Author Topic: Are long shots ethical? (Read 6200 times)

brenneke · « **Reply #120 on:** June 17, 2007, 06:39:06 PM »

@coyote hunter.
I totally agree with you a 100%.A little respect for the critters we hunt,goes a long way.Not all shots will be perfect, but we should do everything in our power to try making it perfect.Gives less ammo to the anti hunters,especially when we write about our careless behavior towards the game we hunt (shoot).

Sweet 6.5 · « **Reply #121 on:** June 17, 2007, 07:07:07 PM »

"A little respect for the critters we hunt,goes a long way"

I agree.

NONYA · « **Reply #122 on:** June 17, 2007, 07:57:26 PM »

What respect is there when you go out and kill animals just for the enjoyment of shooting them?Oh wait you guys probably make heart shots on your gophers so you dont damage the meat you plan to eat...give me a break!

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #123 on:** June 18, 2007, 02:01:01 AM »

C H , your brother is a good example , all shots aren't perfect , i agree we should shoot to kill but often they aren't perfect shots !
my point is some farmers/land owners see animals as a damage control issue not a game animal . i have an acquaintance who told me back home farmers shoot deer in the stomach so they will run off and die and they won't have to drag them out of the field . I see no excuse for this , no justification squares it for me , but if the farmer can justify it he will do it , note not all practice this , look at the wolf out west many were killed any way they could be ! a guy i met in tenn. was from La said they hung treble hooks baited with meat yust high enough off the ground to catch and hold coyote's again a damage control issue but not a pretty one !
long shots are ethical to many !
when in war it is often better to wound and tie up 2 or more men , in our country the police use ammo that is illegal to use in war ! how can we live with these facts and expect people to respect an animal causing damage and loss of income ?
many farmers see it as a

Coyote Hunter · « **Reply #124 on:** June 18, 2007, 06:00:49 AM »

OK, guys, we've strayed pretty far afield. Let's get back to the question of long range shots.

IOWA DON · « **Reply #125 on:** June 18, 2007, 07:27:30 AM »

I confess, last night I botched up a shot at 35 feet. We have been having trouble with a raccoon emptying the bird feeder and crapping in the flower beds. We have grandchildren who play in the yard and raccoons are the biggest carrier of rabies where I live. I needed to get rid of this one but botched my shot somehow. A motion detector light came on at about 2:00 AM and the coon was on the bird feeder. I got the door open without it seeing me. After it moved to where I could see its head, I put the crosshairs between its eyes. I used a low speed .22 short. A more potent, louder cartridge may have made the neighbors think that a crime was being commited. The coon jumped off the feeder and ran away. Did the coon move during the last fraction of a second before I shot? Did I miss it entirely or just wound it? I hope I missed it entirely but it may be wounded and die a slow death. That makes me feel bad, but this was not hunting for sport, but not as bad as it would have when hunting for sport. I will put out a live trap and hope that if it is still alive and wounded, that I can end its suffering. Anyway, my long range deer shooting record for recovering animals is way better than my short range raccoon shooting. Is it possible that un-alarmed animals at long range make more ethical targets than close range ones as they may be more likely to sense the hunter and move during the last fraction of a second before the shot?

NONYA · « **Reply #126 on:** June 18, 2007, 09:19:03 AM »

The whole ethics part is pointless,everyone has thier own set.But,the long distance shot at an unaware deer provides a way better target than the closer deer that has you located and is ready to bolt,no question,if you can hit the target it is the better sho tin my book.

Coyote Hunter · « **Reply #127 on:** June 18, 2007, 07:42:23 PM »

Quote from: NONYA on June 18, 2007, 09:19:03 AM

The whole ethics part is pointless,everyone has thier own set.But,the long distance shot at an unaware deer provides a way better target than the closer deer that has you located and is ready to bolt,no question,if you can hit the target it is the better sho tin my book.

The ethics question, IMHO, is a good one - but some of the answers make no sense.

DakotaElkSlayer · « **Reply #128 on:** June 18, 2007, 08:42:54 PM »

Coyote Hunter,
This is one of the best topics I have read on here... Heck, even when it went off on a tangent, it was interesting! One of the most interesting aspects was how some people's ethics were dictated by the species being shot.

Jim

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #129 on:** June 19, 2007, 01:37:16 AM »

some people have ethics written in stone while others are flexible sort of speak ! with regard to long shots !

jdt48653 · « **Reply #130 on:** June 19, 2007, 05:53:50 AM »

like i said earlier(before i got shot down) some tend to adjust their ethic`s to fit the situation.

IOWA DON · « **Reply #131 on:** June 19, 2007, 11:54:20 AM »

Got my "American Hunter" magazine today and there is an article on long range hunting. The author tested 30 hunters for shooting ability and at 300 yards with a field rest their success rates for hitting a 12-inch bullseye were 5 % and 10 % depending on whether thy used the author's rifle or their own. I assume the author's rifle was zeroed in better. Last year I checked the zero of my .338-.378 Weatherby out in the country using the same rests I would for deer hunting. The range was 468 yards because that happened to be a convenient distance to an embankment which provided a safe backstop. I got a 4-inch group (plus or minus a small fraction of an inch) and the group was within about one inch of the center of the bullseye. I suspect a number of the hunters tested by the author of the article would say I have no business shooting at deer at 600 plus yards. I don't feel that way, but guess I would say the majority of them have no business shooting at deer 300 yards away, and the results also indicate a number of them have no business shooting at deer at 200 yards as well. Also, my last 600-yard 5-shot group at the rifle range was about 6-inches and was also within about an inch of dead-on. Anyway, I think whether long range hunting is ethical or not is almost entirely dependent on the skill and equipment of the hunter, plus the hunter's willingness to turn down a shot that may be to "iffy".

Coyote Hunter · « **Reply #132 on:** June 19, 2007, 05:58:15 PM »

Quote from: IOWA DON on June 19, 2007, 11:54:20 AM

Got my "American Hunter" magazine today and there is an article on long range hunting. The author tested 30 hunters for shooting ability and at 300 yards with a field rest their success rates for hitting a 12-inch bullseye were 5 % and 10 % depending on whether thy used the author's rifle or their own.

To put that in perspective, 1.5 hunters could hit the 12" circle at 300 yards with their own guns. (I assume multiple shots were allowed to get the odd 0.5 hunter.) Not surprising based on what I ahve seen during Hunter sight-in Days at my club, but a distressing commentary on the general ability of the hunting population.

Quote

...I would say the majority of them have no business shooting at deer 300 yards away, and the results also indicate a number of them have no business shooting at deer at 200 yards as well. ...

Yup.

Quote

Anyway, I think whether long range hunting is ethical or not is almost entirely dependent on the skill and equipment of the hunter, plus the hunter's willingness to turn down a shot that may be to "iffy".

Yup.

NONYA · « **Reply #133 on:** June 19, 2007, 07:51:09 PM »

Ill bet hunters who know they can make that 500 yard shot on a regular basis would all say its ethical,ill bet those who cant would tend to say its not,just generalizing but ill bet im pretty close.

IOWA DON · « **Reply #134 on:** June 20, 2007, 05:22:34 AM »

For me wind is the biggest problem with long range shooting. I have a number of farms where I can hunt deer and where I frequently see them across a valley, which makes an ideal place to get a shot (but at long range). When traveling from farm to farm I am always stopping and checking direction and speed of the wind. I have a way of checking my wind speed estimation but it only works well in Iowa if the wind is directly north, east, south or west. In Iowa we pretty much have only north-south and east-west roads. I drive in the direction of the wind, with my arm out the window and find a speed where I don't feel the wind from either front or back. My speedometer tells me if I was correct. With practice I can now do a fair job of wind speed estimation. The Weather.com website is handy but not always correct. Last winter I took my 11-year-old grandson with on one deer hunt. According to the website we would have a 5mph southwest wind so we headed to a farm where that would be the most likely direction to shoot. On the way, before it got light, we found the wind was less than 5 mph but from the northwest instead. We headed to a different farm where a shot would most likely be directly into the wind. At first light I got a 701 yard shot directly into a very slight wind. No holding for wind was required and the bullet hit right where the 700 yard range-compensating-dot appeared, that is the middle of its lung area. Also, I have a wind drift chart on the stock of my rifle to be sure I don't forget. It has drift for a 10 mph side wind at 100 to 800 yards in 100 yard increments. The drift at 600 yards is 20 inches for my .338-378. That is about as good as possible for for a good game bullet. I have never shot (or shot at) a deer if the estimated wind drift was over 12 inches.

IOWA DON · « **Reply #135 on:** June 20, 2007, 05:41:42 PM »

Another thing, in Iowa our buck deer hunting is with shotguns (or muzzle loaders) , not centerfire rifles. Going down the road I go past a number of groups of drive hunters every year. Over the past 10 years or so I've probably seen a couple hundred or more shotgun deer hunters along side the road with their guns. I notice their shotguns. Most do not have scopes and I do not ever remember seeing one of these hunters using a single shot. I use a single shot Thompson-Center TCR-87 20-gauge with a fully rifled barrel and use the best sabot ammo I can buy, except for 2 deer I shot at very close range with homemade cast slugs in brass cases. The point is, I bet most people who think long range hunting is unethical do not, or would not use a singleshot gun. That is, they probably think firepower will make up for poor shooting or inaccurate equipment. Also, the convenience stores in the country often sell shotgun slugs. They sell the old rifled slugs designed which were available in the 1950's, not the modern sabot ones which apparently cost too much for most people. However, most of the hunter's vehicles are expensive 4X4's worth several times mine.

Don Fischer · « **Reply #136 on:** June 20, 2007, 06:26:08 PM »

Well it has taken a great deal of restraint to stay out of this but I have,,,,,,,,,,,till now. Am I to assume that if each of us has to define our own ethics, then shooting a game animal in the gut's so I can further my moment is ethical if I decide it is? Can I also assume that shooting predators in the butt is fine as they are despicable creatures? And that trying to shoot a leg off a sage rat is alright because it's stinkin' vermin? Under the guidelines I hear from some of you anything is ethical the individual say's is. I'm certain that even some of the guy's I've had sprited discussion's on these matter's in the past will stop short of defending that. I think that in all this smoke there is some common ground that most all will agree to. That said, maybe ethics really is what the majority believe it to be.

nomosendero · « **Reply #137 on:** June 20, 2007, 06:34:20 PM »

Quote from: Don Fischer on June 20, 2007, 06:26:08 PM

Well it has taken a great deal of restraint to stay out of this but I have,,,,,,,,,,,till now. Am I to assume that if each of us has to define our own ethics, then shooting a game animal in the gut's so I can further my moment is ethical if I decide it is? Can I also assume that shooting predators in the butt is fine as they are despicable creatures? And that trying to shoot a leg off a sage rat is alright because it's stinkin' vermin? Under the guidelines I hear from some of you anything is ethical the individual say's is. I'm certain that even some of the guy's I've had sprited discussion's on these matter's in the past will stop short of defending that. I think that in all this smoke there is some common ground that most all will agree to. That said, maybe ethics really is what the majority believe it to be.

I believe it to be the same for short shots or long, if not why not, since these same things can happen when some shoot at short range at one skill level & for others at long range at another skill level. Goes back to shooting within your own abilities, I hate to disapoint, but that's where it will stay. Though some want to complicate the matter, it is simple.

NONYA · « **Reply #138 on:** June 20, 2007, 08:02:33 PM »

If you asked some they would say they dont believe hunting is ethical,its just a matter of opinion,sharing them is fine but to argue them is pointless,you arnt going to change someones idea of what range they should or can shoot at. who really cares what other hunters limit themselves to,ill bet among many there is a big difference between what they will say is ethical and what they will actually attempt.I have sen people that know they cant make a long range shot on a running antelope take one in the heat of a hunt.I think "ethics,if thats what you insist on calling them" will change from situation to situation in most peole.I dont think we should call the range we choose to shoot a matter of ethics at all,its just a personal choice and I dont think there is a wrong one.

Cement Man · « **Reply #139 on:** June 21, 2007, 05:36:35 PM »

I agree with what Nomosendero said and a lot of what Don said. A person who has the skill to shoot accurately/humanely at a given range, under the circumstances that exist, and who uses an adequate projectile and velocity for a humane kill - to me is ethical. That is something that the shooter has to know for himself. I know my own limits and I live by them. "Distance ethics" are a relative answer to a relative question. When someone thinks he has the finite answer for someone else - he probably doesn't.
I agree with Don - I said in a previous post - "animals are just being animals". Yup, some definitely are varmints, vermin, pests, whatever. But to assign character values to them to justify sloppy shooting, or any other inhumane practice is not something I agree with. They are only living out their instincts for their form of survival. I have no problem with eliminating these critters. I do and I will continue to do so - humanely as I can. But no anthropomorphism - that IS the basis for being a PETA member.
Just my $.02

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #140 on:** June 22, 2007, 02:40:46 AM »

ethical shots only apply to sport hunting , in a life and death situation all bets are off !

beemanbeme · « **Reply #141 on:** June 22, 2007, 05:17:17 AM »

I will not get in this: I will not get in this: I will not get in this!!!!!!

NONYA · « **Reply #142 on:** June 22, 2007, 10:10:01 AM »

Cmoonnnn Beemannnnn,you KNOW you wannnt toooooo.......lol

Don Fischer · « **Reply #143 on:** June 22, 2007, 12:20:08 PM »

Quote from: nomosendero on June 20, 2007, 06:34:20 PM

Quote from: Don Fischer on June 20, 2007, 06:26:08 PM
Well it has taken a great deal of restraint to stay out of this but I have,,,,,,,,,,,till now. Am I to assume that if each of us has to define our own ethics, then shooting a game animal in the gut's so I can further my moment is ethical if I decide it is? Can I also assume that shooting predators in the butt is fine as they are despicable creatures? And that trying to shoot a leg off a sage rat is alright because it's stinkin' vermin? Under the guidelines I hear from some of you anything is ethical the individual say's is. I'm certain that even some of the guy's I've had sprited discussion's on these matter's in the past will stop short of defending that. I think that in all this smoke there is some common ground that most all will agree to. That said, maybe ethics really is what the majority believe it to be.

I believe it to be the same for short shots or long, if not why not, since these same things can happen when some shoot at short range at one skill level & for others at long range at another skill level. Goes back to shooting within your own abilities, I hate to disapoint, but that's where it will stay. Though some want to complicate the matter, it is simple.

Well Nomo I think we've finally found something on this ethics issue that you and I can agree on. I agree with what you said here. Hope you were sitting down when you read this! (Tried to put a smiley face there and it wouldn't go.)

Graybeard · « **Reply #144 on:** June 22, 2007, 01:40:59 PM »

This is an issue on which we're NEVER gonna ALL AGREE. Just ain't gonna happen. Does that make one right and the rest wrong or vice versa? Not in my opinion. Can we all tho perhaps agree that TOO LONG a shot is a bit unethical? And that what is TOO LONG varies greatly from one person to the next and ONLY YOU can decide what is TOO LONG for you? That's my firm belief on that issue.

Now as to ethics in general I'm thinking that is an issue on which no common ground will ever be found period. I'm of the opinion that there is no such thing as a "univeral ethic" and yes it does and MUST vary from indivdual to indivdual. What you feel is ethical I might think is not and what I think ethical you might not. I don't think that makes either of us right or wrong. It's up to each person's own moral compass to decide what is right and wrong for them at any given moment. Yes we have group ethics to some extent and those are generally codified as law. Even so not all agree with all laws as has been stated here many times so group ethics can't be the final do all end all of it.

Where do we draw the line? That is up to each person. Do you think I care how I squash a mosquito or fly or how much it suffers afterwards assuming of course they do in fact feel pain? If you think so I'm here to tell you that you're WRONG. I don't. That pretty much applies to critters I see as vermin as well. Yes I'll attempt to take them cleanly with as little suffering as possible but I'm not gonna lose any sleep over it if that doesn't work out as planned.

Do game animals "deserve more respect"? Sorry but in my opinion not really. Animals are animals and we're human and were given control over them by GOD and I don't believe HE gave us any rules regarding how to treat them. So it ultimately boils down to each person's own personal ethic and moral compass as to what extent they wish to go to avoid inflicting undue suffering on animals. If it really bothers you THAT BAD then why the hell do you hunt and kill critters and why aren't you a vegan? Did you know veggies have feelings too? How do you know they don't?

I think we humans over complicate our lives for no good reason on way too many issues. For sure the issue of ethics in hunting is one of them. Why can't we just agree to disagree as no one here is gonna change the mind of any other on this issue. Just do what you feel is right and try to stay within the law. However even our Declaration of Independance and the US Constitution both acknowledge that LAW is NOT the final word and that it is our duty as well as our right to do whatever is necessary to change it if we think it wrong. Does that include disobeying laws? You better betcha our founding fathers thought so. Me too but generally speaking I'm not willing to be the practice dummy in a legal battle over very many issues so I pretty much stay within the law when and where I can.

My ethics are mine and quite honestly I really don't care what others think of them and do not waste my time trying to explain or argue them. I'm sure lots of things I consider ethical many here don't and vice versa. So be it I can live with that. Can you?

victorcharlie · « **Reply #145 on:** June 22, 2007, 03:23:35 PM »

Unto thy own self, be true.

nomosendero · « **Reply #146 on:** June 22, 2007, 05:30:11 PM »

Mr. Graybeard, good post. A person could go back to previous threads & read for hours on this subject & the conclusions are the same & as you said, o one changes their minds.

Don, are you sure that you thought about my post. I am shocked, I think I'll celebrate!! Dang it, I am having the same smiley face problem & I just finished bragging about Mr. GB. Hey Matt.

Coyote Hunter · « **Reply #147 on:** June 23, 2007, 04:51:59 AM »

Here's an example of someone that is clearly shooting beyond their capability. After the shooter gets up you can briefly see the shooter and the buck in the same frame. Would anyone here argue the range is too far for an ethical shot for a reasonable marksman?

http://www.monsterhuntclips.com/view_video.php?viewkey=885e0d7c260cc007e8b9

Don Fischer · « **Reply #148 on:** June 23, 2007, 06:49:12 AM »

Quote from: nomosendero on June 22, 2007, 05:30:11 PM

their minds.

Don, are you sure that you thought about my post. I am shocked, I think I'll celebrate!! Dang it, I am having the same smiley face problem & I just finished bragging about Mr. GB. Hey Matt.

You bet Nomo. That was well put!

brenneke · « **Reply #149 on:** June 23, 2007, 11:10:59 AM »

Quote from: Coyote Hunter on June 23, 2007, 04:51:59 AM

Here's an example of someone that is clearly shooting beyond their capability. After the shooter gets up you can briefly see the shooter and the buck in the same frame. Would anyone here argue the range is too far for an ethical shot for a reasonable marksman?

http://www.monsterhuntclips.com/view_video.php?viewkey=885e0d7c260cc007e8b9

I can only shake my head at that guy in the clip. ???Who brings that much ammo hunting.The distance did not appear too far,but obviously for him it was way too far.If you are nowhere near your target and you could not spot the point of impact with the first shot,well i would say:it's time for a reality check.That is what comes to my mind,when talking about unethical and i have to agree that ethical shots mean different things for different people.That guy was a disgrace,in my books.16 shots?