I'll be the first to admit I have been guilty of "shooting" game instead of "hunting." The last time was two seasons ago when I took a medium sized buck.
....at 40 yds from a treestand. First and last time for that. Blasting a blindfolded fish out of a barrel would have been more fulfilling. In my opinion, calling that "hunting" because it was at close range is not logical. No offense to stand hunters intended, that just didn't do it for me.
Contrast that with this season's buck, taken from 473. He was spotted at over 700 and I closed the distance crawling on my belly in a ditch as far as possible. The wind was strong enough to make the shot challenging at 473, but doable. Now that was a hunt. It might come as a surprise to some who have never been out of the woods, but animals can "suspect your presence" at quite a distance, depending upon the terrain. I've seen both deer and antelope begin flight upon spotting orange close to a mile away--especially when they've had lots of hunting pressure. Walking would have been much easier than crawling in a ditch...but even from 700+ I would have been spotted and he would have been gone in an instant.
To characterize the first as "hunting" and the second as "shooting" simply because the first was at a closer range is quite myopic. Had the terrain layout differed and there had been less wind putting the final shot even farther...wouldn't really matter to me. The story and the feeling of the successful hunt would remain. I've had most excellent "hunting" experiences at very close range as well. Just as good, just different.
But for certain individuals, once you go beyond "X Range" (whatever that may be as they all pull a different one from their posterior) it suddenly becomes less worthy than the "fish in the barrel" shot from a stand for that reason alone.
There's no logic in it, only emotion and ignorance.
