Darryl, As I said earlier, I do not have a dog in this fight and do not want to get one out of the pen. While I can not see myself ever doing what you LR guys do, I on the other hand find no legal reason to oppose it. I did honestly want to know what range was ethical in most peoples opinion, since this has been posed as an ethical question. The lack of responses to my question leads me to believe that many people have the same problem I do and that is defining how far is too far. It varies hunter to hunter and each of us has to make their own decision as to what is "ethical" for them.
<br>
<br>Since I do not believe an ethical range can be defined, I believe we need to look for another solution that would be acceptable to most people, including guys like yourself that do have the skill to cleanly take such shots. One solution that has been around since almost the beginning of game laws is to define and regulate the type equipment that can be used for hunting. All locations I am aware of define minimum calibers for certain size game and I think we all (pretty much) agree with that. Banning night sights for hunting is another area that I think most people would agree with and again, all game and fish departments I am aware of ban them. The list goes on and on, plugs for shotguns, crossbows for healthy hunters, etc.........
<br>
<br>So, the precident is there to regulate hardware when the vast majority of people (hunters and non hunters combined) agree that it gives the hunter too much of an advantage or increases the risk of wounding of an animal. Limiting the weight, power or some other combination of factors would still allow LR hunters like yourself to demonstrate and enjoy their considerable skill with a rifle while hunting, without allowing what some consider to be an unfair advantage. Is this a proper way to address the issue? One, that while not ideal, does address the concerns of both groups while not limiting our freedom too much. I do not know but you did mention that one state already limited the weight of rifles that can be used for hunting. I submit such a solution might be much better than trying to define what an "ethical" range limit might be.
<br>
<br>I fully support your right to hunt in any legal manner, even though I might not find that method appealing myself. I do think we all need to be more aware though of how our actions can lead to un-intended consequences. I had a post some time back about how I feel auctioning of permits for limited draw areas (no matter how good the cause the money goes to) will come back to hurt us all in the long run as they demonstrate that hunting is not a right but a priviledge that can be bought and sold and the more money you have the more "right" you have to hunt. I have similar fears about how extreme long range hunting could have unitended consequences but will certainly defend your right to do so, as long as the methods and equipment used are legal.
<br>
<br>Again, I do not want to take either side in this discussion but did want to present an idea that might generate some positive discussion about how we can all go forward together as hunters and sportsmen. Whether it has merit or not I will leave to both sides of the discussion to decide. TM
