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?"
I disagree. I've spent enough time looking for blood when an animal was shot at moderate ranges to know how hard it would be at 5-600. I've also hunted sheep long enough to know how fast they can disappear. They live in rough country, and although it is usually more open country ( not always) they can still be hard to find. If were talking guided hunts then its a moot point anyway because chances are very high your guide wont let you take long shots to begin with. Theres a reason for that too.
What I meant when I said the shot had to be just right was that if the shot isn't good, you're in for a long day. Your chance for a follow up go way down, and if it takes you two-hours to get to where the animal was ( like in the story I was commenting on) a wounded animal could be a long ways away by the time you get there; making the tracking job that much harder.
I dont think anyone would disagree with the fact that long shots are much harder to make, so yea you can still lose game or make a bad shot at close or moderate ranges, but for all of us the odds go way up if the distance is kept reasonable. IMO the high rough country where sheep and goats live is the last place to try long distance shots. The winds and downdrafts are just to hard to dope.
