Here's what it comes down to for me. I used to think like CRS. I listened to the arguments on both sides, and gave them a little thought. And in the end, the only argument against long-range hunting that makes any sense to me is the "fair chase" argument.
The one that says long range hunters use superior technology to the degree that the animals no longer have a fair chance to detect the hunter, so the hunter has an unfair advantage.
The thing is, humans aren't at the top of the food chain because of our physical abilities, but because we use technology to our advantage and always have. So the question is, where do you draw the line that separates fair from unfair.
Everyone's opinion on that is different, but I have a really hard time accepting the fair chase argument from guys who are perfectly OK with using modern scoped bolt-action centerfire rifles to make shots at 200 or 300 yards.
Because the technology they're using is basically the same as long-range hunters. It's just that long-range hunters are more proficient with the technology because they've put in the time and effort to be.
