Hunting’s Newest Controversy: Snipers

[jeff]

You can't legislate ethics you can only make laws. I've seen numerous You Tube videos that show safari clients shooting from the back of the truck, I've seen padded gun rests on the truck racks. I've read hunting reports here that said they killed animals with their bow from the back of the truck. Numerous reports show that the clients almost exclusively drove around in a vehicle looking for something to shoot, then stopped the truck and got on the sticks with out even a stalk. Out west we would consider road hunting unethical and it's illegal to boot. Why does it happen, the clients are happy to succeed any way they can and outfitters want trophy fees. Long range rifles are not the only thing that makes us choose what we do whether right or wrong.

 

[Ridge Top Ranch]

What's next? How about a drone with remote camera? You could hunt in Africa without actually going to Africa. Certainly could kill them unspooked. Long ranges of 1000 yards is target practice on live animals, not hunting. No chance of wind, noise, movement or other animals spooking them does not equal hunting.

 

[LivingTheDream]

Can you imagine how bad the hunting report would be on some of those automated shooting systems. We drove to the overlook, laid out a blanket, got in the prone position, painted the target and pulled the trigger. DRT. The end.

 

[Mekaniks]

I like long range shooting. I dig the ballistics, science and everything that goes with it. It's all cool stuff to me. The same goes for old double rifles and cartridges designed more than a hundred years ago, super cool. And everything in the middle (which is where I fit in) I support as well, all good stuff. I don't think I should be telling other folks how to hunt. I am all good, as long as it fits MY criteria of ETHICAL Which is something like this.... Did the animal suffer needlessly? Was there wanton waste of the animal? Did everyone conduct themselves with respect for the sport and the animal?

All that said, things are changing whether I like it or not...
I grew up duck hunting and chasing coyotes before school. We could hunt on pretty much any lake or property that wasn't posted. Can't do that anymore, must have expressed permission.
After morning hunt went straight to school and left my gun in my car during the day. Can't do that anymore, go directly to jail.
We used to take a few pics for the scrap book and have a drink after a successful hunt. Still like to do that and even share with friends on FB. But now other people post vid on social media, or even TV, acting like over the top thrill seekers or gangster wannabe's for everyone to see. Sad...

The new video game "hunting" technology is what scares the hell out of me. Shooting a live animal from behind a computer screen, whether at 50 yards or 5000 yards, just because they can, and acting like they just scored the winning touch down in the Super Bowl on social media isn't going to do anyone that loves this sport any good. We as responsible sportsmen better figure out how to embrace it, legislate it, somehow figure out how to deal with it, or the anti's are gonna continue to have a field day with our sport like we have never seen, IMO.

 

[LivingTheDream]

I think the big point here is that there is a difference between a guy you practices consistently out to 1000 yards, understands the science and the wind, the calculations and the ethics of taking a shot that long. Compared to buying a system and just giving it a go without spending time on the range. It amazing me how many guys will go deer hunting miss a deer at 100 yards and say they don't know why they missed it was bore sighted. You don't need long shots to be unethical.

 

[gizmo]

the term legal is bullshit,thats a crutch,ethics,thats the truth,is it or isnt it,you have to make that decision.killing an animal at 1000 yards is murder,you didnt give it a chance.thats my opinion,dont like it,tough.your ego demands you can hit something at 1000 yards,try paper or steel,no damage done,no animal hurt.

Edward my point is that no one has the right to force their ethics on someone else. That's why the law is the minimum standard. I have no right what so ever to tell you you can't hunt a certain way as long as you are doing so legally. The same holds true that you have no right to tell me how to hunt as long as I do so legally.
The reason antis are winning is because as a whole we spend way too much time fighting amongst ourselves over stupid shit like this. As long as one isn't breaking any laws who has the right to tell them they can't do something that they legally can? By who's standards are ethics judged? Yours mine? Who is going to make that determination? I garauntee you the second someone jumped all over you for doing something that is perfectly legal but they disagreed with it you would fight tooth and nail. I'm not saying everyone has to agree with it nor am I saying you or anyone else needs to hunt that way. I'm just saying we have no right to tell someone else they can't.
If I feel like shooting animals from whatever distance I have every right to provided it's legal and no one has the right to tell me any different, period. I know my limits and I don't exceed them. If I screw up and pull a shot that's on me.
On another note, I guide a hellava lot of hunts a year. I do my absolute best to get clients as close as possible for a good humane kill. That being said I've had several clients shoot and wound animals inside of a hundred yards. Why? Simple, they don't practice. It's a "chip" shot, they throw the rifle up, and bam! Gut shot animal. On the other hand I have two clients that are into extreme distance shooting. Not once have they ever lost an animal and they have taken animals up to 1200 yards on my ranch with me guiding.
This is not a personal shot at you or anyone else but I'm sick and tired of the hollier than thou attitude some hunters take. It sounds an awful lot like your saying your ethics and ways of hunting are superior to others. I'm sorry but that's not right. You are entitled to your ethics and I will wholly support you in them provided you aren't breaking any laws but I'll be damned if I'm going to conform to someone else's "ethics" just because they say and believe their views are superior to mine.

 

[gizmo]

@gizmo , I would have to disagree with you on that comment.

Simon that's perfectly fine. Disagreements are bound to happen but I stand by my original statement. Understand it's a generalized statement and of course doesn't apply in every single situation. It's also a statement of a personal opinion. I can tell you though getting everything to fall in place for a 1000 yard shot and then being in a position to make the shot as well as making the shot is no easy task.
The key to the whole deal is knowing when to take the shot and when not to.

 

[K-man]

I am glad to see responsible opinions and reasonable discussions here on AH. Reminds me a bit of the arguments 35-40 years ago about those new-fangled bows with wheels on them. The recurve guys said it was unfair advantage, could shoot too far, would be able to hold too long, would ruin hunting, etc. How did that work out???? The main thing I can't stand is to see is a wounded animal. If you can make the shot 20 times out of 20, do it. if you can't, don't. Even at 200 yds.

 

[gizmo]

But Bill how does a discussion on new regulations happen if you're not even willing to let it begin, immediately shutting it down when 'no current law is being broken' ? Who if not your average hunter such as your average member of AH is 'allowed' to have this discussion? In what medium? In what place?

Phil I think this is a great place for a discussion and am greatful we have a place to discuss things like this. What really chaps my ass is that too often some think their way is superior to others and that those who don't see it "their way" are baffoons. We will never all agree and there will be arguments and that's a good thing. Some however make it personal when the response reeks of "I'm right and your an idiot and an unethical murderer if you disagree".

 

[PHOENIX PHIL]

After a long day at work and away from my computer, I have just one question. If you have contributed to this thread, do you feel you've had a conversation with your fellow AH'ers or do you think you've been in a fight with some of them?

For me it's a reasonable discussion to have.

I personally am riding the fence a bit on the topic of this thread. I've had the somewhat unique experience of hunting Coues deer. Plenty of people have, but I'd guess most American hunters haven't. My longest shot to date on any animal was at a Coues deer at just over 400 yards. By standards of say a guy who has only hunted in the woods of Appalachia that would be considered an extremely long shot. But if you've ever hunted Coues you'd know that shots less than 250 yards aren't that common and spotting them at 400 yards is really no big deal. The fact is that I spotted this buck the day before I took him while glassing and he was 1100 yards away courting a harem of does. My buddy and I knew as it was afternoon it wasn't looking good to make it over there before dark. And besides we had just driven right from home very early that morning and hadn't even setup camp. So we just watched a wonderful show of a dominant buck asserting himself to the dismay of a young buck and the does just munching away as if nothing was going on. That is until just an hour or so of light was left. We made a plan for where to get to in the morning and figured it would be about a 400 yard shot based on some laser range finding. And then down to the truck to setup camp and a long night's wait to see what the next day would bring.

The next morning to our great satisfaction we quickly found the right ridge to walk up and sometime later found the spot we thought we should be at to see this group of deer we thought would stay in the area. Some 30 minutes later the first deer showed up. Not long after that THE buck from the day before showed up. And sure enough it was a 400 yard shot or just a bit over. There just wasn't anyway to get closer. The deer were out on an open slope that late December morning sunning themselves and eating what they could find. Here in AZ in Coues country it tends to be either very open on the south slopes or extremely thick on the north slopes. Not a whole lot of in between in which to work.

First shot may still be hovering somewhere over Arizona as far as I know, not a clue where it went. Not sure how I missed as I had a solid rest and knew my 7mm load I thought well. Second shot and a definitive thwap with a deer falling in its tracks without so much as a twitch. They do that when shot squarely in the neck as you can imagine. I wasn't aiming at the neck, I got lucky.

I won't shoot 400 yards again if I can help it. This story ended happily for me and it is one of my most fondest hunt memories as I had my hunting buddy with me to share this with. But I know it could have ended badly with that buck being food for a coyote or mountain lion after suffering for some period of time from a gut shot. I don't know why I missed with the first and missed my mark substantially with the second though ultimately killing the buck decisively. And I don't really have the time to truly practice shooting at this range nor under all the conditions possible.

Some may read all this and say I should have got closer. I'd bet most of those who say that have never hunted Coues deer. Some may say it was a great shot, but I can't imagine why. I got lucky, plain and simple. In the end I say I should have passed the shot and found another deer in a place where I could take a shot at 300 yards or less. I feel very comfortable shooting at that distance.

I have another friend here in Phoenix who could make a 400 yard shot with one hand tied behind his back and a kid screaming in his ear. He's just that good, I have seen him shoot. I'm not inclined to tell him he's not hunting if he takes a 400 yard shot or even longer as I know he has the ability to do so responsibly. But I know other hunters who don't practice, who don't know their rifle and I would think it highly irresponsible for them to take such a shot. Would it be legal? Sure it would, but it would piss me off to see an animal limping off and not be recovered and depending on my mood may be inclined to let them know about it.

I think this will be my last long winded contribution to this thread. If you disagree with me on anything I've said, I can live with that. And if you agree with me, well that's certainly great too. But ultimately I don't post in such threads to win an argument with anyone, nor am I trying to gather a fan club of those who think just like me. I hope my contributions may cause someone to think about things from a different perspective and maybe learn something, just as the comments I read do that for me.

I don't consider that fighting.

 

[PHOENIX PHIL]

Phil I think this is a great place for a discussion and am greatful we have a place to discuss things like this. What really chaps my ass is that too often some think their way is superior to others and that those who don't see it "their way" are baffoons. We will never all agree and there will be arguments and that's a good thing. Some however make it personal when the response reeks of "I'm right and your an idiot and an unethical murderer if you disagree".

Okay, truly my last post. Yes you are of course right Erik. Fortunately AH members for the most part, if with exceptions, treat each other respectfully. Far more so than members of other websites do that's for sure.

 

[gizmo]

After a long day at work and away from my computer, I have just one question. If you have contributed to this thread, do you feel you've had a conversation with your fellow AH'ers or do you think you've been in a fight with some of them?

For me it's a reasonable discussion to have.

I personally am riding the fence a bit on the topic of this thread. I've had the somewhat unique experience of hunting Coues deer. Plenty of people have, but I'd guess most American hunters haven't. My longest shot to date on any animal was at a Coues deer at just over 400 yards. By standards of say a guy who has only hunted in the woods of Appalachia that would be considered an extremely long shot. But if you've ever hunted Coues you'd know that shots less than 250 yards aren't that common and spotting them at 400 yards is really no big deal. The fact is that I spotted this buck the day before I took him while glassing and he was 1100 yards away courting a harem of does. My buddy and I knew as it was afternoon it wasn't looking good to make it over there before dark. And besides we had just driven right from home very early that morning and hadn't even setup camp. So we just watched a wonderful show of a dominant buck asserting himself to the dismay of a young buck and the does just munching away as if nothing was going on. That is until just an hour or so of light was left. We made a plan for where to get to in the morning and figured it would be about a 400 yard shot based on some laser range finding. And then down to the truck to setup camp and a long night's wait to see what the next day would bring.

The next morning to our great satisfaction we quickly found the right ridge to walk up and sometime later found the spot we thought we should be at to see this group of deer we thought would stay in the area. Some 30 minutes later the first deer showed up. Not long after that THE buck from the day before showed up. And sure enough it was a 400 yard shot or just a bit over. There just wasn't anyway to get closer. The deer were out on an open slope that late December morning sunning themselves and eating what they could find. Here in AZ in Coues country it tends to be either very open on the south slopes or extremely thick on the north slopes. Not a whole lot of in between in which to work.

First shot may still be hovering somewhere over Arizona as far as I know, not a clue where it went. Not sure how I missed as I had a solid rest and knew my 7mm load I thought well. Second shot and a definitive thwap with a deer falling in its tracks without so much as a twitch. They do that when shot squarely in the neck as you can imagine. I wasn't aiming at the neck, I got lucky.

I won't shoot 400 yards again if I can help it. This story ended happily for me and it is one of my most fondest hunt memories as I had my hunting buddy with me to share this with. But I know it could have ended badly with that buck being food for a coyote or mountain lion after suffering for some period of time from a gut shot. I don't know why I missed with the first and missed my mark substantially with the second though ultimately killing the buck decisively. And I don't really have the time to truly practice shooting at this range nor under all the conditions possible.

Some may read all this and say I should have got closer. I'd bet most of those who say that have never hunted Coues deer. Some may say it was a great shot, but I can't imagine why. I got lucky, plain and simple. In the end I say I should have passed the shot and found another deer in a place where I could take a shot at 300 yards or less. I feel very comfortable shooting at that distance.

I have another friend here in Phoenix who could make a 400 yard shot with one hand tied behind his back and a kid screaming in his ear. He's just that good, I have seen him shoot. I'm not inclined to tell him he's not hunting if he takes a 400 yard shot or even longer as I know he has the ability to do so responsibly. But I know other hunters who don't practice, who don't know their rifle and I would think it highly irresponsible for them to take such a shot. Would it be legal? Sure it would, but it would piss me off to see an animal limping off and not be recovered and depending on my mood may be inclined to let them know about it.

I think this will be my last long winded contribution to this thread. If you disagree with me on anything I've said, I can live with that. And if you agree with me, well that's certainly great too. But ultimately I don't post in such threads to win an argument with anyone, nor am I trying to gather a fan club of those who think just like me. I hope my contributions may cause someone to think about things from a different perspective and maybe learn something, just as the comments I read do that for me.

I don't consider that fighting.

Phil excellent post and you make a very valid point.

 

[rookhawk]

@gizmo I think you have a right to have a chapped ass as you say it. (at an academic level, at a personal level I hold you in high esteem)

I certainly want to curl up in your business and dictate what you can and can't do in hunting. Why? I'm selfish. I want to make sure no one does something in hunting I believe the public will find so reprehensible that the after shocks from their interactions with the public will come back to harm me and my interests.

That's kind of why people rat out poachers. Do I materially care that others break the law? Not really. Do I care that they are harming the resource? Yes, I do. Do I care that their black eye on the sport will harm me? Yes, I especially do. Do I care that their disregard for permission will harm my ability to lawfully receive permission to hunt? Yes I do.

In all examples above, its about ME ME ME or others like ME ME ME. It's about my sport, my enjoyment, my progeny's access to the same, etc.

When self interests mutually align, we have a coalition and that's just fine too. I'm just concerned about the "big tent" strategy as it means we'll tolerate just about anything to keep the broadest possible coalition. We need some standards or else we will all lose our sport trying to create strawman defenses to pretty detestable deeds done by pretty reprehensible characters.

When we move to libertarian land and we all are solely and personally accountable and their is no bureaucracy and democracy potentially robbing us of our liberties, I'll no longer care what any hunter does with their resources on their land. Presently, however, we are not in libertarian land and therefore we're all the community watch volunteers ready to shame, complain or narc out other hunters that go too far in their behavior and end up endangering our pastime.

 

[gizmo]

@gizmo I think you have a right to have a chapped ass as you say it. (at an academic level, at a personal level I hold you in high esteem)

I certainly want to curl up in your business and dictate what you can and can't do in hunting. Why? I'm selfish. I want to make sure no one does something in hunting I believe the public will find so reprehensible that the after shocks from their interactions with the public will come back to harm me and my interests.

That's kind of why people rat out poachers. Do I materially care that others break the law? Not really. Do I care that they are harming the resource? Yes, I do. Do I care that their black eye on the sport will harm me? Yes, I especially do. Do I care that their disregard for permission will harm my ability to lawfully receive permission to hunt? Yes I do.

In all examples above, its about ME ME ME or others like ME ME ME. It's about my sport, my enjoyment, my progeny's access to the same, etc.

When self interests mutually align, we have a coalition and that's just fine too. I'm just concerned about the "big tent" strategy as it means we'll tolerate just about anything to keep the broadest possible coalition. We need some standards or else we will all lose our sport trying to create strawman defenses to pretty detestable deeds done by pretty reprehensible characters.

When we move to libertarian land and we all are solely and personally accountable and their is no bureaucracy and democracy potentially robbing us of our liberties, I'll no longer care what any hunter does with their resources on their land. Presently, however, we are not in libertarian land and therefore we're all the community watch volunteers ready to shame, complain or narc out other hunters that go too far in their behavior and end up endangering our pastime.

Thank you and I agree with you. My sole point is that ethics are a personal thing. There has to be a common ground which in hunting is the law. From there it's up to the individual. It's a dangerous and slippery slope when people start saying they are ethically superior to others when the other is doing nothing legally wrong. Are there things that I refuse to do legal or not? Sure there are. The difference is I'm not going to bash someone for doing something legally that I find unethical. I will choose not to do it and leave it at that and I'm for damn sure not going to say they can't. Someone said it before, antis could care less about hunting ethics, they want it stopped entirely period. It's the uneducated public that we have to worry about. It's our job to show the benifits of conservation through hunting. At the end of the day we DO kill. That's the end result of a successful hunt. All of us have different beliefs on what's "fair" to means to the end. That's fine but by whose standards do we use? Who's standards are definitive? At the end of the day it's the state and federal governments we are judged. Should laws be changed to keep up with the times? Sure. But be careful to not infringe upon the rights of others all in the name of personal ethics.

 

[rookhawk]

@gizmo a thoughtful response you summarized to many different applicable posts in this thread.

I wanted to commend everyone on this forum. There is vitriol internet arguments and then there is constructive contention. This forum is the latter, a group of caring, empathetic sportsman that argue firmly, respectfully, and with a considerate viewpoint. It is much easier to debate an issue when everyone involved in a heated discussion has given their position a lot of thought and reconciled it with their conscience. This is a great site!

 

[gizmo]

Perhaps there is another way to put it. I will preface it with this. I wholly support elephant hunting and dream of being able to do it one day. This also isn't a shot at anyone in particular though it just so happens to apply.
IMO the most unethical thing one can do in all of hunting is to hunt elephant with a bow or handgun. That's my opinion and I have my reasons for it. Does that make me right and those who do that wrong? NO it does not. Will I ever tell someone they shouldn't hunt an elephant that way? NO I won't. Would I start a fuss to get the law changed to make it illegal for others to do that? Absolutely NOT! I will simply choose not to hunt that way. Further I will support their right to do so to the bitter end because I truely believe that while I disagree with it they have every right in the world to do it where they legally can. If they were to shoot an elephant with either choice of weapon somewhere it is illegal I'd be the first to grab the pitch forks and torches. I'll also be the first to step up and defend their right to do it where it is legal. It's about what is best for all of us not just me.

 

[Royal27]

Unless we are going back to spears and stones to hunt we are picking ourselves apart for what.

Giraffe hunting with a club? Ethical or not? What says the captain?

 

[edward]

right or wrong,thats for the individual to decide.ethics,far more important than the written word.if a 1000 yard shot floats your boat,that comes under the heading of different strokes for different folks.but to call it hunting,that is bullshit,period.you have not given the animal a chance to make you look like an idiot,you have not challenged him on his turf,giving it the chance to out smart you and continue to live its life in full,no,you have killed him at 1000 yards when it didnt even know you were on this planet.a snow ball in hell had a better chance.that is not an opinion,that is a FACT.i will continue to be an old fashion hunter for the rest of my life thank you.please have the last word as im through beating the dead horse,it aint going to get up and run the race.

 

[BigJohnx13]

You paint an animal like you're calling in an airstrike up to 1400 yards away. Calculations are performed on 24 different aspects (not just drop, velocity, drift, wind). It then creates its own firing solution and tracks the target. You hold down the button and when you whip the gun all around eventually for a nanosecond your jerky wobbly gun intersects with the painted target whether moving or stationary and the system discharges the hammer, striking the target.
.

THIS TRACKING POINT SYSTEM IS MAKING CLAIMS THAT IS MISLEADING AND NOT CORRECT.

Let me explain why. I’m not shooting the system down (literally), it has it place and time but also its limitations which is not dealt with in the videos or properly explained. Why can I make the statement, 18 years in military service with training as a tank gunner with manual controls and then later the system was upgraded with a Computerized Fire Control system of which the Trackingpoint system is a low end scaled down version.

How does the Computerized Fire Control system work? A laser measure the distance to the target. It also measures the wind speed and direction. It also measures the barometric air pressure and the air temperature. It also measures the direction it is shooting East/West (e.g.) etc to compensate for Coriolus effect on long range shooting. Basically it has its own weather system onboard. Shooting up to distances to about 8 km (8 000 m) at a target 1.5 x 1 m (a tank turret behind a hill is a very small target) all this measurements have an effect on a projectile (bullet) trajectory like temperature (hot days shooting higher because propellant (about 3 kg gun powder) is hotter delivering a higher velocity and vice versa on cold days.

In layman’s term the system works as follow. You acquire your target, the computer take the readings from all the different measurement equipment and mathematical calculate the trajectory and impact point. This is all fair and good on paper and in theory. But this is where the tricky part comes in that most people don’t realize. No system can take the same measurements halfway to the target and at the target itself because there is no equipment there to measure any readings. So any calculation done by the system works on a basis/assumption that everything (atmospheric conditions) stays exactly the same at all distances before the bullet left the barrel and at time of the impact and the target is doing exactly the same when the shot was fired. In reality you get a crosswind at the shooting point at 5 kph, halfway to the target the crosswind is 10 kph and at the target itself 15 kph due to terrain features present on the ground (trees, dongas, hills etc) which is not present on a static shooting range. So anybody will agree that the calculation done by the computer cannot guarantee always a hit due to changing atmospheric conditions that will affect the impact point of the projectile/bullet. In reality if any atmospheric conditions (like wind speed/direction) changes after the projectile/bullet is fired you miss! The moment the projectile/bullet leaves the barrel there is no control over it.

The same applies when the target is moving. If a target moves at say 10 kph in a certain direction the Computerized Fire Control system does the calculation on the basis/assumption that the direction and speed of the target stays the same. If the target change direction or speed after the shot was fired you miss. Period! The moment the projectile/bullet leaves the barrel there is no control over it.

So based on the above facts anyone can see that there is still a big change off missing/wounding an animal because all calculation is done on basis nothing will change and in reality we know that animals, wind speed and direction changes after the bullet left the barrel. By increasing you shooting distance you also increase the error of miss/wounding. This is unfortunately also applicable to the Trackingpoint system.

The only system that can guarantee a hit after the shot was fired taken into consideration that the target moved or atmospheric conditions have changed is a guided system where the missile/smart bomb is actually steered/guided in the direction of the target via laser tracking, GPS or RF signals.

Currently there is no hunting system available that can steer a bullet/arrow after it left the weapon. Some might say at 500 m there is .5 sec of time for things to change and at 1 000 m 1 sec to change that is too little too have an effect on the bullet impact point. In that .5 sec time span an animal can move forward perhaps only 20 cm in a direction which will result in a wound and not a kill (a gut shot instead of heart or lungs).

Will this Trackingpoint system improve most shooters ability? Yes! Can it deliver 99.5% kill ratio as it is claimed. NO! Those that experienced and know the difference between statements, claims, laborites and actual field tests is usually 4 different things. So as the Romans would say “Emptor Caveat”.

 

[billc]

Giraffe hunting with a club? Ethical or not? What says the captain?

View attachment 166402

For me I would not but some local bushman takes one like that I am ok with it. Are they hunters or just locals? I would say hunters and some of the best around.

How did hunting start? By people making weapons from stones and sticks to hunt and kill dinner. That is true hunting if you think about it and why we have hunting today. By how hunting started we are no different then long range shooting because even your rifle or bow is more advanced them some like or think is fair and ethical.

We have been fighting the same fight for way to long. Every time a new way comes along some get there panties in a bunch and feel the need to fight about it. We never learn and just keep repeating and hurting each other. I hope at some point maybe we would learn and stop hunters from fighting with other hunters because we don't like something.

If we don't get past the my way of hunting and killing is better then yours. My place I hunt is better there yours because it has no fence. My way of hunting is better then yours because the game was not raised or added to the ranch. I see it as we are in big trouble with that way of thinking.

Not everyone needs to like or even do a way others may like. It is a choice we all make and my view is to support others who enjoy the same sport I do even if it may not be the way I would pick to hunt.