at that distance.. So, I purposely keep shots WELL below that distance.. If Im watching a deer (or anything else) 400+ yards out, Im either going to wait for it to come to me.. or Im going to try to get a bit closer to it.. and I PREFER shots inside 200 anytime I can obtain them...

At the new property where I'll be hunting this year I have very intentionally placed all food plots, feeders, etc. 160 yards or closer from the blinds (a couple are just under 100 yards)..

That said, if there is a guy living in Montana that practices regularly and is easily able to land shots on deer sized game at 600 yards with a suitable rifle (say a 300 magnum for that sort of distance to be assured of an ethical kill?).. who am I to tell him that 400 yards is his max?

Or some former military trained sniper that can easily keep a 6" group at 800 and has the right rifle to do it.. why do I get to tell him what his "maximum" is, or why do I get to define what is "hunting" versus sniping/shooting/etc?

That sounds a lot like the crossbow vs compound bow vs trad bow arguments I hear among the archers (regarding what is "real" bow hunting).. or the 243 vs 223 being the lower limit for deer, etc..etc.. those sort of disputes only serve to segregate and create conflict among what is already a small population base that needs to stand united if it hopes to continue to have any hunting rights at all left in next few decades..

so where is the ethical limit? I honestly just don't know.. I know where it is for ME... I know its certainly not 1000+ yard shots (just because you can do something doesn't mean you should).. but what is it? and who gets to define it? and who enforces it? those become the core of the problem for me..

 

[Wishfulthinker580]

I get it’s contentious but regulating equipment is the only way to do it. We accept current regulations on equipment. We certainly do in Africa. We accept it in most every other facet of life (the sensible regulations anyway). It can be done. Times change and tech improves. Regulations have to adapt.

 

[DieJager]

Yes there are different kinds of ethics. Ethics of virtue, utilitarian ethics, deontology and so forth.
The science or profession that deals with this is metha-ethics.

Are there personal ethics, not perse. You can have your own opinion but not ethics in this sense. You can have a preference for one of the systems. What conflicts, and what you see in this thread is people discussing from different perspectives ( i.e. different ethical systems). In other words discussing the different systems.

For the sake of argument take ethics of virtue. Virtues for example are modesty, honesty, wisdom.

Are you Honest if you claim you can hit an animal, shot after shot at that distance without wounding it. Knowing the flight time of the bullet, that animal can move, wind can change etc. Answer no, you can not guarantee it.

Modesty. You can try your maximum distant but the virtue modesty would say, less is more. Get closer.

Wisdom, that is; sound judgement,knowledge, understanding. Is it sound judgment to shoot an animal from 2000 yards, knowing the factors and animal behavior. I would say not. Is it sound judgment, no.

This are only 3 virtues. Combining these three and their description; Would you say shooting at those distances you can claim even one of more of these virtues. Thus is it ethical to shoot at those distances?

As an afterthought the law are a mixture of a lot of different kinds of ethics. As a European hunter I would say the model for us began with Saint Hubert. The principles of fair chase and a lot of these virtues would not be conflicting.

If we talk in this instance of ethics and fair chase I am confident shooting game from this distant is a vice and not a virtue.

So my challenge to those who say ethics is just what you wish it is or useless. Pick one of the systems of ethics and make you case about shooting game from 2000 yards and why it is ethical. Then we can have a honest debate