Shooting vs Hunting / A Growing Ethical Issue

[Wildwillalaska]

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.

 

[Ontario Hunter]

Sorry, but no one will ever convince me hunter education can compete effectively against technocrap advertising and online influencers in establishing principles of hunting ethics. Boys want toys. It is what it is. Regulation may not be guaranteed effective all the time but at least it is a weapon of some sort.

In Montana it's illegal to use drones when hunting. But I saw it last year (and the abusers had resident license plates!). The reg is obviously very hard to enforce but it's the first time I've encountered this abuse and I'm in Montana every year during the entire big game season. Seems the regulation is effective.

 

[MS 9x56]

Maybe in a particular area. Between myself, my dad, and my brother. We were 5/6 on dall sheep hunts in Yukon. Shots were just over 100 to just over 300 yards. All 3-9 scopes standard duplex. I don’t doubt long range shooting makes it much easier.

Nobody ever said hunting was supposed to be easy!

 

[FlyGuy]

I love ringing steel at distance, but have a simple self imposed rule for hunting.
My maximum hunting distance is 0.5 seconds of bullet flight time.
For my 30-06 pushing a 165gr bullet, that's 404 yards MAXIMUM!

A lot can happen in half a second.

 

[HankBuck]

Studies in Ontario showed a very large drop in hunting accidents after the institution of mandatory hunter training. Orange also produced signs ant improvement.

@RLD - I believe Hunter Ed is always “helpful” but the Hunter ORANGE was what instantly reduced accidental shootings keeping Hunters from being “mistaken for game”. New York State w just recently began to require Hunter Orange for Big Game hunting (one of the last States to do so). That will be an opportunity to see if the ORANGE makes a big difference because NY had required Hunter Ed for many years - but the Orange was added late.

 

[HankBuck]

Never got a guy into position for a shot at a Dall ram <300yds. Tried hard, just couldn’t get it done. Never lost a ram.

Sheep hunting demands 2 things: no 3: physical fitness, mental fitness, and an understanding of long range marksmanship and trigonometry.. ok, four things…

Certain species demands certain disciplines of distance marksmanship.

@Betterinthebush - since Dall Sheep are taken with Archery equipment - obviously many Hunters are able to get well under 300 yrds (30 to 70 likely for a Bow). Terrain/conditions and effort/skill would all play a role in getting close. I’m not disagreeing with you that when Rifle hunting - take the shot you are confident in and that depends on the Hunter & conditions (100 - 300 yrds-400 yrds could be reasonable). Game animals are wounded at close distances also, many factors can affect an accurate shot and distance is one of them. I don’t think a Law could be consistently “enforced” limiting distance for taking a game animal but for shots over 600 yrds - the “concept” of limiting shooting beyond that distance may have some merit? I just don’t see how it would be enforced? Would a Hunter that makes a Clean Kill with ONE shot at 700 yards be fined? But a Hunter that wounds and loses an animal at 100 yrds be OK? If the only penalty for wounding and losing an Animal is your “Tag” is filled - that is also hard to enforce without a witness or Hunter that “self reports”. It all seems to come back to Ethics and “ethics” vary by Hunter and everyone has their own standards of What’s ethical.

 

[Betterinthebush]

@Betterinthebush - since Dall Sheep are taken with Archery equipment - obviously many Hunters are able to get well under 300 yrds (30 to 70 likely for a Bow). Terrain/conditions and effort/skill would all play a role in getting close

Those guys are good. No doubt. I have deep respect for hunters that get their horns with archery tackle.

Spot on about terrain/conditions and effort/skill.

 

[Russ16]

@RLD - I believe Hunter Ed is always “helpful” but the Hunter ORANGE was what instantly reduced accidental shootings keeping Hunters from being “mistaken for game”. New York State w just recently began to require Hunter Orange for Big Game hunting (one of the last States to do so). That will be an opportunity to see if the ORANGE makes a big difference because NY had required Hunter Ed for many years - but the Orange was added late.

Most hunting accidents are not being shot by other hunters when mistaken for game. They are things like crossing a fence with a loaded gun, falling out of tree stands, etc.

 

[HankBuck]

Most hunting accidents are not being shot by other hunters when mistaken for game. They are things like crossing a fence with a loaded gun, falling out of tree stands, etc.

@Russ16 - correct on TREESTANDS now being the number one accident, serious injury, & cause of death for Hunters. The reason Hunters are Now “rarely” mistaken for Game is ORANGE

 

[EarlsSon]

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.

I believe that you hit the nail on the head with your response. I applaud you most for your having stated "Hunt & Let Hunt". That allows the shooter and not the government or other "board or committee" decides "what's ethical for each of us. There's too much negative responses from the "anti-hunting" community as it is, we do not need to further their agenda along by arguing against ourselves.

 

[Tbitty]

https://tpwd.texas.gov/education/hunter-education/2024-hunting-accident-report.pdf

@HankBuck - Texas does not require hunters to wear orange. I've attached a link to the historical data of accidents by year from Texas Parks & Wildlife Department.

I do believe wearing orange is a worthwhile requirement (I grew up and still hunt in Kansas, where it's required for Deer hunting), but I am not so sure it is the clear #1 reason for improved safety. I still take orange with me most of the time, and will put it on when im packing out game or walking on public grounds, but not on private ground or when I get in blinds/stands.

 

[Ontario Hunter]

@RLD - I believe Hunter Ed is always “helpful” but the Hunter ORANGE was what instantly reduced accidental shootings keeping Hunters from being “mistaken for game”. New York State w just recently began to require Hunter Orange for Big Game hunting (one of the last States to do so). That will be an opportunity to see if the ORANGE makes a big difference because NY had required Hunter Ed for many years - but the Orange was added late.

I moved to Ontario when orange was not required. When the bill was introduced it was rigorously opposed by the Ministry of Natural Resources because 1) there was no overwhelming issue with hunters accidentally shooting each other. In fact, I have lived here since 1989 and only recall two incidents (I can assure you if it happens in this liberal country, it makes headlines). And 2) the MNR felt that requiring orange be worn would make hunters more careless, i.e. more inclined to shoot anything in the bush that moves and isn't orange. Purely a case of trying to fix something that wasn't broke ... and possibly making it broke. So why was the bill proposed and passed if the MNR didn't want it? Because requiring hunter orange would instantly put a lot of money in the pockets of gear vendors/companies. Oh, did I forget to mention it was a Conservative businessmen's government? You can do the math. Guess I should mention that MNR and the province's hunter safety course already advised hunters to wear orange or red and most did. I always wore a red cap, jacket, and daypack. Anyone who is totally color blind can tell you hunter orange is like a fire walking through the brush. Deer and moose see it that way too.

 

[Russ16]

I would say hunter orange really makes a difference in group upland hunting like quail and pheasant. Especially in tall cover or standing corn. I could see it mattering a great deal jn places that did deer drives as well.

 

[dlmac]

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

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

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

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

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

I like the Youtube hunter challenge videos.....most who think they are, are not. Not talking about you.

 

[Denvir Tire]

I moved to Ontario when orange was not required. When the bill was introduced it was rigorously opposed by the Ministry of Natural Resources because 1) there was no overwhelming issue with hunters accidentally shooting each other. In fact, I have lived here since 1989 and only recall two incidents (I can assure you if it happens in this liberal country, it makes headlines). And 2) the MNR felt that requiring orange be worn would make hunters more careless, i.e. more inclined to shoot anything in the bush that moves and isn't orange. Purely a case of trying to fix something that wasn't broke ... and possibly making it broke. So why was the bill proposed and passed if the MNR didn't want it? Because requiring hunter orange would instantly put a lot of money in the pockets of gear vendors/companies. Oh, did I forget to mention it was a Conservative businessmen's government? You can do the math. Guess I should mention that MNR and the province's hunter safety course already advised hunters to wear orange or red and most did. I always wore a red cap, jacket, and daypack. Anyone who is totally color blind can tell you hunter orange is like a fire walking through the brush. Deer and moose see it that way too.

Following this line of logic, can we now conclude that the high visibility, orange, yellow, and lime green garb worn by millions of people, throughout the world, is not for safety ?
Perhaps they have all been duped by "Big Orange"?

 

[LWPhunt]

This is a tough topic. Hunters should police themselves. Bragging about the distance, generally turns us fellow hunters off. For some, myself for sure, I feel not worthy of shooting something if it is 300 yds or more (reality, 200 would be my preferred) Can't smell them, don't hunt them. Again, we just can't feed the negative nellies by bragging about things that have bad appearances. But for sure, the ability of spot and stalk, and there are bow hunters around the world that have spot and stalked and killed the whole slam available. Hunting is hunting, shooting and killing, are not the same. And it's not six to one or a half dozen to another. Perception is reality for those who don't like us hunters. Hope we don't screw it up for our future generations. I have boat loads of grandkids I am teaching the hunting and conservation thing, hope we don't screw it up for them.

 

[Ontario Hunter]

Following this line of logic, can we now conclude that the high visibility, orange, yellow, and lime green garb worn by millions of people, throughout the world, is not for safety ?
Perhaps they have all been duped by "Big Orange"?

Policemen doing traffic stops on a busy highway are not there for hunting purposes.

The only statistically valid argument here for the transition to mandatory hunter orange was it MIGHT make it easier to find their corpses when hunters expire in the outdoors. Of course it won't keep them from dying of hypothermia (#1 cause of hunting related deaths here) or falling off a cliff or being crushed by a falling tree or struck by lightning or cardiac arrest. But maybe someone else won't die looking for the body.

In your dozen or more safaris to Africa how many times did you wear hunter orange, lime green, etc? Anyone ever wear it in Scotland or Spain? Not in any of the videos I'm watching. Must be a reason for that.

By the way, in Africa I do keep a cheap orange vest in my daypack + roll of pink flourescent flagging tape. Can be handy for keeping critters and birds off the carcass if we have to go for help to retrieve it.

 

[MS 9x56]

I moved to Ontario when orange was not required. When the bill was introduced it was rigorously opposed by the Ministry of Natural Resources because 1) there was no overwhelming issue with hunters accidentally shooting each other. In fact, I have lived here since 1989 and only recall two incidents (I can assure you if it happens in this liberal country, it makes headlines). And 2) the MNR felt that requiring orange be worn would make hunters more careless, i.e. more inclined to shoot anything in the bush that moves and isn't orange. Purely a case of trying to fix something that wasn't broke ... and possibly making it broke. So why was the bill proposed and passed if the MNR didn't want it? Because requiring hunter orange would instantly put a lot of money in the pockets of gear vendors/companies. Oh, did I forget to mention it was a Conservative businessmen's government? You can do the math. Guess I should mention that MNR and the province's hunter safety course already advised hunters to wear orange or red and most did. I always wore a red cap, jacket, and daypack. Anyone who is totally color blind can tell you hunter orange is like a fire walking through the brush. Deer and moose see it that way too.

Not sure about moose but deer do not see blaze orange. I have had deer within 6 feet of me wearing orange and as long as you don’t move the walk right on by.

 

[Ontario Hunter]

Not sure about moose but deer do not see blaze orange. I have had deer within 6 feet of me wearing orange and as long as you don’t move the walk right on by.

Testing at U of Minnesota many years ago confirmed deer can indeed see hunter orange. It's the brightness. I'm sure bright white or yellow is just as obvious to them. I've had deer in the rut walk right on by too. Their mind is elsewhere. Elk can go downright berserk in the rut. I once had to go out and pull my horses into camp from picket when a bull was getting ready to take them on at two in the morning. That bastard was close! His bugles almost knocked me over. But once it was daylight he was nowhere to be found. Shut right up. Gihardia cut the trip short. That hunt was the shits ... literally!

 

[Hogpatrol]

Whaaa??? I mean one was shooting a 6.5 Creedmoor!