Home Forums Hunting & Shooting General Big Game Extreme Long Range Shots?

I have never taken a far shot just to take a far shot, some do and if they can, good for them. I have taken far shots and cleanly killed because that was the shot I had and I used my equipment to it's potential. furthest shot on a game animal with a rifle is 730 yards, furthest with a bow was 47 yards. In both cases I hit exactly where I was aiming and cleanly killed the animal. After all, that's why I was hunting in the first place, to put meat in the freezer. you may think differently but that's ok. I won't be the one to say "you don't take long shots because you're a poor shot and have to get closer" you take shots for your own reasons, who am I to tell you any different?

I know people who can't hit the broadside of a barn at 200 yards, I hope they hold themselves a different set of self imposed limits than I do for myself.

We were argueing?
I made a statement of opinion that he does not like. He feels the need to try and change my opinion. I choose not to respond to him, simply because I am not going to change his opinion, and he certainly will not change mine. It is simple to admit that we disagree.

It is also simple to admit that you and I do not share the same opinion. I am ok with that too.

I will state it again, it takes zero hunting skill to get within long range distance of an animal.

I am nor ranting against, saying it should not be done, nor trying to outlaw it.

But it is a very narrow minded view to not consider the social, biological, and policy/legal ramifications that some practices in the field impact.

As humans, we have proven that we can decimate game populations. Laws were put in place and restrictions imposed to protect, and raise money for game population recovery.

Having sat in on numerous commission meetings, and having conversations with policy makers, I do not go into these types of conversations lightly.

I have personally seem the negative impact and reduced bowhunting opportunity in my state due to increased technology being used in archery seasons. Certainly off subject, but cannot we not learn from those experiences?

But I digress, I made a statement of opinion that I do not feel long range hunting is an appropriate term. I backed up my statement with actual personal experience with both long range shooting and extremely close range hunting experience.

Once again, how much hunting skill does it take to get within 1000 yards? I say zero.

My opinion, nothing more, nothing less. If people disagree, that is their right, free speech and all.

Once again I say getting within range is only part of hunting. And lots of times, the easy part. Closing the deal is the hard part.

Even with bow hunting.

Closing the deal is significantly more difficult the closer you are.

Long range shooting has replaced the hunt part of the equation with shooting prowess.

I watched a show where they had a shooting bench on a hydraulic bale hauler. Mounted on the back of the pick up. They saw antelope, parked the truck, set the bench up and proceeded to shoot antelope.....Is that hunting? Or shooting?

IMO, they had certainly taken the hunt part out of the equation.

What about the show where the shooter backed up to make the shot more difficult?

Are those examples hunting? Yes, No, Maybe?

That's strange, I've killed a couple inside 30 yards, but wouldn't even attempt a shot at 1,000. If it's so easy to kill one at 1,000 you'd think people would be doing it right and left.

[quote=wyoming260
Does shooting bunnies and jacks with a scope sighted rifle count as moving target practice, because if does, then I do..... [/quote]

It might be better than most anything else you can do.

Smokepole,

I did not say it was easy, The challenge lies in the 1000 yard shot, not the "hunt" as you like to call it.

I have nothing more to add to this conversation.

First, I don't feel the need to change your opinion, so don't try and put words in my mouth or attribute motives to me that aren't there. I'm just trying to show anyone reading this that your opinions are not backed up by facts.

There’s no tactful way to say this, so I’ll just cut right to the chase—you are as FOS as a Christmas turkey. You try to say “I choose not to respond to him” but anyone who can read can see that you’ve been responding (and arguing) all along, you continue to respond and argue in this post, and you continue to respond and argue in the two posts after this. You’ve tried to back up your opinion with facts, but every time you’ve tried to make a point I’ve shown that it doesn’t stand up to simple logic. So then you want to say ”we’re not arguing, we just have differing opinions.” What a crock of horsesh**.






To get within long-range distance? I thought we were talking about hunting, not sightseeing.

Getting within range is only part of hunting. Unless you can come up with a definition of hunting that does not include making a shot and killing an animal (or at least going out with that as the goal) it’s an inescapable fact that long range hunting takes a lot of hunting skill. Making the shot and killing the animal is an integral part of hunting, no matter how many times you try to exclude it.

And once again, not everyone hunts for “the thrill of the close-range stalk.” Some people just want to put meat in the freezer, and if a long-range shot is the most efficient way to accomplish that, who are you to tell them that their reasons for hunting are not as valid as yours, and that they’re not hunting?




This part of your post is really offensive, because you’re implying that I’m being narrow-minded, and that I don’t care about the future of hunting. Nothing is further than the truth. Responses are below.

1) It’s narrow-minded to say that a certain style of hunting is “not hunting” just because it doesn’t fit your concept of what hunting should be, or doesn’t give you what you want out of a hunt. There are many valid reasons to hunt that don’t involve “the thrill of the stalk.” But to your point, why don’t you name some actual biological or policy ramifications of long-range hunting, instead of just throwing out those terms in a red herring emotional appeal? Go ahead, name some.

2) Another red herring. I’m very familiar with this concept and I teach it to new hunters in our Hunter’s Ed. Course. Game populations were decimated at the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th centuries, but since then they’ve recovered and no species in North America has been decimated or even threatened by regulated sport hunting. The laws you’re referring to work by limiting the number of animals taken, and in western states that’s accomplished by tag allotments. And it makes absolutely no difference in population management whether a hunter with one of those tags takes his animal at close range or long range. But I may have been wrong when I called this a red herring—it’s a platinum herring.

3) You may not go into the conversation lightly, but you do go in armed with misconceptions. But to the point, why don’t you cite some of the biological and legal ramifications of long-range hunting that were deliberated in these commission meetings?




Yes, everyone is entitled to their opinion. Some people are of the opinion that Barack Obama has been an outstanding president, and Hilary Clinton will be even better. They’re also entitled to their opinions. That doesn't mean they can back up their opinions, and it doesn’t mean they’re not F.O.S.

I thought you were choosing not to respond to me? No, you didn't say that, you said this:



And if as you say closing the deal is more difficult the closer you are, then it must be true that closing the deal is easier the further away you are, correct? And if that's true, then the longest shots we've talked about (1,000 yards) must be the easiest of all, correct?

This is just another example of a blanket statement you've made that doesn't stand up to a simple test of logic. I'd say your statement holds true from somewhere around the 100-yard mark, but falls apart at longer ranges, i.e., a 300 yard shot is more difficult than a 200 yard shot, and a 700-yard shot is more difficult than either.

But go ahead, say we're not arguing, you choose not to respond to me, and it's just a difference of opinion.





The short answer is, yes it's hunting. But I didn't see that show, I don't watch them. Let me see if I've got the question right. The hunter had gotten "within real hunting range" (whatever that is) but then backed up to take a longer shot, is that right?

Did he make a one-shot clean kill? I'm betting the answer is yes. Did he violate your personal code of "what constitutes a hunt" by not stalking in as closely as possible? Obviously.

Do you know why he was hunting, and what he wanted to get out of the hunt?

Is it possible that this hunter has the skills to sneak in close, has done it many times, and no longer finds a challenge in that? You don't know, and neither do I.

Is it possible that his particular hunter finds more challenge in making longer shots, and that's why he hunts and what he wants out of the hunt? Certainly.

Is it possible that this hunter couldn't give a rat's ass why you hunt and what you want to get out of a hunt?

I'm betting the answer is yes.

ok,
GFY

words and names...

bottom line it took me a LOT more time to learn to shoot 1000 yards than it did to get within bow range of animals...

You can call either what you want if it makes you feel good, but since I've done both, the close, couple at 3 steps, and couple beyond 800, I feel I"m qualified to state that long range shots take lots more skill than it does to get closer.

The rest, bothers me none, you choose your use and as long as its legal its ethically good with me. I enjoy em all. And I use my skills as needed along the way...

My last deer this year was not a hunt or a shot really.. in a hurry, needed another doe, found one when I walked about 50 yards from the trailer, tossed the 308 up and took the top of her head off around 80 steps or so. Worked just fine too. Call that whatever you want.

This fighting amongst us is exactly whats going to cause the loss of our guns eventually.. one at a time... Neimoeller comes to mind so often lately....

That's the most intelligent thing you've said.

And all you're left with.

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.

smokepole,

Your post reminds me of a post I made. It started with a guy grabbing his long bow, some wooden arrows, a knife, a canteen and heading into the woods. Followed by the question: Is he hunting. I went through several "up grade" scenarios ending at a guy who goes to a logging landing, set up his spotting scope, custom built .30-378 Weatherby with the latest tactical scope, big eyes binoculars, range finder and other paraphernalia. This was also followed by: Is he hunting.

Somewhere in there we all fit.

It's interesting when people argue from a perspective of " I can't imagine doing that and never would try" but feel comfortable in condemning those who can do those things and practice so as to be able to do so.

Imposing my ethics on you and then passing judgement because you don't measure up.

Smokepole,

I think you've done the best job of summing up this topic.

But, I do think that, like it or not, hunters, as groups and individuals, continually struggle with HOW we kill animals. Or more to the point, the ethical side of hunting.

If we're going to justify longer shots because its a meat hunt, then why not allow people to use foot snares for elk? If filling the freezer is the only justification for your method of killing an elk, then I seen no reason to limit the method of take at all...bust out the snares and get on with it.

But, there has been an ethical line drawn, and why its not legal to foot snare elk for the freezer. Once we go down that road, its a pretty thin argument that personal ethics and regulations on long range hunting shouldn't be considered. Its why we have season dates, caliber restrictions, bag limits, etc. etc. etc. all are based on what we've defined as legal and ethical ways to take wildlife. It comes as no shock to me that some are wondering where that ethical line is with rifle technology and long range shooting, and whether or not it should be regulated.

For me personally, HOW I kill an animal is wayyy more important than any other aspect of hunting.

I think its that way for a lot of hunters, and why there is so much disagreement in how we go about our hunting.

So...everyone that fancies himself a "long range hunter" has put in the time and effort to be proficient?
Pretty broad statement.
I guess the slob hunters are only among those who shoot at shorter range.

Sorry Smokepole, I'm not buying it.
By your prolific and wordy responses it appears that you think that he who uses the most words wins the argument. Reminds me of my wife.

BuzzH,



If it's legal go for it.



I don't think I read about ethics in our regulations.



How they kill their game is important? I remember Ted Nugent saying if hand grenades were legal he'd use one. I wouldn't use one, but I agree with the statement for others. Ethics are an individual thing. I am fascinated by folks who tell others, "You ought not to tell others not to do thus and such." What did they do. They just told someone not to do something!

Buzz, it's a simple thing to regulate method of take, and a simple thing to write a regulation on it and enforce it.

All sorts of limits can be and are put on method of take, right down to caliber, foot-lbs of energy, or draw weight of a bow.

I don't think you can say the same about the distance of the shot because it's dependent on the conditions and the skills of the hunter. But if you think it's wise to draw that line, let's hear how you'd propose to regulate that distance.

What range is "ethical?" And how would you enforce it?

That's an asinine statement. In the US, no one who fancies himself a "hunter" has proven himself proficient. At any range. Why should it be different, depending on the range at which people hunt?




Another asinine statement. I've said nothing even slightly along those lines.





No, not the most words or the most lengthy, just the most logical. See if you can post something that fits that description.

Sorry about your wife, good luck with that.