The son of a friend got an enormous muley buck this year at 600. He does a lot of long range shooting and had a good rangefinder. I've hunted where he got it and I know for a fact that he couldn't have got closer. He shot across a draw into a burn with piles of deadfall. A closer approach was impossible.
Then came the realities of long shots. It took him 2 hrs to walk that 600 yds and 2 days for 2 of them to pack the deer out. He told his dad that shooting it was about the dumbest thing he'd ever done.
A good illustration of why some of us are against long range shots at game. In the scenario above I doubt he would have found that deer if the shot wasn't just right. He might not have even known it was wounded. When it takes you that long to get to the area the animal was standing when the shot was taken it would be impossible to locate the exact location to look for signs of a hit; and forget about any follow up shots. In two hours that deer could be in the next county.
There's nothing wrong with going home empty, sometimes getting into a position where an ethical shot is possible doesn't happen....thats why its called hunting...
I think you're confusing "ethical shot" with your own personal ethic. Plenty of ways to ensure you find an animal that's hit, including having a spotter stay put and guide the hunter to the animal. And since we're talking about sheep chances are the hunter and/or guide will see where it goes down or be able to find it easily out in the open where they live.
And as far as "the shot having to be just right," no more or no less than than any other shot. I once shot a buck at 30 yards, right behing the shoulder, double-lunged. He still ran over 200 yards and I had a hard time finding him. Was that more "ethical?"
