Shooting vs Hunting / A Growing Ethical Issue

[Tanks]

I don’t disagree with the ethical concerns of long range shooting

One needs to define long range as well. One outfitter I have used for elk in MT specifically mentioned shots across the canyons could be over 500 yards. If you could not hit the gong at 500 yards (at his home range) before the hunt, you did not go out.

 

[Daisy]

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

Lighten up my man. Inconvenient posts? Seriously?

 

[375Fox]

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.

I don’t necessarily find it unethical. I find it problematic with the North American hunting model. If it was a European hunting model on a strict quota system with competent hunters I wouldn’t have such an issue. The North American model combined with competition on public land creates a lot of incentive for unethical behavior to me. I’d agree there are many other more meaningful issues, but this is an issue that can be controlled or curtailed more easily than some others. I don’t think there will be any changes to long range hunting though. Its effects will be felt elsewhere because easier (and less uproar) to control tags than at this point established equipment.

 

[Flbt]

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.

Yep that was me with the introduction wolves
And I said I understand it from a farmer/ rancher side of it.
But the so called poison has been legal to use on crops in many many states

No one said if there was still liget use for the product. At the time the man used it.
I have know idea about his state.
I do know you could use it in ga for quite a few years after fl stopped its use.

And as far as liking long range shooting on animals no I don’t.
But I dammed sure am not running to big daddy government to interfere with how some other hunter wants to hunt.

And I have called in unfound game on my tag. The lady at Fwc said I was the first one she knew about to do so.

I don’t think government is the answer to much of anything.
And I dammed sure don’t want to in force my ethnic view on some one else

 

[Ontario Hunter]

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.

Last I looked, federal regs on migratory waterfowl requires that the hunter make every reasonable effort to recover a downed bird. If still lost, it doesn't count towards the daily "bag limit." They have to be in the bag to be counted. The key, of course, is what defines every reasonable effort? If someone hunts without a dog to retrieve birds, is that "reasonable"? May be difficult to strictly enforce but if the regulation wasn't there, how many hunters would just keep shooting down ducks as long as they had ammo or daylight then pick up five and go home?

 

[Russ16]

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.

On the habitat issue we have a problem with contradiction. Most politicians that are the most supportive of hunting are the same nes that oppose any environmental regulations and want to sell public lands. That support gun ownership and hunting but want more drilling and extraction from public lands.

I’m all about multiple use but maximum extraction is not compatible with maximum game numbers. It just isn’t.

The answer isn’t to kill almost all the wolves which some in one side advocate. Nor is it to not kill any wolves which the other side advocates.

It’s this way in so many issues that impact herd health and numbers.

Unfortunately there isn’t anyone speaking for the middle ground.

 

[Russ16]

Last I looked, federal regs on migratory waterfowl requires that the hunter make every reasonable effort to recover a downed bird. If still lost, it doesn't count towards the daily "bag limit." They have to be in the bag to be counted. The key, of course, is what defines every reasonable effort? If someone hunts without a dog to retrieve birds, is that "reasonable"? May be difficult to strictly enforce but if the regulation wasn't there, how many hunters would just keep shooting down ducks as long as they had ammo or daylight then pick up five and go home?

I was taught in hunter’s education that state law required you to count it. Regardless of law I do count it. Same with dove and pheasant. If I know it was hit I count it. Regardless of species.

 

[LivingTheDream]

I’d agree there are many other more meaningful issues, but this is an issue that can be controlled or curtailed more easily than some others. I don’t think there will be any changes to long range hunting though. Its effects will be felt elsewhere because easier (and less uproar) to control tags than at this point established equipment.

I'm not sure how big of an issue it is, I guess is my question. Are there any true numbers that back up that more animals are lost? Wounded? There is an assumption it is happening (I don't watch YouTube, not on IG, so not sure). I guess what is the problem we are trying to solve with regulating it. If you believe this is one of the reasons we have seen less tags, because people are now more successful and there is a positive correlation between technology improvement and success rate. I could see that.

I think there is another reason, but it depends on how are we defining success, how many guys have waited a decade or more for a tag and feel the need to at least get something. So they shoot a younger deer, which ultimately would impact top end quality.

Less tags is more of a result caused by winter kill rather than anything hunters do or don't do.

 

[CBH Australia]

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.

Yep, gonna need gun bearers and camp staff to do the carry soon.

I’m interested in long range shooting to learn more skills and gain the knowledge but I won’t be long range hunting.

 

[Kevin Peacocke]

Personally I can't abide long range hunting, I have a few friends who do it and think they are clever, and they lose animals. Even if you regulated, you would probably not stop it, but it is then incumbent upon the rest of us to dress them down, which I try to. Nevertheless, a distance limit would at least quantify the practice vs malpractice. Maybe 300 metres?

 

[Scott CWO]

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?

In my state of Colorado and many others, hunter education is required of anyone born in 1949 and thereafter. It’s working well and has been in place since the 1950s. Before this requirement was enacted, Colorado used to have about four hunter fatalities per year! Now, we might have one every five years. Ethics are taught but as with most things, some people don’t take it to heart enough.

 

[mark-hunter]

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.

In Croatia, the ministry of Agriculture (that regulates all hunting practices) has made by-law rulebook, and distance shooting limits defined as follows:
For roe deer 150 meters
For red deer, boar and fallow, 200 meters
For bear 100 meters
For mouflon and chamois 300 meters.

In the other sets of laws and bylaws it is defined that hunting weapons are only those with fully enclosed metallic casing or shotshells. (which effectively bans muzzle loaders, bows and crossbows for hunting, but in the same time accepts those as weapons for sport and recreation).
In another set of laws, has defined use of short side arms (pistols, revolvers) to restricted use in hunting for "shot of mercy", or finishing close range shot if the animal is wounded.

Practically, I believe that 99% of hunters obey these rules. There is occasional "long range sniper" testing skills on animals, but these mavericks do not cause wide spread problem, and they dont last for long, I think - wounding is frustrating for everybody.

I believe that in general, hunters are law abiding people. Put it in law, and they will follow the rules.
Europe is different in hunting and gun culture then USA, but hunters are the same. They respect the law.

Generally, I agree with above rules, for cultural and ethical reasons.
In Croatia there is no wide spread gun culture. This in turn results, in overall modest shooting skills with average hunter (or gun owner).
Number of public ranges where people can train is modest and limited. Especially long range facilities. No special commercial courses for various shooting types are available.
As a result: long range shooting, is mystery.
Black powder guns - muzzle loaders, without cartridge are not popular or overly present, their actual use is for punching holes in the paper. Complicated for loading. Not for everybody.
Pistol skills with average hunter are low. No interest to hunt with those.

As a result, the legislature has put in very realistic set of laws, which in my view regulates well ethical hunting, and local (gun) culture very realistically.
As a hunting community, we are not ready to open to other types of hunting. (personally I would prefer muzzle loaders as option for hunting)

Allow anything from above without proper education and training, and wounding and unethical practice will increase. So, I wouldnt change much of anything.

 

[Troubleshooter]

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

In a word, "mentorship." What these fellows desperately need is a father, uncle, grandfather, or other more-experienced hunter whispering in their ear, "That's a nice animal, but I think we can get a bit closer."

 

[PerH]

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.

There's a lot of admirable qualities in Hunter-Habib. But the best one is that he genuinely cares about the rights of his fellow hunters. Even those who are very philosophically different to him. It's a very rare quality

 

[DieJager]

Ethics are taught but as with most things, some people don’t take it to heart enough.

In a word, "mentorship." What these fellows desperately need is a father, uncle, grandfather, or other more-experienced hunter whispering in their ear, "That's a nice animal, but I think we can get a bit closer."

That is really the that problem. The decline of ethical behavior.

I still have a hunting mentor, who has become my friend over the years. When I started hunting, he was practically everywhere with me. He is quite old now but he learned me everything. Our education is one thing but the wealth of knowledge he has given me is on another level.

When I took a bad shot, he would let me know and scolded me for it. But he always let me make my faults and then own it. It brings humility when searching for your deer for quite some time when you made a hasty shot. Luckily I always found the deer. This example expired quickly, just couldn't find it. Called it in the dogs and it lay 30 meters from where I shot it.

We have nowadays a mentorship program that really works quite well. Our hunters are getting old, most are 70 plus. But they have hunted for decades and know a lot. This works great. Another thing is because of the extensive education and cost that come with it. A lot of low IQ people never pass the exams.

 

[Altitude sickness]

Years ago two of us had two new elk bow hunters in camp. I was more focused on helping my young friend his first elk than hunting myself.

One afternoon I ended up placing him over water and I was still hunting through good cover. As I was standing in place a cow came slowly walking by me at 15ish yards. Instead of risking spooking her by stopping her. I swung my long bow with her as I released. I obviously stopped my swing as I released the arrow. And clearly hit her in the guts.

I tried to sneak forward to see if she was on the trail ahead for a follow up shot. But no luck. I backed out giving her all night to lay down.

I searched the area for two days. Never found her. No blood, birds, no smell etc. And considered my either sex tag filled.
That is the penalty for making a bad decision and shot.

I made a big point to the younger hunters that when we choose to make a bad choice with a shot. The penalty is the tag. And don’t repeat the mistake.

Perhaps we don’t legislate equipment or ethics. But make it law. If you draw blood it’s your animal. People would be less lackadaisical with shots on animals.

 

[chuckwellington]

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.

This. It’s a slippery slope when you get govt involved. But with the industry being the way it is and competition/chest beating what they are, we don’t seem to be doing a good job overall of regulating ourselves. Our hunting culture seems, to me, to constantly try to make things “easier” but under the guise of efficiency, effectiveness, and some squishy definition of ethical.

In many cases we are treating game not as respected quarry, but as enemies that have to be eliminated.

There’s an argument that harvest rates haven’t changed all that much. But competition sure has.

 

[HankBuck]

@Scott CWO - I would Not support any Government imposed requirements to obtain a Hunting License other then a minimum age and “Basic Safety Training” (SAFE Firearm handling, Bow, MZ etc..). The best “training” for new hunters is a Parent, Grandfather, Brother, Friend, that is an “Experianced” Hunter, Outdoorsman, Firearm Shooter, Archery etc.. Someone with a vested interest in YOU, and teaching you what’s important. While the Government should make some type of effort to teach the “Very Basic” elements my concern is that regulations become too stringent and therefore prohibitive to what the goal is: A Safe Hunter. Skills - True Skills - are acquired over time….lots of time.

 

[HankBuck]

Years ago two of us had two new elk bow hunters in camp. I was more focused on helping my young friend his first elk than hunting myself.

One afternoon I ended up placing him over water and I was still hunting through good cover. As I was standing in place a cow came slowly walking by me at 15ish yards. Instead of risking spooking her by stopping her. I swung my long bow with her as I released. I obviously stopped my swing as I released the arrow. And clearly hit her in the guts.

I tried to sneak forward to see if she was on the trail ahead for a follow up shot. But no luck. I backed out giving her all night to lay down.

I searched the area for two days. Never found her. No blood, birds, no smell etc. And considered my either sex tag filled.
That is the penalty for making a bad decision and shot.

I made a big point to the younger hunters that when we choose to make a bad choice with a shot. The penalty is the tag. And don’t repeat the mistake.

Perhaps we don’t legislate equipment or ethics. But make it law. If you draw blood it’s your animal. People would be less lackadaisical with shots on animals.

@Altitude sickness - You make an interesting point on Big Game hunting “draw blood = tag filled”. I don’t think most U.S. States have that law? But I know that for Waterfowl Hunting any “crippled & lost duck” is to be considered Part of your Daily Limit. Also, many hunting camps enforce a rule “if you draw blood” your hunt is over for that animal. It does seem inconsistent that in areas where you are only allowed to kill ONE Buck —— you can wound & lose as many as you want??

 

[Philip Glass]

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.

That's a bit of a stretch don't you think? I should clarify that my POV is private land and I understand that is vastly different than public land. In fact where I live much of the land is game fenced and that further makes state management silly. I find it ridiculous that a group of biologists sit around deciding how many weeks for bow, muzzleloader, and rifle. Now we have youth seasons and managed lands hunting all kinds of months. As an example my neighbor (on MLD permit) can rifle hunt deer from September through February. What difference does any of that make on the resource? It is all about the take and the population dynamics.