Shooting vs Hunting / A Growing Ethical Issue

[JimP]

The problem with trying to legislate shooting distances or the optics is that there are quite a few hunts where you actually need to be able to shoot further than most times.

There are a number of members here that say get closer, but that isn't always possible. Either because of being able to see the animal or just nothing to hide behind. I have had both on hunts. I once was less than 30 feet away from a targeted animal and I couldn't even begin to seen him, likewise I have been on a hunt where 400+ yards was as close as you were going to get without spooking the animal into the next county.

But I do agree that there is no reason for a 2000 yard shot besides to add another notch to the shooters ego. Much like archery hunters who are now taking 100+ yard shots at deer and elk.

 

[Daisy]

The western states that have the opportunity for long range shots all have tag and quota systems for maintaining the health of the herd. Seems like virtue signaling to me.

 

[wildwilderness]

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

Not a chance. Western states have been selling out all the non resident tags for a while. Could actually probably double the non resident prices again and still sell out.


That’s the whole point of this issue- loooong range shooting can increase harvest rates and ultimately limit available tags. It can also affect trophy quality with top end animals killed more often.

If that’s not the case, then the issue is purely ethical and not much to be done at the moment.

 

[wildwilderness]

The western states that have the opportunity for long range shots all have tag and quota systems for maintaining the health of the herd. Seems like virtue signaling to me.

The point is they will reduce the number of available tags if looong range shooting increases success rates.


So real question is do the people want more opportunities (more tags more people get to hunt - lower success rates) or do they want fewer opportunities (less tags higher success rates )


And if you aren’t aware there are many tags in western (and other) states draw (lottery) systems that most hunters will NEVER have the chance to get because they already are so limited.

My vote on those tags would be to reduce success rates (season and weapon limits) and give more hunters the chance to pursue them (albeit less successfully)

 

[Cooposo]

The point is they will reduce the number of available tags if looong range shooting increases success rates.


So real question is do the people want more opportunities (more tags more people get to hunt - lower success rates) or do they want fewer opportunities (less tags higher success rates )


And if you aren’t aware there are many tags in western (and other) states draw (lottery) systems that most hunters will NEVER have the chance to get because they already are so limited.

My vote on those tags would be to reduce success rates (season and weapon limits) and give more hunters the chance to pursue them (albeit less successfully)

Very well put. And, I would add, those hunters who now have a chance to pursue them will be more likely to have success if they use actual hunting skill. Those that don’t invest in improving actual hunting skills will end up with a predictable and fair outcome.

 

[Nyati]

Long range "hunting" is all the fashion in my country too, you only have to see the hunting shows on TV, and they will hunt a Roe Deer at stupid distances, with, of course, all the latest and more expensive equipment.

Huge scopes with ballistic turrets, rangefinder binos, Kestrels which they don´t even know how to use, etc... but someone is paying for these shows being produced, the equipment manufacturers.

Me, a 2-10x42 scope, and 10x40 bino, I know if its within 200 meters, and will rarely shoot over that distance.

On the other hand, I do understand that if you are going after a Marco Polo in Kazakhstan, then it´s an entirely different situation, where you do have to be capable of taking a 600m shot.

As for the legality, in our case you will most likely hunt with a guide, either official, or from the property, if you wound an animal, it´s your loss.

 

[Betterinthebush]

When I was 8 dad bought all three of us boys single shot 20ga. Shotguns. Our summer evenings were spent killing pigeons that would poop in the hay mow, feed bulk and silos. Pigeons were spreading disease (hemophilias) from farm to farm.

Being young and full of blood lust, I took my new freedom to fire to mean all birds.

We had a big horse chestnut tree in the front yard. I was dusting off songbirds from lack of filthy pigeons. When all of a sudden I felt the heaviest sensation under my ass! I fell only to see my fathers hand reaching down for the hair on my head (which he found) and lifted me off the driveway and marched me one handed, legs never touching ground, into the house, placed my ass directly into a chair and with that meaty, scarred, broken knuckle forefinger pointed at my nose, then back out to where he kicked my tail and explained how he’d never been so disappointed in anyone in his entire life. I wish he had stopped at the ass-kicking, because those words hurt worse.

From that moment on, I understood perfectly the difference between doing the right thing and mercilessly killing for killing sake.

I don’t necessarily think LD shooting of game is unethical. And I don’t think that regulations against the practice is just. My early life experience shifted me in one direction, my father’s direction, I’d not like to see our way of life as hunters be dissected because of distance. Especially if the distance would be determined by a government agency.

 

[Flbt]

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 don’t like long range shooting of game but the government should not be involved in it. Everything they government messes with they screw up worse.
Going by my state no rf for big game but a 25 acp is legal.
Hogs that get bigger than deer the rf is ok.
They have made .30 cal muzzle loader the new legal. I called the game department. They said well .30 cal air rifle is legal so why not a 30 ml.

And who says that the game was shot at 2000 yds? I have seen 500yd shots that when you looked at what was being told to you was not quite 100yds.

And if a game officer not watching you who is going to know how far it was?

I can say I shot it past the state limit. But if it’s not seen and prove able how can it hold up in court?

 

[Flbt]

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?

Depends on who you are listening to.
How many 800 yds shots become 200 when you are actually looking at the ground?
We go by point blank range my wife with her 6mm is good to 300yds using a 6in kill zone
It worked for 26 years
It would not matter what scope I put on her rifle 300 yds would be her range

But I have seen people take honest 400 yds shots with open sight 94 30-30 and not hit but they were willing to shoot

 

[BryceM]

I just read through everything here. Good discussion. Some impressions in random order:

- There are bunch of wonderful folks here!

- People in whitetail country might not really understand mulie country (or East-Coast, West-Coast or however else you want to describe it) unless they've been there and seen it first-hand. Having lived in the Rocky Mountains for most of my life, I truly don't understand much about hunting small leases in densely forested areas. I've hunted 40+ years, but I don't know anything about food plots, baiting deer, or tree stands. No opinion. Never seen it. I certainly wouldn't want to be in charge of drafting legislation for situations I know nothing about.

- I live in Idaho and apply for lottery resident deer, elk, and pronghorn tags every year. I last drew a tag in 2014, and I'm not applying for trophy units. The draw odds for a rifle pronghorn tag anywhere in the state are now around 2-3% per year. My kids, during their entire youth, each had one or two big game tags of any kind. It's darn hard to grow a new crop of ethical, experienced, effective hunters when the opportunities to even try are so far apart. It's one thing to pass up a marginal shot opportunity when you have a half-dozen deer tags in your pocket every season. It's harder when you might not get another chance for years on end. It's harder still when you've actually practiced and you're quite capable of making a 600 yard shot on a nice bull elk.

- Over the years, plenty of rifle/optics/bullet/rangefinder/night vision/camo/arrow/broadhead/sabot upgrades have changed the equation. Long range shooting/hunting is the topic today. Tomorrow it will be something else. How we arrive at the "right" answer is probably more important than answering a specific question.

- We are much stronger when we stand together. A strong nation-wide hunting association would be really helpful. The NRA used to function that way (a little), and the DSC, pheasants forever, RMEF, (and MANY others) do great work, but a single organization that could help to unify sportsmen and women would really help. If such an organization was reasonable and encouraged appropriate hunting values, legislators, state fish & game departments, and others might actually look to them for guidance. Obviously if this was easy to do, it would have already happened.....

- Some 600 yard shots are more ethical than some 50 yard shots. A bunch of overly broad new rules will ignore all of that. I once tried to help a friend and his 12 year-old daughter get her first deer. They had practiced, a bit, and had determined that her maximum ethical range was 100 yards. They were perfectly happy to try a 100 yard shot from high sticks on a steep sidehill (which she missed) but were unwilling to take a prone, stable shot on level ground at a deer at 150 yards. To me, they understood a part of the ethical equation, but only a part. She went home frustrated, and who knows if she ever tried again.

- Lots of folks around here grew up in a time when game was abundant and not starving to death was reason enough to hunt. Obviously folks like that will pass down different values than those who grew up in an old system full of structured traditions.

- Downing game at long range causes its own problems. Last year I was present when a deer was shot at about 420 yards. Good shot. Dropped immediately, legs in the air. We all headed over to recover the deer and could not find it - four people looking for 45 minutes. I KNEW it was dead and the brush wasn't that high. I had to crawl back up the mountain to re-see it from the original shot position. Only then did I realize that we were searching two ridges in front of where the buck actually was...... and that's only 400 yards. At 800 or 1500 yards, it's pretty darn hard to find them.

 

[Flbt]

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.

What’s open sights supposed to do?
Bill Dixon made a 1500yd shot with a sharps

So there will probably be more wounded game where opens are mandatory.

 

[Flbt]

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.

If it’s leagle it’s is ok.
Ethics are meaningless. What you see as ethical others don’t.
Why do you think you’re ethnics / opinions should be forced on others?

 

[K-man]

We certainly do not need legislation on shooting distances, ever!
We do need parentel/self control on ethical hunting.
No matter what you legislate on hunting "devices" as in turrets, even scopes there will be people abusing and pushing the boundaries of ethical shots. My nephew competes every year at 1000 yard ranges with open sight 45/70. 16 inch gongs. I've seen him shoot and if he wanted to kill a whitetail at that distance, I would have no problem with it. I have to limit myself to 500 yds with a quality scope. Who gets to say what is a proper killing distance?
I feel if you wound an animal and can't immediately finish it, you should lose your hunting privileges that year and the next. That would include bow hunting. Unfortunately, no way to enforce that. Only answer is self regulation and we live in a world that rewards stupid behavior.

 

[Flbt]

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.

Again this shows how meaningless ethics are.
There are places in the us where stalking in snow is a perferd hunting method.
And so is hunting in bad weather.
And from some of the shows I have seen the high seat with beaters would very much be looked down on in place in the states

 

[Wishfulthinker580]

I don’t think anyone has suggested legislating distance. Just equipment. Take away the aids you’ll dissuade a lot of people. Which is already regulated. As has been stated

 

[Flbt]

The method of take may not matter in countries managed on quotas. A tag in the US in not a quota. There is a built in failure rate due to short seasons or method of take to minimize the harvest and maximize hunter opportunity to participate. If your motto is “Hunt and let Hunt” then I’d consider the repercussions of higher success rates due to long range shooting and equipment doubling and tripling effective range. The only methods to reduce harvest without changing regulations on legal equipment is to reduce tags (likely non-resident allotments) and shorten seasons creating less opportunity for hunters. There are domino effects and unintended consequences of doing nothing too. It’s worth a discussion rather than trying to generalize as banning hunting. It’s a Wyoming and western state issue and up to them to discuss. The rest of us can only have an opinion.

8 gauges and larger were also banned in an effort to put an end to commercial market hunting. They were often boat mounted for shooting ducks on water.

But so much of that depends on the state and the animal.
Fl ga Al la tx are doing everything they can for hogs and there numbers are still growing.
The Boligest I talked to for cwd testing says they are re thinking our newest bag limits. There are not enough deer being taken in some zones and still to many in others.

 

[Russ16]

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.

Under that theory you should be able to use poison arrows or dig a pit with stakes at the bottom to fill your tag. I think regulating methods of take is well within the purview of game departments which are managing a public resource for the people.

 

[Russ16]

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

Totally agree. I’m a big believer in the quote “I don’t hunt to kill I kill to have hunted.”

 

[Altitude sickness]

It’s settled then. Everyone else is the culprit.

 

[375Fox]

If it’s leagle it’s is ok.
Ethics are meaningless. What you see as ethical others don’t.
Why do you think you’re ethnics / opinions should be forced on others?

Ethics are only meaningless to a fool. This is a complex issue and goes beyond ethics if you care to read. Regulating equipment to regulate harvest creating more hunting opportunity is more a practical issue than an ethical issue. The same applies to those in defense of long range shooting. It allows them to harvest game where they otherwise couldn’t. A practical issue.