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

That's better, fewer words makes you seem smarter and more believable.

Wish I could say the same for you.

Great perspective!

There are by numbers, more short range hunters than long. Consequently the numbers of slob shooters will be higher in the short range class than the long by simple math...

BTW I would not want to foot snare and elk, only head snare.

And I snare animals every fall.. just not elk..

This damn division will get us all eventually..

Its nice to see folks acceptant of many methods.... but its a shame to see those trying to divide... I used to be one of those divisive ones years ago.

If you didn't bowhunt, you were not giving them a fair chance and you were just a lazy gun hunter.... I learned I was wrong.

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.

And then you will find that I can shoot just fine to 300 yards with my iron sights 54 Renegade side lock... though I will use a rangefinder to verify distance so I know drop for sure....and make sure I understand the wind or not shoot...

There is no way and really should not be a way to regulate this.

And how do we deal with the ethics of folks shooting at movement, running game, game with only bore sighted rifles and so on....

This topic is totally about ethics. Those are in your heart, and cannot be legislated IMHO.

I'm sure regulating the distance of a shot will be next. The Game and Fish is a .gov entity and we suffer the same BS because of it.

They already regulate the distance from which it's legal to shoot from a road. They define what a road is as even a two track void of vegetation.

I had a friend who had an encounter with Game and Fish where the officer broke out a measuring tape to measure from the edge of the road to his shell casing on the ground from where he took the shot.

I also have a friend who was driving on a two track that had new vegetation. He was cited for hunting while driving off road.

I hunted NM for many years. The NM G&F is a joke. If it weren't for SE NM the whole State would be broke.

Yeah. NM G and F is definitely the role model for how not to do things...

I can shoot and hit a 10"x 10" steel plate at the 700 yard range (the max distance at my range) 100% of the time unless the wind is truly gusty. Will I ever shoot an animal at that range? NO. If I did, I'd barely have to get out of my truck (or at least just enough to meet the legal requirements) in some locations of CA, AZ, CO and WY that I hunt in to get my deer, elk, Pronghorn, even bear.

I will say this: with a properly tuned rifle, almost anyone with coaching can place a shot on target at 700 yards, even 1000 yards or more. Shooting at a target and hunting big game animals to me and many other hunters is quite different. Each person has their own ethics.

I ask: At what range does it cross over from the actual action of hunting to just being able to shoot animals from so far away that it impedes the fairness of the 'chase'and violates the spirit of the hunter and the game and crosses the line of fair chase hunting?

Only you, maybe God and I can answer this for ourselves. This said, the implication is self-evident: The more mainstream 'long range shooting' becomes, the more people rationalize distance "shooting" as "hunting" (which it is not) and as an acceptable action of "the hunt" and most either do not have the capability (and therefore wound game or endanger others) or lose the values and skills of a great outdoors-person and of the 'chase' as in fair chase hunting.

Edited to add that while John Burns may possess both the skill and the hunting prowess to get closer to game animals; he has chosen to carve out a public niche for himself and mainly shoot at extreme ranges where neither hunting prowess nor woodsman skill are required and where there is no 'fair chase' in the hunting...hunting looses it's action verb "to hunt" and the only thing he needs most of the time is the ability to squeeze the trigger of his finely tuned sophisticated bullet propellant to a target. While many of us have this ability to shoot long range, I cannot say it is hunting for the reasons mentioned above.

1.5 MOA 100% of the time (100 out of 100) at 700 yards in a moderate wind?

I'll take that bet. How much?

LOL. Fuggin hilarious post!

201 yards is my answer.

Mr. Gregori, seems a little disingenuous to me to sweat the details TOO much about how we use high-powered rifles to kill animals. No?

Choose your poison, or rather their poison, and go forth and do your best to kill 'em cleanly.

Attaching a yardage to that is just people arguin' about chit. The vast bulk of "hunting ethics" is pure human construct. At the end of the day we are cheating all across the board; nothing about it is "fair".

Killed my buck last year at 602 yards. It did appear to be beyond his sensory bubble. Worked for me!

It's a difficult question and hence why we are all debating this here.

Best to debate in a friendly way and trust that with this debate comes some additional reasoning about shooting so far at game animals and what the sport of fair chase hunting really means to all of us.



Please re-read what I did say. I have two rifles that shoot 0.563"-0.719" (sub-MOA) at 100 yards. At 700 yards, (never said moderate wind), without any gusts, I'm usually within about 7"-8.5". I do fire about 2,000 rounds downrange every year across various rifles so I practice much more often than the average hunter using a box of 20 to prepare for the season

I re-read what you said. I'll still take the bet. "Anything but truly gusty winds" includes steady winds. I thought I was cutting you a break by saying "moderate." We are talking about actual hunting conditions, right?

Quoting your maximum group size to the hundredth of an inch means I want to raise the stakes. I have accurate rifles too.

PS, making a shot from a bench at a known distance with spotting rounds is not the same as making a shot at an unknown distance on the first shot in the field.

I've seen this fella named Tubb, and this fellas named Hodnett along with many of his "students" shoot in wind, in the TX Panhandle more than once. You would be the only person capable of pulling this off. Come to think of it there are more here on the 'fire that can do it than the professionals.

JG, for how many times you've mentioned David Tubb and Todd Hodnett.... You ever shot your rifles with them?

Tanner

John_Gregori,



We all are not debating this. It seems only a couple here argue with a very large group of proponents.