You're the one doing the extrapolating. You introduced ethics. I avoided ethics and said so. I merely told the tale. Do with it what you want but own what you do with it. Animals move. Sometimes they move when we don't expect them to. Deal with it. It is reality. Movement may not be likely at a given moment but the possibility is reality. On any shot any of us take we try to reduce the odds of a miss as low as possible, at long or short range.
It is curious why a significant percentage of long rangers are so defensive. This started with a question (that seemed defensive or sarcastic) about how fast an animal can move, as if that is a stupid topic when one is shooting at the animal. Since my reply about how fast this old animal can move, all I have said is that other things being equal, distance reduces odds of a hit and I agreed with someone that no one can totally control nor predict wind nor animal movement. That is mere reality. Reasonable people agree, do what they can to improve their odds and take their shot. Good for them. Defensive folks call it idiocy and being judgmental.
Like I said the tale was a one off example and shouldn't be the basis of an opinion re LR hunting. Ethics? That is your position when you keep on about how the LR shooters are gut shooting animals and use a one off to defend it.
My thoughts are if you have the skills, I don't have a problem with the ethics of it. The reality is the good LR shooters seem to have minimal problems with animals moving at the shot. Something you have little basis to disagree with since you don't play their game. And that is the definitive reality....
You also add on your "The LR shooters refuse to admit line" which is wrong at best and BS at worst. Which would be another reality....
Addition: I would find little joy in shooting an animal at 600 yards. Have shot them out past 300 and didn't find any joy in it either. Doesn't mean those who can and do so don't.
