Shooting vs Hunting / A Growing Ethical Issue

[Red Leg]

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

 

[crackerman]

I think the government should keep its nose out of most things, and I can’t see a
practical way to regulate this.

I think the problem stems from Instagram and YouTube “hunters” that are great marksman but lead other people to think that they’re twice a year range session to cap a Whitetail at 100 yards means I can do the same thing and it leads to wounded game and bad taste of the public’s mouth.

I think also those who are here on Africa hunting when compared to the general shooting population are probably in the top 20% of shooters so our opinions are going to be a little more skewed but understandably more accurate. I think we also have a better self awareness of what our real skills actually are. I’m a good four MOA shooter at 600 yards but that’s still a 2 foot wide circle, no way I would feel ethical taking an animal that far without lots of further training or practice. I don’t think most people are self-aware as I try to be with their skill level. Ironically, someone skilled enough to take an antelope at 2000 yards probably does have that skill level to appropriately take it.

I will concede as a guy who shot a buffalo at 60 yards and wants nothing more than to get closer. I’m not the target demographic of that article.

 

[JimP]

There has always been those who push the range while hunting. I've had a shooter shoot over the top of me while I was watching a small bunch of deer a hundred yards away, the shooter had to be another 500 yards above me. And this was over 40 years ago.

But how is the leglesature going to leglesate ethics without restricting the so called ethical hunter, and who defines ethics?

Utah this year has changed a few hunting units to restricted hunting methods. Center fire rifles can only have open sights. Muzzle loaders are side lock, match lock or flint lock with open sights. Archery follows the same lines, but haven't read the regulations on them. On a Utah hunting form there are some screaming bloody murder, while others are embracing it.

As they said in the article, it's a slippery slope.

 

[Tex .416]

I think the government should keep its nose out of most things, and I can’t see a
practical way to regulate this.

I agree, keep the government out of it.

It is a different form of trophy looking for glory on internet forums, the same as big horns or grip and grin photos for internet forums, and medals and certificates for the wall.

The best way is to not praise it, but speak up against it.

Few hunters ever post about misses or worse wounded or lost animals.

 

[BryceM]

Lots of rifle hunters think lots of bow hunters wound and lose lots of animals.

Lots of rifle hunters think long-range rifle hunters wound and lose lots of animals.

Unfortunately, lots of all types of hunters actually wound and lose lots of animals. It happens in the wild with predators too.

I love shooting at long range, but mostly so I can be more confident at my typical hunting ranges. It's a perishable skill, and if you're not regularly shooting at your intended distance, you're probably not very good at it.

Personally, I think if you're somehow lucky enough to even have a tag you should be able to legally use a weapon with lots of gadgets as long as it doesn't preclude fair chase. If the animal has a chance to actually get away, generally I'm good with it. Artificial handicaps when it comes to technology don't make a lot of sense. We already have enough rules.

 

[MontanaPat]

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

Thanks for sharing Joe, interesting topic and one I could see arising here in Montana as well.

 

[375Fox]

I think the growing concern is the inability to discuss hunting ethics. It’s on full display often on this forum with the if it’s legal it’s ok argument. Keep the government out of it sounds great, but if hunters make unethical decisions and it affects the quality of hunting for other hunters what option do you suggest other than new regulations? If hunters don’t want any regulations around long range hunting how would they feel about shorter seasons make up for higher harvest success and higher wounding rates due to long range shooting? Season length and methods used are the primary way to manage total harvest. The relatively new development is ballistic turrets. Banning them to limit long range hunting would be the easiest solution to me, but would be met with widespread resistance.

 

[1dirthawker]

so how does one enforce how far one shoots at game animals, exactly?

 

[375Fox]

so how does one enforce how far one shoots at game animals, exactly?

You can’t but you can define legal equipment. How far were most hunters willing to take shots before ballistic turrets became commonplace in hunting?

 

[DieJager]

As someone from Europe, totally different gun culture, it always struck me as insane that there is almost no formal hunting education. I know there is a small hunter education course in the US but over where I live you really have to go and have a formal education for a minimum of one year.

Shooting course with shotgun, one with a rifle, and practical exam and one theory exam. First time roughly 50% fail. It is no walk in the park.

Some provinces ask additional courses for different animals.

One thing that is hammered in is that you are legally bound to take a safe and ethical shot. To be fair it is not clearly defined what is ethical but common sense dictates that this kind of extreme long distance shooting because that is what is is, it is no hunting in my opinion, does not fall in that category. If the animal not has a reasonably, be it a small chance, to detect you it is not hunting. Over 2000 yards away it would be impossible to detect the hunter.

You will lose your license if you shoot at such long distances and wound the animal. We have a word called "weidelijk" in my language. There is no direct translation. It is not the same as ethical but it is a mixture of good conduct, ethical behavior etc., that is expected from the hunter. The word is only used in the context of hunting.

In theory unsportsmanlike behaviour (think this term comes closest in English) could lead the losing your license. Ethics is a big part of the equation and a lot of laws are still used that punish unsportsmanlike behaviour, unethical behaviour.

For example, No stalking animals in fresh snow is one of our laws. No hunting during extreme weather conditions et cetera. In theory you could lose your license if your conduct is not "weidelijk". That is also the case for unsafe handling of your gun, pointed loaded gun at someone for example.

I could see where regulations will fail on this debate. And there is of course lot of gray area. And I am not saying what another country should do or not do. What I am saying that as a hunting community you need these discussions and be a part of them. Otherwise government will regulate you, have the lead as hunters and publicly debate these issues and try to resolve them yourselves for example with guidelines. If the only comeback is it is legal than you will probably lose the debate in the eyes of the public.

If one of our fellow hunters do things we deem unsportsmanlike we talk to them, sometimes if it is a repeat offender shun him or her from our activities and in extreme cases they can be expelled from the hunting club. That can lead even to losing your license.

Sometimes we have to police our own for the good of the community.

 

[Cooposo]

so how does one enforce how far one shoots at game animals, exactly?

In the case of many YouTubers, podcasters, bloggers, forum members, and long range shooting influencers, there is a lot of bragging about and documentation of the ranges at which they are shooting animals. Field enforcement would be difficult, but some citations for violations of a shooting range standard would come quickly given how many people make information publicly available. Poachers self incriminate for much more serious violations all the time.

I think such people could be a positive influence as well. As soon as someone is on camera or on a podcast saying “we had the elk ranged at 600 yards, but in X state the max legal range is 400 yards, so we had to close the distance” it could do a lot to start to reverse some current trends.

I’ve had discussions with multiple people in the last few years who believe their maximum shooting range AT ANIMALS would be “well I saw someone shoot this far on YouTube, so I bet I could do it”. And they go to the field with that attitude, having shot a few groups at 100 yards and trusting their dial-up turrets and rangefinder to sort out the rest. This happens often.

 

[RedTag]

I have spoken to a few real snipers regarding this very topic. These are guys fully capable of making these kinds of shots and all of them told me they would prefer to get within 400 yards for hunting purposes. In battle any hit is a good hit. That’s not the case in hunting. We aren’t trying to simply take a deer or antelope out of the fight; we’re trying to kill the animal quickly to minimize its suffering and to keep our own tracking efforts to a preferred minimum. Minor errors in ranging, wind estimation, and environmental factors are generally not going to be a huge problem inside 400 yards. These minor errors are greatly amplified at longer distances. I think a valid exception to the 400 yard rule would be culling larger numbers of feral or invasive species, with the caveat that the hunter is very well practiced in the art and science of long range shooting.

 

[wildwilderness]

If success rates increase tag number will go down. It’s already the case in many western states and already hard to get good tags.

Hunters who live in some states with very liberal deer or game seasons may not understand the limits on western game, and how loooong range shooting can effect it. Trophy quality as well


Yes government Does play a role in wildlife management and needs to. Can’t be a free for all whatever whenever etc.

It’s a public discussion if harvest objectives are over reached and less tags become available. The trade off would be weapon restrictions or season restrictions to reduce success rates to issue more tags.


Easy enough to outright ban rifles, I know populated states and counties often have rifle restrictions and only allow shotguns, muzzleloaders and archery. Also straight walled cartridges can limit reach or just ban scopes and go open sights.


So as mentioned you can’t regulate how far someone can shoot be yes it can be a discussion to put limits on equipment.

 

[Hunter-Habib]

I know that my opinion will be extremely unpopular in this thread, but I’ll just put some matters into perspective.

Some hunters want to ban bow hunting
Some hunters want to ban buckshot
Some hunters want to ban hunting over torchlight
Some hunters want to ban hunting over hounds
Some hunters want to ban hunting over bait
Some hunters want to ban hunting over waterholes
Some hunters want to ban driven hunts
Some hunters want to ban semi automatic rifles
Some hunters want to ban muzzle loaders
Some hunters want to ban repeating rifles (e.g: John Pondoro Taylor)
Some hunters want to ban elephant hunting
Some hunters want to ban lion hunting (both wild AND CBL)
Some hunters want to ban bear hunting
Some hunters want to ban predator hunting
Some hunters want to ban “Trophy Hunting” (without fully understanding what “Trophy Hunting” really is)
Some hunters want to ban certain calibers for hunting
Some hunters want to ban telescopic sights
Some hunters want to ban high capacity magazines

And of course… some hunters want to limit the ranges game can be taken at.

With absolutely no disrespect aimed towards my fellow American/Canadian/British/European/Australian hunters… you all are blessed in the Western world to have so many freedoms regarding firearms & hunting. Blessed in ways that many of you can’t fully begin to appreciate yet. Blessed in ways that many take for granted.

I’ll offer a perspective from the East. We (India, Pakistan, Nepal, Bangladesh, Malaysia, Thailand, Philippines, Vietnam, Japan) used to have relatively lax restrictions upon firearms & hunting. It wasn’t anti hunters & anti gun owners that did us in. It was our own kind. In-fighting between hunters who felt the need to look down upon any form of hunting which is different to the manner by which THEY hunt. And look where it got us. All these countries now have severe restrictions in terms of hunting laws & firearms ownership (hunting being outright banned in India). Unrepentant hunter as I am, the harsh reality about us is that we’re a deeply judgmental self righteous sort. I’m an IGF (Inspector General Of Forests) and a former CCF (Chief Conservator Of Forests). There was not a hunting related bill in my part of the world which gets approved without my signature. And I say this with absolutely zero arrogance but I know what I’m talking about.

We talk about “Fair Chase”. Well, what exactly constitutes “Fair” ? What might be fair to hunter A, might not be fair to hunter B. Even the article shared by the original poster highlights this issue. Some hunters think that 600 yards is too long a shot. Some draw the line at 400. I personally seldom take a shot over 100 yards and mostly hunt with iron sights. So am I entitled to demand a ban for telescopic sighted rifles ? I personally think that doing so would make me incredibly self centered.

Sure, while pushing for another restrictive measure on hunting… we’ll temporarily find an ally in the anti hunting crowd. But make no mistake. Once they’ve “Helped” you ban long range hunting, they’ll simply turn against you and push for more restrictions upon hunting until hunting itself becomes completely banned. These people are not our friends.

My motto is “Hunt & Let Hunt”. There are many personal dislikes which one is obviously entitled to have. A few weeks ago, somebody here posted a thread about wanting to hunt an elephant with a bow & arrow. I don’t think very highly of this stunt at all, but I’m not going to push for a ban against dangerous game hunting with a bow. That other hunter has just as much rights as I do.

And I’m also vehemently opposed to involving the government. They often impose a blanket prohibition without fully addressing all factors. For instance, in 1918… American Federal law banned any 8 gauge shotgun (or larger) for the purposes of waterfowl hunting. The reasoning was that an 8 gauge shotgun makes it incredibly easy to secure large bags of waterfowl. Well, let’s see. An 8 gauge cartridge holds 56 grams of shot. Today, a modern 12 gauge 3.5” Magnum shell holds 63 grams of shot. And that’s perfectly legal for waterfowl. Yet the 8 gauge remains banned today, even though the logic behind it’s ban is no longer sound. The point is, when a government imposes a restriction… it becomes damned hard to overturn the restriction.

Would I take an antelope at 2000 yards ? Hell, no. I deem anything above 300 yards to be unsporting in my personal code of ethics. Far too many hunters these days think that they’re the Simo Hayha, Carlos Hathcock or Chris Kyle of Shikar. And they tend to view game animals as enemy soldiers. But I still ask all of you to properly reconsider pushing for any sort of legislation restricting a form of hunting without fully understanding the Domino effects & unintended consequences.

 

[Scott CWO]

As someone from Europe, totally different gun culture, it always struck me as insane that there is almost no formal hunting education. I know there is a small hunter education course in the US but over where I live you really have to go and have a formal education for a minimum of one year.

Shooting course with shotgun, one with a rifle, and practical exam and one theory exam. First time roughly 50% fail. It is no walk in the park.

Some provinces ask additional courses for different animals.

One thing that is hammered in is that you are legally bound to take a safe and ethical shot. To be fair it is not clearly defined what is ethical but common sense dictates that this kind of extreme long distance shooting because that is what is is, it is no hunting in my opinion, does not fall in that category. If the animal not has a reasonably, be it a small chance, to detect you it is not hunting. Over 2000 yards away it would be impossible to detect the hunter.

You will lose your license if you shoot at such long distances and wound the animal. We have a word called "weidelijk" in my language. There is no direct translation. It is not the same as ethical but it is a mixture of good conduct, ethical behavior etc., that is expected from the hunter. The word is only used in the context of hunting.

In theory unsportsmanlike behaviour (think this term comes closest in English) could lead the losing your license. Ethics is a big part of the equation and a lot of laws are still used that punish unsportsmanlike behaviour, unethical behaviour.

For example, No stalking animals in fresh snow is one of our laws. No hunting during extreme weather conditions et cetera. In theory you could lose your license if your conduct is not "weidelijk". That is also the case for unsafe handling of your gun, pointed loaded gun at someone for example.

I could see where regulations will fail on this debate. And there is of course lot of gray area. And I am not saying what another country should do or not do. What I am saying that as a hunting community you need these discussions and be a part of them. Otherwise government will regulate you, have the lead as hunters and publicly debate these issues and try to resolve them yourselves for example with guidelines. If the only comeback is it is legal than you will probably lose the debate in the eyes of the public.

If one of our fellow hunters do things we deem unsportsmanlike we talk to them, sometimes if it is a repeat offender shun him or her from our activities and in extreme cases they can be expelled from the hunting club. That can lead even to losing your license.

Sometimes we have to police our own for the good of the community.

This seems great on the surface but it would kill hunting in the USA to impose a year of training to hunt here. We are already losing our voice and being marginalized.

 

[Mauser78]

It will always be a debate, certain areas dont allow for decent walk n stalk hunting.
I personally do shoot game in certain areas at 300-400 yards, but then I say i shot, I did not hunt. If it is from the back of the truck, it is also shot, not hunted in my mind, and i see it like that for me personally also.
I prefer hunting, but if i need the meat i will shoot something as well.
Just differentiate between the 2 activities.
Some shooters are actually very skilled.
Popping Gophers at 150 yards takes a lot more prediction than a deer or kudu at 200 yards.
With the right equipment it can be done and are being done successfully. But I understand a novice trying to do it without the Apps, rangefinder, windage meter and a closed turret scope are looking for trouble.

 

[1:66 twiste@d]

I shot a pronghorn at 417 yards. Way out of my comfort zone. I felt like crap because it wasn't a clean kill.

I swore that I would get back to hunting like I was used to. 150 to 200 will be my limits.

But I am not knocking those folks who are making clean kills at 500 plus yards. But a 2000 yard shot does seam a lot on the dangerous side. Not knowing your surroundings. Just my 2 cents.

 

[DieJager]

This seems great on the surface but it would kill hunting in the USA to impose a year of training to hunt here. We are already losing our voice and being marginalized.

Oke, that I can understand. I gave it some more thoughts and also because there is much public land to hunt, something that we in most of Europe do not have. Lot of times we lease from government or semi government organisations. Or private land and that makes us think more about the consequences of our behavior.

Frankly if we would snipe from long distance then our lease would be in danger.

Our system is not better, I would think in lots of ways worse. We are at the whims of local governments. If there are any greenies or lefties in the local government you are screwed. Hunting is no right over here but a privilege.

That said the more you need to have some system to police your own. I understand @Hunter-Habib his sentiment. Except doing nothing is also a sure way that the government will act one way or another.This trend is getting way too much attention and will not go away by doing nothing.

I am not as familiar as you do with local customs and law. What do you think is needed?

 

[Sideshow]

I know that my opinion will be extremely unpopular in this thread, but I’ll just put some matters into perspective.

Some hunters want to ban bow hunting
Some hunters want to ban buckshot
Some hunters want to ban hunting over torchlight
Some hunters want to ban hunting over hounds
Some hunters want to ban hunting over bait
Some hunters want to ban hunting over waterholes
Some hunters want to ban driven hunts
Some hunters want to ban semi automatic rifles
Some hunters want to ban muzzle loaders
Some hunters want to ban repeating rifles (e.g: John Pondoro Taylor)
Some hunters want to ban elephant hunting
Some hunters want to ban lion hunting (both wild AND CBL)
Some hunters want to ban bear hunting
Some hunters want to ban predator hunting
Some hunters want to ban “Trophy Hunting” (without fully understanding what “Trophy Hunting” really is)
Some hunters want to ban certain calibers for hunting
Some hunters want to ban telescopic sights
Some hunters want to ban high capacity magazines

And of course… some hunters want to limit the ranges game can be taken at.

With absolutely no disrespect aimed towards my fellow American/Canadian/British/European/Australian hunters… you all are blessed in the Western world to have so many freedoms regarding firearms & hunting. Blessed in ways that many of you can’t fully begin to appreciate yet. Blessed in ways that many take for granted.

I’ll offer a perspective from the East. We (India, Pakistan, Nepal, Bangladesh, Malaysia, Thailand, Philippines, Vietnam, Japan) used to have relatively lax restrictions upon firearms & hunting. It wasn’t anti hunters & anti gun owners that did us in. It was our own kind. In-fighting between hunters who felt the need to look down upon any form of hunting which is different to the manner by which THEY hunt. And look where it got us. All these countries now have severe restrictions in terms of hunting laws & firearms ownership (hunting being outright banned in India). Unrepentant hunter as I am, the harsh reality about us is that we’re a deeply judgmental self righteous sort. I’m an IGF (Inspector General Of Forests) and a former CCF (Chief Conservator Of Forests). There was not a hunting related bill in my part of the world which gets approved without my signature. And I say this with absolutely zero arrogance but I know what I’m talking about.

We talk about “Fair Chase”. Well, what exactly constitutes “Fair” ? What might be fair to hunter A, might not be fair to hunter B. Even the article shared by the original poster highlights this issue. Some hunters think that 600 yards is too long a shot. Some draw the line at 400. I personally seldom take a shot over 100 yards and mostly hunt with iron sights. So am I entitled to demand a ban for telescopic sighted rifles ? I personally think that doing so would make me incredibly self centered.

Sure, while pushing for another restrictive measure on hunting… we’ll temporarily find an ally in the anti hunting crowd. But make no mistake. Once they’ve “Helped” you ban long range hunting, they’ll simply turn against you and push for more restrictions upon hunting until hunting itself becomes completely banned. These people are not our friends.

My motto is “Hunt & Let Hunt”. There are many personal dislikes which one is obviously entitled to have. A few weeks ago, somebody here posted a thread about wanting to hunt an elephant with a bow & arrow. I don’t think very highly of this stunt at all, but I’m not going to push for a ban against dangerous game hunting with a bow. That other hunter has just as much rights as I do.

And I’m also vehemently opposed to involving the government. They often impose a blanket prohibition without fully addressing all factors. For instance, in 1918… American Federal law banned any 8 gauge shotgun (or larger) for the purposes of waterfowl hunting. The reasoning was that an 8 gauge shotgun makes it incredibly easy to secure large bags of waterfowl. Well, let’s see. An 8 gauge cartridge holds 56 grams of shot. Today, a modern 12 gauge 3.5” Magnum shell holds 63 grams of shot. And that’s perfectly legal for waterfowl. Yet the 8 gauge remains banned today, even though the logic behind it’s ban is no longer sound. The point is, when a government imposes a restriction… it becomes damned hard to overturn the restriction.

Would I take an antelope at 2000 yards ? Hell, no. I deem anything above 300 yards to be unsporting in my personal code of ethics. Far too many hunters these days think that they’re the Simo Hayha, Carlos Hathcock or Chris Kyle of Shikar. And they tend to view game animals as enemy soldiers. But I still ask all of you to properly reconsider pushing for any sort of legislation restricting a form of hunting without fully understanding the Domino effects & unintended consequences.

Well said. Thanks again for posting, this hit the nail on the head for me.

 

[NIGHTHAWK]

I’ve hit a target at 2,000 yards on more than one occasion in shooting schools and/or competition, yet I have no desire to shoot or attempt to shoot an animal at that distance.

I also have no interest in being told how long of a shot I am allowed while hunting unless it is by my PH. Certainly don’t want or need it through any sort of legislation!