It is a great perspective, and it’s a good thing that we all struggle with this question because there are no easy answers. Like I said before I used to think the same as CRS but I’ve changed my thinking because I can’t come up with a logical construct to support regulation of hunting based solely on the distance of the shot that would be practical and enforceable. And it’s true for most hunters that how we kill an animal is more important than whether we kill an animal, myself included. I’ll never take a shot at an elk that’s even close to 1,000 yards; at this point in time with our current regulations that’s a personal choice and in my opinion should remain a personal choice.
Buzz, to your points. The first one (why shouldn’t leg snares be legal?) is an easy answer: It’s not hunting. How’s that for irony? But that’s not a value judgment on my part, it’s the definition of taking an animal with a leg snare--it’s trapping, not hunting. In the US we’ve chosen not to allow trapping of our big game animals unless there’s a depredation issue like with wolves. There are lots of reasons to ban trapping of elk including resource allocation. I’m sure you could come up with another example that is closer to hunting, like spotlighting or baiting. Spotlighting is something everyone can agree on is not fair chase, and not ethical. Baiting is a whole different subject.
While we’re on that subject, let’s define who “we” are, as in who are the people who would agree on and implement any regulations on long-range hunting. It’s not the people who post on this website, and it’s not a nationwide “we,” because hunting regulations are at the state level. And we all know that what’s illegal as hell in some states (baiting, running deer with dogs) is a time-honored tradition in others. Which is not to say that long-distance hunting couldn’t be regulated at the state level, just to illustrate the wide range of “what’s acceptable” and the problems with getting a consensus on methods of hunting that should be banned or restricted.
As far as limiting the range of shots, there would be two reasons to do that and both are ethics-based. The first and the one that most would agree on would be limiting hunters to shots they can make a clean kill on, most of the time. The obvious problem with that is it varies all over the place with the hunter and the conditions. Just because most guys can’t make a 300 yard shot doesn’t mean I shouldn’t be able to take one. And just because I can make a 500-yard shot prone off a bi-pod in perfect conditions doesn't mean I should take one unsupported in a gale, so what you're left with is personal judgment, which is how it should be in my opinion.
The only fair way to regulate based on ability to place the shot would be a proficiency test. Personally, I’d be in favor of a proficiency test because it would force people to become proficient. It would also be a logistical and fiscal nightmare for state F&G agencies to implement a program that would allow a guy who can make a 500-yard shot to do that, while limiting others to 100 yards. And impossible to enforce in the field. It would limit 1,000 yard shots to only those who could make them, which would be a good thing. I just don't see it as a practical solution.
And if you think it’s hard to take the keys from grandpa when he can’t drive any more, think about taking away his .270 and deer tag.
The second reason to limit the distance of shots would be the fair chase argument. And if someone asks me whether an elk has a fair chance of detecting a hunter at 1,000 yards my answer is most of the time, I don’t think so. But I’d also say that same logic applies at 500 yards most of the time. Are we saying we want to ban a 500 yard shot? Elk can detect a hunter at 500 if he's standing out in the open, but it's a simple thing to stay undetected at 500 and doesn't take much if any "hunting skill." Sometimes even when they know you're there they won't spook and take off, sometimes they just keep an eye on you because you're not a threat.
What about a 300-yard shot? Most guys are OK with that, but if you’re going to use the fair chase argument, the difference in an elk’s ability to detect the hunter is much greater when you go from 50 yards to 300 than when you go from 300 to 1000 in my opinion. And you can’t tell me that the hunter who takes a 300 yard shot is not using superior technology (and the same firearm technology as the 1,000-yard hunter) to defeat the animal’s senses and get an advantage.
So that’s where I come down. Regulating the range of shots due to fair chase is a slippery slope, and it’s also based on logic that would apply to ranges that most hunters find acceptable. And if we’re going to say that the technology gives hunters an unfair advantage at 1,000 yards, we’re going to have to admit that the same applies to shots at much shorter distances, whatever those might be. Personally, I don’t want to go there. Many do, including PETA.
One way to limit the effective range would be to restrict the technology, like some states do with muzzleloaders. That would mean banning equipment (mostly scopes with ballistic reticles or turrets and rangefinders) that many elk hunters already have and use. I don’t think that would go over well, or is a workable solution.
Anyway, thanks for the points you raised and the discussion.
Some won't like this "wordy" response but that's OK. My challenge to them would be to come up with a short paragraph that covers all the angles here.
