Shooting vs Hunting / A Growing Ethical Issue

[BJH65]

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?

What you propose would largely be unenforceable regardless of the intention. Also we must define long range hunting, what is the specific definition of long range hunting?

What exact distance is long range? Also there are other variables as well like wind and elevation that can significantly affect the shot as the range increases but when the conditions are perfect, a longer than average shot may be very doable.

While old fashioned, I would always fall back on Aldo Leupold’s quote instilled in Hunter Education :

• • "Ethical behavior is doing the right thing when no one else is watching—even when doing the wrong thing is legal."

 

[Hogpatrol]

Beat me to it. I hate the idea of the government getting involved but there are all kinds of equipment restrictions throughout hunting regulations. I was going to recommend limiting scopes on hunting rifles to a maximum magnification, for example 3-9X40. That would preclude most ethical hunters from attempting uber long range shots. I don’t like the concept of having to do that but something needs to change.

That may cost the Wyoming GaFD money, especially from non residents. Fund wise, they're in a belt tightening mode now.

 

[shootist~]

.....maximum magnification, for example 3-9X40.....

Give me 2.5-10x42 or give me death!

 

[skydiver386]

As a former SOTOC level 1 Sniper, I can say I'd take shots in combat that I would never take when hunting.

Do I think there should be laws prohibiting certain equipment, etc.? My answer is NO.

So what's the answer?

I believe as a society, we have gravitated away from morals and individual responsibilities, and there are constructive ways to go about changing this, especially where hunting is concerned. Several hundred years ago, game was becoming scarce across most of Europe, but the hunting traditions of Saint Hubert were adopted and are now widely recognized. Respect for the animals, greetings and congratulations, music, dress and all manner of hunting traditions that broader society recognizes would go a long way to improve the image of hunting in the eyes of the general public.

I think an apprentice program with special licenses similar to what my home state of Ohio has could be at least part of the answer. Having senior hunters provide guidance was the way it was done hundreds of years ago. Teaching our children, grandchildren, and sometimes stranger how to hunt and fish has been one of the greatest pleasures of my life, and I'm sure many here feel the same way.

Make many of the traditions of Europe popular here, as well as the ethic's and moral responsibilities that we should abide by as responsible hunters. Having Clubs that not only organize hunting, but organize traditional ceremonies, banquets and awards associated with a strict ethical and moral code is what we should strive for.

What government laws say will always be one thing, but what we hold ourselves and other hunters to should be another thing entirely.

 

[Ontario Hunter]

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.

I'm not sure letting trash loose in the field with guns hasn't marginalized USA hunting more.

I like the idea of regulating ethics. Or at least an appearance of regulating it. Baiting is not legal in many places. Fine with me. That's not hunting. Trapping/snaring bears was only recently eliminated in Maine in spite of a very loud outcry from the "sportsman" crowd spouting the usual "give em an inch they'll take a mile" crappola. How much did that marginalize hunting there?

I think enforcement of range limits would not be entirely impossible. Everyone has a cellphone with camera. I can take a picture of someone taking the 500 yard pot shot and then a GPS photo of the gut pile and/or the shooter gutting the animal (if he happens to kill it). Enforcement would not be easy but even the appearance of trying to do something about this "fill a tag by whatever means" bullshit only makes us look better, especially if we support it. I am getting fed up with the current arms race in outdoors sports technology. It's all about the fancy crap one can buy. The skill and thrill of the chase is no longer important. Guys like me who stalk game on foot rather than in a SxS buggy with all the bells and whistles, we just don't have the same glitter of sixty years ago. Which do you think the fence-sitting non-hunting public majority would find more palatable? But which do they see getting the most media exposure?

I think this legislation is a breath of fresh air, regardless of how enforceable it may or may not be. I would be okay with banning ballist turrets too. For big game hunting anyway. Folks that have invested in them can just adapt and learn how to hunt again.

 

[VINOYASADO]

Unfortunately, I think involving the government in this would be even worse in this days.
There are "experts" on hunting, agriculture, and ecology who have never set foot in a field, fired a gun, hunted, etc., etc.

My personal opinion:

Regarding hunting, you can be hunting or have hunted and not even have fired a single shot. I sometimes feel that way (quite often ). I've been following tracks, seeing other species, enjoying the mountains or the surroundings, fighting the wind, and being outsmarted by the animal... For me, ALL of that is part of hunting, and that's how I feel.

Shooting an animal at 1,000 m (for example) with the technology we have today isn't hunting, it's long-range shooting, it's killing, or anything else.The same when i see people make the whole hunt on top of the truck, get down, shoot from there and back to base and had the trophy ready...sorry, but at least for me that's not hunting

 

[Hogpatrol]

Comparing the U.S. with any other country's hunting is apples to oranges, kiwis, or mangos. We have public game lands and forests where any person, within the regulatory environment, can hunt. About the only thing we have in common with the rest of the world's hunters is bitching about another's method or equipment.

 

[Philip Glass]

Certainly a proper discussion for forums like this. It is not an issue that can or should be legislated against. States and fish and game agencies should not be interested in methods only in the actual take and the effect on population dynamics.

 

[Ontario Hunter]

Some of the main problems are tv shows, social media/youtube, and companies that push “long range” rifle setups that are all dialed in. selling to guys that probably don’t even practice, they just think they have a magic dial on their optic and all they have to do is pull the trigger. I won’t name names, but we all know who those companies are.

I have worked in the firearms industry for 25 years and this is a heated topic, been brewing for some years now. I for one really enjoy shooting at a 1000 yard range, but that rifle, that skill set, and mentality don’t play a part in my brain at all when I have a tag in my pocket. Even though I understand the technology, have the equipment, and can do the long range thing quite effectively, that is not hunting imo. I’ll stick to my 300 and under rule, if the shot requires turret manipulation no thank you, and also would prefer to not hunt with you. My actual preference is spot and stalk, archery ranges with rifles equipped with low power scope or even better open sight and the cleanest, quickest most effective kill as possible.

Another problem is the overall health and physical properties of a lot of hunters nowadays. I mean if you can’t bring yourself to get in shape before a hunt that you know you are going to tax yourself to the limits in the given terrain, but would rather just drag your fat ass up a hillside and start lobbing bullets at extreme ranges you shouldn’t call yourself a hunter. iMO

I agree about lack of conditioning. The trend towards flab is truly appalling. A couple weeks ago I was at my grandson's bowling tournament. My gawd, 90% of the family members watching were 100% overweight ... as in twice as big as a healthy person should be. And not just the parents. Truly sad to see kids who are still growing can still somehow be radically overweight. The guys I see roaming the hills deer hunting in Montana with their butts parked in fancy buggies are typically too fat to walk around the block. But somehow they convince themselves they are mighty hunters. Fortunately, I don't have to deal with them pheasant hunting. That actually requires some physical effort ... and some genuine hunting skill. Technocrap won't help you there.

 

[375 Ruger Fan]

Just wondering if states or feds limited scope magnification, say to 9x or 10x. Sort of like limiting caliber size for minimum requirements.

 

[Azklmsr]

It's an interesting question/debate for sure. Technology pushes the limits and folks will pay for technology. Archery - not uncommon to see $3000 bow set ups in the field and Youtube is full of folks talking about 100 yard shots. I'm at the other end of the spectrum with traditional bow and no sights and 30 yards starts feeling long. I asked a AZ Wildlife agent, and he told me their data shows that archery tackle has a serious hit and loss for every recovery. Says to me that on average, the community needs to bring the range in. Should that be a regulation, or should it follow a Utah type law that limits technology used? Neither is as good as the hunting community focusing on what is ethical.

In the rifle world, same thing goes on. Just the scales are different. Ran into a gent during the 2021 AZ bull elk harvest. Told me opening morning his son shot a running bull at 500 yards with his new 6.5-300 Weatherby. They saw it tumble hard then run off. Never recovered the animal. He said they were continuing to hunt until they filled their tag. In my opinion, they had filled their tag. Az law would tend to agree. Either way, the concept of a running 500 yard shot sounds non-ethical to me. Technology and stuff on social media has suggested that was a good shot to bet on.

As a younger hunter in my early 20's, I would handgun hunt in texas for white tails on friends ranches. I made a 200 yard shot with a Contender scoped in 30 Herrett. 70 yard run and piled up. Was it a clean kill? Yes and no. Bullet entered, tumbles in the chest, and exited in a 30 caliber hole. I maintain it was luck. Bullet was clearly our of poop at a that range, but every magazine told the story of these wonderful scoped power-house pistols and I had one. In truth it was no more powerful than a 30 carbine rifle and I would not have taken that shot with the carbine. Would I do that again? Nope.

What's ethical? oy Tough call. 100 yards with a bow is not an ethical shot in my book, but that's my book. Rifle shot over 300 yards is getting more and more problematic. The African model helps here. Pull the trigger and hit the animal, Pay. Makes you think a little bit more about what is ethical.

old guys thoughts

 

[Wishfulthinker580]

Huge cultural problem. Bad behavior needs to be called out by peers and equipment needs to be regulated by government. Along with game laws. Agree with strict licensing requirements.

It’s always interesting to see people (who otherwise aren’t) all of a sudden become relativists when it comes to hunting. An outlook not dissimilar to that of one with blue hair.

 

[Wishfulthinker580]

Thanks for sharing Joe. While not trying to turn this into a political discussion I am reminded of John Adams quote referring to the US constitution. “Our constitution was made for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other”. While obviously not invoking a religious connotation we as hunters have an ethical responsibility to promote those values that are consistent with our pursuit of game. Self governess and peer pressure of common and ethical values would seem to be the answer rather than government regulation. To me trying to get as close as possible for an ethical shot is hunting, shooting at an animal to see who can make the longest kill shot is not.

Great quote. Truer words have never been spoken.

 

[Throwback]

A hot topic as this thread demonstrates. My thoughts / observations from reading the thread and discussing this topic for years now. No silver bullet solution but to sum up where I think we are at as a hunting community:

- Most all here on AH agree sniping is not hunting. I think most of us think getting as close as you can to animal is the challenge at hand, I do.

- I think keeping the government out of it (out of all things) is the way to go for sure but let me point out that they are involved to a certain degree already. A license to hunt, amount of, type of animals and when you can hunt them? Yes, all regulated by law. We can all remember when hunter safety courses were not even a thing, there are laws about which calibers you can hunt certain species with, etc...

- I agree long range hunting would be crazy to regulate in the sense of drones flying over hunting lands spying on everyone, that I am sure some in the govt. would think is a great idea. Hell no. I personally think though more emphasis on this topic in hunter safety courses would be good plus simply us passing down good hunting ethics.

- There is a technical point in all this about the effective energy bullets have at long range. They simply wont penetrate, wont expand like they should, etc... I think some people just dont realize this, so they should be taught in the existing hunter safety or other programs required. Throw in time of flight at those distances, when animals can take a step or two and make the shot ineffective - gut shot, etc..

- The technology is only going to enable long range hunting more so over time. It is cultural issue imo. Many of us can and do shoot long range at steel, have military training, etc.. We just recognize that distinction between hunting and long range shooting. Sadly, some folks, particularly younger folks into the social media scene apparently do not. An ironic point on this is that a lot of military sniper training focuses on stalking, as well as effectively staying unnoticed - building and staying in a sniper hide, moving with stealth, etc.. Its not the shooting part that fails people out of that kind of training many times.

- On this issue, I am not one to say "who am I to judge?". We all do anyway, even if you are not vocal about it. If you enjoy our hunting culture and dont want bureaucrats more in the mix I think we should voice opinions on this. I have heard more than a few opinions in hunting camps for sure. Again, it is a cultural thing, and voicing wrong verse right (in your view) is the way to go imo. Those who do long range hunt are actively "voicing" their opinion, they are taking those shots, as well as the bureaucrats who will always have an opinion on this, as uninformed as it may be.

Sorry for the rant, I sound like an old man. Cheers

 

[NIGHTHAWK]

So strange that anyone would give any consideration to permit additional legislation against hunters. We have plenty of limiting legislation now!

“Sandrini said such hunts might work in Wyoming, especially in more densely settled areas, where taking long rifle shots might not be safe.”

I would encourage everyone to learn to shoot prone and at longer distance so they become a better shot at any killing range. Plenty of unsafe shots are made by people who don’t know what the hell they are doing at any distance.

I don’t advocate taking longer shots than are necessary, but if you do decide to try, have the correct equipment, experience, and consistent practice to make those shots ethically.

My longest shot to date was over 400 yards on a Chamois. I hunted Chamois for 2 separate days on foot, hiking and climbing with gear. I had the experience and equipment to do it. I didn’t want to shoot one from a helicopter. I’m not bragging. I’m just glad I know how to make that shot, even though it wasn’t easy.

-Suum cuique

 

[Green Chile]

I practice at long range enough to make me more comfortable with shorter distances. I don't do that to take game at obscene distances. When you find an animal and then BACK up to make it longer, that's not good. My longest shot on game was on Coues at 520 yards and I was really wishing I could get closer. I took him cleanly but never liked the distance.

I'm not in favor of hunters dividing into camps of I don't like those hunters. That just works against us in the end. I'm not in favor of more legislation...since when has that worked on almost any subject? There are ways to get there as has been mentioned and I don't think we need to celebrate long shots in hunting. I feel like apologizing for them. I own Gunwerks rifles but I'm not in favor of shooting 1000 yards on game "out of the box". The technology is interesting but we don't need to see how far we can shoot game. I plan on using a Gunwerks rifle next season to take a bear at 25 yards. I will also use it in Africa and hopefully not further than 300 yards on baboons. I will get much closer on PG.

I'm also not a fan of getting rid of ballistic turrets or reticles. Yes, they can be taken to extremes but it's technology that has helped me kill cleanly at 300+ yards when I couldn't get closer...that's not common for me but I was glad to have it when needed. Many times I will range something and say, if I can get to that point, it will be a much better position or distance to try for a shot.

 

[62flint]

Like many here , I don’t care for the uber long range hunting that is being popularized now.
The improvement to scopes , rifles and exposure on media has obviously fueled the trend.
They even have guys going after turkeys with 410 and TSS shells at unheard of ranges.
Unfortunately I do not see it stopping , but do see states passing laws to limit the hunters.
Personally I am fine if they passed a law limiting hunting to smoothbore flintlocks around me.
But how long before folks figure out sabot loads with whiz bang weasel piss magnesium fueled “flint “ ignition system.
People will always look for a way to “cheat”
But I am curious with those long range hunting guys on tv. For every critter you drop at 700+ yards and show. How many do you screw up on?

 

[Cooposo]

Lots of good comments here, both from those with the perspective that no new regulations should be enacted and those with good ideas about regulations that might be helpful.

I live in the western U.S., and have for mostly my whole life. This topic is literally relevant in my backyard. I live and hunt in Idaho, and have lived in and still hunt Utah yearly, and hunt in Nevada yearly. I put in for Wyoming hunts yearly. I have a decent idea of what goes on in AZ and New Mexico from family and friends.

Some people, like me, are open to some practical regulations because the questionable behavior of others is absolutely affecting my ability to hunt each year. The lack of personal ethics and common sense by others is leading to me having fewer opportunities. I like to get close and stalk in. I can’t do that if there are no animals or no tags that allow me to even try. The number of animals dying from 800 yard gut shots, with the shooter saying “well, must have missed” and then moving on to shoot another animal (or multiple) animals is significant. The first animal still dies, I will never have an opportunity to pursue it specifically. And if the population of animals in an area decreases on a macro level because of such behavior, the fish and game department WILL decrease tags and quotas. And I have fewer opportunities. This effect can snowball in a way just as detrimental to me as a hunter as the snowballing of ridiculous rules and regulations. In Idaho and Utah and Wyoming more and more areas that used to be unlimited, over-the-counter tags (go buy a tag and go hunt) now must be won in a drawing. More and more areas are having quotas decrease. Mule deer populations are absolutely suffering in a historic way. So, with absolutely no offense intended to those who ask “how could a hunter of all people want more regulation?”,that’s my reasoning for why someone like me might actually support additional regulation. The poor choices of others are absolutely limiting my ability to hunt and have animals to hunt.

The internet generation increasingly sees YouTubers and Podcasters as their “in-group”. They put MORE trust in what these people say about long range hunting than what their dad or grandpa or mentor taught them. So as much as I like the idea of encouraging good behavior in others to avoid regulation, I believe it just isn’t working. It might work in a tightly knit European hunting club. It might work in a safari camp. I don’t think it’s working here. The voices of podcasters and YouTubers, and the advertising of the companies always trying to get us to upgrade to the latest and greatest long range shooting equipment (so you too can take that 600 yard shot at the elk you weren’t in good enough shape to get any closer to) , are DROWNING OUT the gentle encouragement of actual friends and relatives.

 

[Cooposo]

There is a not insignificant group of hunters who are honest people, only taking longer shots beyond their ability because A) their favorite podcaster says it’s ok and B) it’s legal. Such hunters are very likely to change their behavior if a regulation is put in place, regardless of the enforcement mechanism, because they are good, honest people who follow the rules anyway.

 

[Muskox]

I am more of a shooter than a hunter. I like the shooting aspect, and I don't like going on hunts where I don't pull the trigger.

I like to do post mortem on the animals, I want to know how the bullet worked. I want to use as much of the animal is possible, but of course like most people I do like big antlers or horns.

Some hunts have low success rates, and while I don't mind one of those and working a little harder for an animal, I hate when you are on your 3rd or 4th low success hunt of a year. I had that in 2019 in New Mexico and Texas and it was brutal. I think I had 5 hunts and 5 tags. A couple were good tags like the Gila one was outfitted. Sucked.