Shooting vs Hunting / A Growing Ethical Issue

[PARA45]

So we want the Feds or states to put forth more regulations on equipment, distance, etc.

Let’s take a look at Kalifornia and their ban of any lead base bullets. What has that done, and they claim that it has saved any of the Condors. I know too many who bitch about that. And we want non-hunters to come up with more hunting regulations/restrictions? Good luck with that!

 

[Flipper Dude]

So we want the Feds or states to put forth more regulations on equipment, distance, etc.

Let’s take a look at Kalifornia and their ban of any lead base bullets. What has that done, and they claim that it has saved any of the Condors. I know too many who bitch about that. And we want non-hunters to come up with more hunting regulations/restrictions? Good luck with that!

I don’t want the feds to put their nose under the tent. I just want everyone to think like me. Short of that, all we have left is the power of persuasion and example. I know one thing that will NOT bring about change is belittling and shaming.

( Ok, maybe shaming. But not belittling)

 

[LivingTheDream]

game departments which are managing a public resource for the people.

I believe you meant to say managing people because they haven't been able to effective manage a public resource.

 

[375Fox]

So we want the Feds or states to put forth more regulations on equipment, distance, etc.

Let’s take a look at Kalifornia and their ban of any lead base bullets. What has that done, and they claim that it has saved any of the Condors. I know too many who bitch about that. And we want non-hunters to come up with more hunting regulations/restrictions? Good luck with that!

Wyoming is not California. Most discussing this are likely hunters. If it has the potential to impact hunting season lengths and tags issued I can’t understand why some hunters here want to ignore it. There will be further regulation either way.

 

[Datchew]

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.

Bravo. And ditto.

 

[LivingTheDream]

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)

I have seen this posted in a few places and it was one of the more confusing arguments I have seen made (not calling you specifically, I have seen it around a while).

I feel like this is a line of BS from Game and Wildlife departments to make up for their ability to actual manage herds and resources. The fact we as hunters are being told that we need to make it so hunters are less successful in the field so they can give out more tags is crazy to me. This is about people management not herd management. Look at all of the different seasons across the western states, archery, muzzleloader, rifle, HAMS, youth days.

So if we get rid of technology (turrets, range finders, etc) that is going to make hunters less successful so they can give out more tags and get more money. Notice the goal is not to improve the herd, its how can they get more hunters through because they want to give us more opportunity not increase revenue from additional license fees. The "reason" tags are down is because hunters are more successful today due to long range technology, what about winter kill, increase of wolves/coyotes/bears, increase in car collisions, more residents now in the state, more houses on winter range, changes in farming, changes in mineral/coal/oil/wind/solar, cheat grass, etc.

They want to increase opportunity, make it so tag fees are up front (by check payment only), NR can put it for one of deer, antelope, elk tags and one of the once in a lifetime tags (sheep, goat, moose, bison). Make license, points, tags increase at the rate of inflation every year, no tag turn ins, and no point insurance.

They can make seasons shorter if they want to push the success rate down. Or they could actually do stuff to improve herd numbers.

For what it is worth pretty much everyone I have met in Wyoming I would trust to take a 500 yard shot, pretty much every one I have met in Virginia I wouldn't trust past 200 yards, but would 100% trust them to hit a deer running with a 30/30 within a 100. If guy is willing to shoot too far with technology, he is willing to shoot too far without it and probably have any worse results. You want limit unethical shots, give it some teeth, you hit an animal you cut your tag, game warden finds blood and your tag isn't notched, big time trouble.

Bottom line we need less regulations in hunting, and I don't trust a wildlife board or even game department to implement anything that would be remotely effective.

 

[Flbt]

Wyoming is not California. Most discussing this are likely hunters. If it has the potential to impact hunting season lengths and tags issued I can’t understand why some hunters here want to ignore it. There will be further regulation either way.

For now
Look at the libs that are in tx and fl now?
I know people that have left Colorado because of the lib bs.
With the way libtards leave the states the screwed up they will be in your state one day soon and will use the laws against your soap box because they don’t have the same ethics you do

 

[Flbt]

I have seen the stright wall states brought up.
Here for me that would be shotgun / muzzleloader/ handgun for big game only area’s.
People say it’s reasonable for safety that’s anti hunting anti gun bullshit
How many of those places can you use a center fire rifle on other game? How can it be safe to have to be limited one deer but be ok to use a 300 on a coyote?

How about shooting a squirrel out of a tree with a 22 mag? That’s safe but a 30-30 on deer is not?

Or using a 30-06 contender is ok but it’s dangerous to use it out of a rifle?


If you don’t like long range shooting dont do it try to get others on your side.

Don’t get government involve

Like I said you can’t use a rim fire on deer here but you can a 25acp? How does that make sense?

 

[Cooposo]

You want limit unethical shots, give it some teeth, you hit an animal you cut your tag, game warden finds blood and your tag isn't notched, big time trouble.

I would support this. But enforcement would be just as difficult as anything else mentioned as suggestions in this thread and the regulation would, again, only be observed by ethical and law abiding hunters. I have never in my life of hunting seen a game warden in Utah, Wyoming, or Idaho anywhere besides on the road or campsite in his pickup or walking along a river checking fishermen. Enforcing a punched tag for blood drawn a mile off a road? No chance.

 

[375Fox]

I have seen this posted in a few places and it was one of the more confusing arguments I have seen made (not calling you specifically, I have seen it around a while).

I feel like this is a line of BS from Game and Wildlife departments to make up for their ability to actual manage herds and resources. The fact we as hunters are being told that we need to make it so hunters are less successful in the field so they can give out more tags is crazy to me. This is about people management not herd management. Look at all of the different seasons across the western states, archery, muzzleloader, rifle, HAMS, youth days.

So if we get rid of technology (turrets, range finders, etc) that is going to make hunters less successful so they can give out more tags and get more money. Notice the goal is not to improve the herd, its how can they get more hunters through because they want to give us more opportunity not increase revenue from additional license fees. The "reason" tags are down is because hunters are more successful today due to long range technology, what about winter kill, increase of wolves/coyotes/bears, increase in car collisions, more residents now in the state, more houses on winter range, changes in farming, changes in mineral/coal/oil/wind/solar, cheat grass, etc.

They want to increase opportunity, make it so tag fees are up front (by check payment only), NR can put it for one of deer, antelope, elk tags and one of the once in a lifetime tags (sheep, goat, moose, bison). Make license, points, tags increase at the rate of inflation every year, no tag turn ins, and no point insurance.

They can make seasons shorter if they want to push the success rate down. Or they could actually do stuff to improve herd numbers.

For what it is worth pretty much everyone I have met in Wyoming I would trust to take a 500 yard shot, pretty much every one I have met in Virginia I wouldn't trust past 200 yards, but would 100% trust them to hit a deer running with a 30/30 within a 100. If guy is willing to shoot too far with technology, he is willing to shoot too far without it and probably have any worse results. You want limit unethical shots, give it some teeth, you hit an animal you cut your tag, game warden finds blood and your tag isn't notched, big time trouble.

Bottom line we need less regulations in hunting, and I don't trust a wildlife board or even game department to implement anything that would be remotely effective.

I take a different position than you on this issue but I’d agree with a lot of what you wrote. I realize a lot of us would not be hunters if this was the case but I really respect the hunting culture in Europe. Ethics are expected and game is rarely lost, but the hunting is limited to a select few. North America hunting is a right. Ethics can’t be enforced, so the only option is regulating equipment. I’d fully agree with you on drawing blood that is your tag, but that’s also my objection to long range shooting as hunting. I’ve had difficulty finding where I shot at 200 yards. At 700 or 800 or more that might take hours to reach opposite side of a valley, I can’t imagine how many blood trails from wounded game are not found. The amount of game wounded and lost in North America really bothers me. The only option I see is to make regulations for those who don’t hold a high or even acceptable ethical standard. One member I see who liked your post was supporting feeding wolves poison meatballs on public land as an individual’s right. Another regularly tries to support the 223 for big game hunting agenda. There’s a place for regulations and ethics. I’d prefer it came from our own before it came from a government body, but if I’ve learned anything on this forum hunters refuse to agree. Those with a more conservative view are told to support those with an anything currently legal goes view, but there is never an agreement. Laws eventually happen as a result especially when hunters refuse to discuss ethics.

 

[Russ16]

I believe you meant to say managing people because they haven't been able to effective manage a public resource.

I’ll disagree with that. Most species have higher populations than they did 100 years ago. Especially if you control for human encroachment on habitat.

 

[Russ16]

I have seen this posted in a few places and it was one of the more confusing arguments I have seen made (not calling you specifically, I have seen it around a while).

I feel like this is a line of BS from Game and Wildlife departments to make up for their ability to actual manage herds and resources. The fact we as hunters are being told that we need to make it so hunters are less successful in the field so they can give out more tags is crazy to me. This is about people management not herd management. Look at all of the different seasons across the western states, archery, muzzleloader, rifle, HAMS, youth days.

So if we get rid of technology (turrets, range finders, etc) that is going to make hunters less successful so they can give out more tags and get more money. Notice the goal is not to improve the herd, its how can they get more hunters through because they want to give us more opportunity not increase revenue from additional license fees. The "reason" tags are down is because hunters are more successful today due to long range technology, what about winter kill, increase of wolves/coyotes/bears, increase in car collisions, more residents now in the state, more houses on winter range, changes in farming, changes in mineral/coal/oil/wind/solar, cheat grass, etc.

They want to increase opportunity, make it so tag fees are up front (by check payment only), NR can put it for one of deer, antelope, elk tags and one of the once in a lifetime tags (sheep, goat, moose, bison). Make license, points, tags increase at the rate of inflation every year, no tag turn ins, and no point insurance.

They can make seasons shorter if they want to push the success rate down. Or they could actually do stuff to improve herd numbers.

For what it is worth pretty much everyone I have met in Wyoming I would trust to take a 500 yard shot, pretty much every one I have met in Virginia I wouldn't trust past 200 yards, but would 100% trust them to hit a deer running with a 30/30 within a 100. If guy is willing to shoot too far with technology, he is willing to shoot too far without it and probably have any worse results. You want limit unethical shots, give it some teeth, you hit an animal you cut your tag, game warden finds blood and your tag isn't notched, big time trouble.

Bottom line we need less regulations in hunting, and I don't trust a wildlife board or even game department to implement anything that would be remotely effective.

I was always taught you hit an animal you count it. I do that waterfowl hunting a wounded bird that dives and disappears I count toward my limit. I thought that was the law.

 

[LivingTheDream]

I’ll disagree with that. Most species have higher populations than they did 100 years ago. Especially if you control for human encroachment on habitat.

Specifically with western hunting, how are we doing compared to 20/30 years ago? I would say elk are doing better, but not sure there is much else.

 

[LivingTheDream]

I was always taught you hit an animal you count it. I do that waterfowl hunting a wounded bird that dives and disappears I count toward my limit. I thought that was the law.

Thats how I was raised waterfowl hunting.

 

[Daisy]

I take a different position than you on this issue but I’d agree with a lot of what you wrote. I realize a lot of us would not be hunters if this was the case but I really respect the hunting culture in Europe. Ethics are expected and game is rarely lost, but the hunting is limited to a select few. North America hunting is a right. Ethics can’t be enforced, so the only option is regulating equipment. I’d fully agree with you on drawing blood that is your tag, but that’s also my objection to long range shooting as hunting. I’ve had difficulty finding where I shot at 200 yards. At 700 or 800 or more that might take hours to reach opposite side of a valley, I can’t imagine how many blood trails from wounded game are not found. The amount of game wounded and lost in North America really bothers me. The only option I see is to make regulations for those who don’t hold a high or even acceptable ethical standard. One member I see who liked your post was supporting feeding wolves poison meatballs on public land as an individual’s right. Another regularly tries to support the 223 for big game hunting agenda. There’s a place for regulations and ethics. I’d prefer it came from our own before it came from a government body, but if I’ve learned anything on this forum hunters refuse to agree. Those with a more conservative view are told to support those with an anything currently legal goes view, but there is never an agreement. Laws eventually happen as a result especially when hunters refuse to discuss ethics.

You often confuse using alot of words for saying something.

 

[Russ16]

Specifically with western hunting, how are we doing compared to 20/30 years ago? I would say elk are doing better, but not sure there is much else.

Habitat loss in the last 30 years has been significant. If you looked at it as finals per acre oI quality habits think they are probably holding their own. 30 heads ago I also knew a lot of guys proud of shooting a spike or mature but small buck. A lot of the pressure now is that people don’t just want an animal they want a quality animal. Judging herd health by antler size is always going to fail.

Mike deer in particular are very sensitive to habitat loss.

And 30 years about bear and wolf numbers were a fraction. I know that is what had really hurt the ungulate population in a lot of stress and caribou in particular. Game departments have their hands tied on those apex predators and I can’t blame them for that impact.

 

[LivingTheDream]

I take a different position than you on this issue but I’d agree with a lot of what you wrote. I realize a lot of us would not be hunters if this was the case but I really respect the hunting culture in Europe. Ethics are expected and game is rarely lost, but the hunting is limited to a select few. North America hunting is a right. Ethics can’t be enforced, so the only option is regulating equipment. I’d fully agree with you on drawing blood that is your tag, but that’s also my objection to long range shooting as hunting. I’ve had difficulty finding where I shot at 200 yards. At 700 or 800 or more that might take hours to reach opposite side of a valley, I can’t imagine how many blood trails from wounded game are not found. The amount of game wounded and lost in North America really bothers me. The only option I see is to make regulations for those who don’t hold a high or even acceptable ethical standard. One member I see who liked your post was supporting feeding wolves poison meatballs on public land as an individual’s right. Another regularly tries to support the 223 for big game hunting agenda. There’s a place for regulations and ethics. I’d prefer it came from our own before it came from a government body, but if I’ve learned anything on this forum hunters refuse to agree. Those with a more conservative view are told to support those with an anything currently legal goes view, but there is never an agreement. Laws eventually happen as a result especially when hunters refuse to discuss ethics.

I don’t disagree with the ethical concerns of long range shooting, I disagree with how you regulate it, and that it is impacting big game numbers in a substantial or meaningful way. Not all shooters are created equal and technology is only part of the equation.

I do like your approach about it, you find it unethical, full stop and not a ton of BS excuses about it.

I just think there is about 10 to 12 other issues ahead of this one that is having a meaningful impact on western hunting and game numbers.

 

[LivingTheDream]

Habitat loss in the last 30 years has been significant. If you looked at it as finals per acre oI quality habits think they are probably holding their own. 30 heads ago I also knew a lot of guys proud of shooting a spike or mature but small buck. A lot of the pressure now is that people don’t just want an animal they want a quality animal. Judging herd health by antler size is always going to fail.

Mike deer in particular are very sensitive to habitat loss.

And 30 years about bear and wolf numbers were a fraction. I know that is what had really hurt the ungulate population in a lot of stress and caribou in particular. Game departments have their hands tied on those apex predators and I can’t blame them for that impact.

These are all fair points, I think that is kind of where I was going with it, we are more or less in agreement, habitat loss and the resurgence of apex predators as had a dramatic impact. But I believe there is more they could have done to counter that, I also listened to two different biologist from 2 different states saying we need to kill all deer so they don't die from CWD, I'm paraphrasing a bit here but that was the point.

IMO they might have had their hands tied on some of these issues. But for the most part they have been reactive and complacent their management.

 

[WAB]

This is a very interesting topic. Having just attended a school where we shot out to a mile, I have developed some perspective.

The flight time for my rifle on a 1,500 yard shot is 2.465 seconds. That is way too much time for a game shot IMO.

I can hit a 10” bull every time at 600 yards with an accurate wind call. I’m getting pretty good at calling wind, but it changes fast, like every ten seconds fast. Flight time for this shot is 0.7 seconds. If I’m working with a spotter I trust and have a decent rest, this is a chip shot.

Now the crunch, do I have an interest in shooting an animal at this distance? Not particularly. I would close if at all possible given terrain and cover limitations. However, I could see a scenario where I’ve glassed a buck from a mile plus, closed for a cross canyon shot that is dictated by the ground cover making a shot from the same side of the canyon impossible, and finding that the best I can do is 550 or 600, do I take that shot? Maybe, if the wind read is good, the rest is solid, and the animal is not moving. Do I take a shot where my bullet is in the air 2 1/2 or 3 seconds? No way.

How do you regulate this? I have no clue.

 

[375Fox]

You often confuse using alot of words for saying something.

Maybe many of my posts are inconvenient for you, but not confusing. I’ve never been accused of being indirect.