Its all about obtaining the correct knowledge, proper equipment, and verifying data then shooting regularly to become confident. Its not hard to pick up a blood trail at long range if you know the exact distance.

I've only been shooting what I consider to be long range for 3 years, and 1000 yards has gotten boring. Some people have the experience and equipment to shoot an animal at 500-700 yards without breaking a sweat. I'd be concerned with a hunter that bought a rifle off the shelf that was supposedly bore sighted, and tries to shoot a deer at any distance without verifying his POI. And that scenario happens more than someone taking a 500+ yard shot at a deer.

Only time I would consider unethical part of the equation is if you are using a light caliber that doesn't have the energy at that distance to kill cleanly.




He didn't mention anyone at all, I don't get what you are getting riled up over.

If anything he is saying how rare it is to find a good sportsman that is also a good long range shooter and giving it somewhat of a praise.

You haven't been around all that long. History tell us exactly who he is talking about. His veiled attempt at subtlety is a failure.

Long shots are no different than archery hunting. Both take a lot of practice to have the ability to take certain shots.

I'm not saying it's unethical. I'm saying it isn't hunting. There is a difference in seeing your game breathing, chewing, dropping, etc and shooting a target at long range. Say it for what it is. You don't give a damn about the animal or the meat, you just want to brag you are a long range killer. You know good and well if the animal runs out of sight 99% of you will consider it a miss and never check for blood. Not that you are a good enough woodsman to know exactly where to start looking for it. You're video game addicts who want to take your game to flesh and blood. You're a disgrace to our hunting heritage.

That's quite a few assumptions

Not assumptions. I've shot long range. I've killed up close and personal. I know the difference in hunting and shooting. Not saying they both aren't specializations and take skill. I just don't respect that skill as part of the hunting community.

I don't hunt to be part of a community. I hunt to kill things, at point blank or as far as I damn well please. I don't give a flying F how you hunt on your land. Don't worry about how.I hunt on mine.

And pretty dang opinionated for someone who doesn't know me personally and has never been with me in the field.

I hunt 13 sections in Terrel county, where you have to move all day, while blending into your surroundings, and constantly glass thousands of acres 360 degrees. If you hunt within 200 yards of a feeder, on the same ten acres, in a nice comfy box blind, you aren't hunting.

Wonder how that would go over me saying that to 95% of the membership of this forum?

I'm not worried about how you "hunt" yours. If it's legal and you get enjoyment from it then do it. Nice to see you can't respond without throwing an F bomb into your sentence.

What's the difference in a wounded deer Shot at 100 yards with rifle or bow that runs off a few hundred yards vs a deer shot with a rifle at 500+ yards that runs off a few hundred yards? Tracked many of deer wounded at 100yd or less by selfproclaimed ethical deer hunters. Ethics in hunting IMO is a Leathal shot that offers the least amount of suffering and recovery. With the right equipment and know how any kill that ends with little suffering and a recovery is ethical. Though mistakes do happen at all distances.

About as nice as you throwing the "D" bomb in yours.

I am pretty dang opinionated. But that's everyone. I'm not saying a long range killer is a bad human being. I'm saying that I don't view it as an ethical question.

I like to bowhunt but I've avoided traditional archery for years because my first exposure to traditional was with two lease members who shot 5 deer each on a lease. One was recovered. That's up close but to me unethical. They didn't do what it took be good enough and took poor shot choices. That to me was unethical. That's my opinion. I realized it took more time and commitment to practice than I had time for during my working years.

The long range shooters I knew were the same way. But they were heck on steel targets. Then go out and shoot at deer, coyotes, pigs and killed a lot of them. But when one ran off in the brush and they couldn't locate a blood trail they assumed they missed. They couldn't tell exactly where the animal was standing, where it entered the brush. Off by 10' and you completely miss a blood trail. No telling how many gut shot animals are assumed misses. That's my problem with it. It's not whether shooters can't be lethal. If they weren't snipers wouldn't be such effective battle tools. I think less about the animals killed or missed than the ones wounded y'all never know you hit.

And the fact of the matter is it's more about the shot to LR shooters than it is about the animal. The rush, satisfaction, thrill etc comes from making the difficult/challenging shot. The animal is secondary. That's just not what I consider "hunting".

For me the difference is at a hundred yards I can better identify the tree, bush or what ever the animal was near to start looking for a blood trail. But you are correct. There are too many slob hunters in our midst. They may be legal, they may have every right in the world to do what they do, but they don't shine a good light on what the hunting community should be.

My momma would give me a dirty look for saying the "D" word. She'd slap my mouth for using the other one. But I am a foul mouthed individual. She would turn over in her grave if she heard me talk. I just try not to be when I'm responding to someone who disagrees with me. My post wasn't a response to anything you previously posted. Or any previous post except the op.

AGREED!

I'm not a bad shot but I'm also not a great shot as some of the guys are on here and I doubt seriously I'd ever take a shot at a deer at over 200 yards...and I do practice. Perhaps if I was going on a hunt in the mountains and I utterly prepared for it and through that preparation was proficient then MAYBE but now I practice for the way I hunt which doesn't require more.

Well that's

I made a perfect shot in an elk from 200 yards away, down hill, kneeling. An awesome shot by many people's standards, not a second thought for me. I was and still am far more pleased with a bull elk taken on public land, I had no horse, and no guide. The shot isn't even something I really care about. I couldn't put that shot on the wall, but I did have that bull full shoulder mounted.

You're making broad generalized statements as if they are fact about everyone, though they are not. This nonsense discussion comes up once per quarter. Often it's the same ones championing it, guess it's your turn now.

That's pretty mild compared to the other stuff I said about you out loud after I read your stupid comment.

People that sell hunts for livestock should be the last ones talking about 'ethics'.

I really know better than to jump into this ethical argument thing, but I haven't had a good internet beat down in a while so I guess I will throw in my 2 cents worth.



I have never understood the argument from hunters and fishermen about how a certain piece of gear makes a person ethical or not.

Gear can certainly make you legal or not, as defined by law.

But ethics are ingrained into a person by their own personal life experiences, an accumulation of everything they have seen and done. How they were raised by their parents. Who they ran with in high school and what was acceptable within that group. The current lease or hunt club members and how those groups operate. Some of it may even be genetic for all I know. Most especially though, I believe our ethics are determined by a handful or two of defining moments in our lives where we had to make a specific decision with lasting consequences. Maybe that decision reinforced the ethics we already had. Maybe it made us determined to change those ethics for better or worse. I know I can point to several specific instances in my life that changed the way I thought about things forever, and defined my actions from that point forward.

One thing I do know though is that whatever ethics a person has, those ethics are carried to whatever hunting style they pursue. I have seen examples of both good and bad hunting ethics with all methods. Be that trad archery, compound bow hunters, 100 yard feeder hunters with a rifle, LR proponents, quail hunters, duck hunters, hog doggers, or whatever. You can pick any of those groups and find outstanding examples of hunters, and also some that make you sick to your stomach. But to attach ethics to an inanimate piece of equipment, that is just silly.

I do think that the more challenging a particular hunting style is, the more a hunter of that discipline has his morals and ethics challenged. After all, that is the point, correct? Why make it harder on yourself, if there is no benefit, no payout to it? What is the payout to you? Personal challenge? Bragging rights?

It has been my personal experience that most often when a hunter "fails" an ethical challenge, it is because they are not really hunting for themselves, for the sake of hunting, but because they are trying to attain bragging rights within a peer group. Trading "knowing what is right," for group acceptance is flawed decision making issue, not an equipment choice.

One of my wildlife science teachers in college once told us her definition of ethics. She said, "Ethics is what you do when you think no one is looking." Very appropriate, I thought.

Don't worry. You can't say anything worse about me than what I say to myself. I'm an obnoxious person at times.

So if I shot two bull elk on private land in two seasons, off hand, under 75 yards and dropped both of them in sight does that make me a bad shot because I didn't shoot them at longer distances? I agree two hundred yards is not a hard shot with the right equipment and circumstances. But the further out you go the margin for error increases exponentially. Why is that risk worth it?

That's pretty mild compared to the other stuff I said about you out loud after I read your stupid comment.

[/quote] Don't worry. You can't say anything worse about me than what I say to myself. I'm an obnoxious person at times. [/quote]

I am too. At least we're man enough to admit it.