Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Long Range Hunting Hunter Ethics

I have been doing some serious thinking about LR shooting and its implications for the last few days and I have come to the conclusion that for ME(that is me, personally, not telling someone else what they can do legally) that it is well beyond my definition of fair chase. And the pricipal reason I came to that conclusion is that the animal has no real chance of using his natural defenses or knowledge of the terrrain to avoid several people sitting in a position where they can command a view of several square miles of countyside. I have a 500m silhouette range on my ranch and will install a 1000m range in another area next year when a pasture lease I let someone have expires, so I am not unfamiliar with longer ranges. And, I am fully aware that it takes skill and dedication to accomplish the feat of killing an animal at extended ranges, but that does not make it ethical hunting TO ME. Just because it takes money and skill to do it, does not make it fair chase. If money and skill were the determining factors then why not use a jet and rockets? Takes money and skill to use them, too. I will be the first to say that this is a close call and I am not, in any way denigrating or dictating another's choices, but I can say, as Boggy expressed so well, that no one is going to use a spotter and a computer to shoot deer on my place.

Amen and Amen. -- no

Well said CAT. You and I are in full agreement on this subject.
<br>BCR

Hey ME,
<br>Why dont you go into to a little more detail with your position on the Fair Chase issue I would REALLY like to here it. (choose your words carefully ya dont want to step on anyones toes) Tell us how you came to this mind inspiring revelation? Was it even your revelation or did someone else put in your head? Im really interested in the way a man of your infinate knowledge comes to such a conclusion. Please help us all understand this position so that we are not led down the path to destruction, on no, is destruction a para military word (if so sorry) I sure don't want to pi$$ any bambi lovers off, or any of my socalled associates. Now back to the main issue, MR. ETHICS, please ELABORATE on your position of FAIR CHASE. WE WOULD ALL LIKE TO HEAR IT.

If It Flies
<br>
<br>You say no spotters or computers?
<br>
<br>What if a friend of yours showed up to hunt (on your property) with a long barreled rifle, a LR scope, and a bi-pod and had been with Butch, Boyd, Sealsniper or myself for about a month and shooting everyday for that length of time, to learn how to LR hunt?
<br>
<br>We could teach him that you don't really need a spotter or the computer (in hand) to make long KILLS inside of 1000 yards. The drop chart needed would be taped on the side of his stock, he would have a laser rangefinder to know Exactly how far the animal is, and the muzzel brake would tame the recoil to where he could see every shot go into the animal. Would that be OK then, since you mentioned a spotter and computers not being allowed on your property?
<br>
<br>1000 yards to us, is like 100 yards to most people that don't know anything about longrange hunting. As a matter of fact, I would say the average LR hunter would do better at 1000 yards then the 3 day or 1 week a year short range hunter does at 100 yards.
<br>
<br>The reason most of us use a spotter is because, we want to reach out much further then 1000 yards for a trophy.
<br>Inside of 1000 yards is not that hard for the experianced Long range hunter.
<br>
<br>I know your post was your own opinion and I respect that very much but, this post is my opinion also which I am entitled to since it is on the "Longrange Hunting" forum at this site. I believe it was set up (two or three)days ago for LR Hunters and those who want to know and learn about it?
<br>
<br>Darryl Cassel

Hey PBLR,
<br>
<br>If you read my post it explains my logic fairly carefully. Specifically, I don't think sniping an animal which has no ability to use its natural defenses by a gang of hunters using computers and spotting for the shooter meets MY concept of fair chase. Now, is that clear enough for you? But I don't mind stepping on your toes, because you are obviously not interested in discussing the issue, assuming you are capable of a logical discussion, but of trying to denigrate someone else's position because it does not agree with yours. Does the phrase"doth protest too much" ring a bell? Somewhere, deep in your hunter's heart, some of you understand that it ain't fair, and react defensively to any questions on that issue. Now, if you want to explain why LR killing meets your concept of fair chase then I will be glad to listen and respond. And, I want to point out that I did NOT say you should not do it, just that I don't agree with it and you ain't going to do it on my ranch. Whether that makes me Mr. Ethics or not is not too clear to me, but it certainly brings up the question of what your ethical values are.
<br>
<br>At any rate, since the topic of this thread is hunter ethics, in an attempt to educate some of the interested readers and promote a discussion of the issue I am going to quote selectively from a forum about this question of fair chase as it relates to wildlife management organized by a professor at Michigan State and another individual in 1994. I am quoting because I don't profess to be a professional author, ethicist, or anything but a personal philosopher. If anyone cares to read the whole text the site is: http://www.fw.msu.edu/faculty/peyton/ethicsforum98.html
<br>
<br>All of the following are quotes but not necessarily from the same speaker, and, while I might not agree with every word or phrase it gives us a basis or starting point for discussing the concept of fair chase:
<br>
<br>The purpose of this continuing education forum was to examine the role of fish and wildlife management agencies in fair chase controversies--a growing ethical and management consideration for fish and wildlife agencies.
<br>
<br>Ethics: Rules of conduct recognized in respect to a particular group or culture and ranging in significance from rules of etiquette to moral standards.
<br>
<br>Fair Chase: A set of hunting conditions in which the individual decision-maker judges the taking of prey as acceptably uncertain and difficult for the hunter.
<br>
<br>It is important to highlight the range of principles embodied by "ethics" and to note that ethics are tied to specific groups or cultures. It is also important to point out the key role of the decision-maker in defining what is fair chase. If fair chase is in the eyes of the beholder, the question is not whether certain hunting methods reflect fair chase, but rather who should determine whether the fairness of chase is acceptable: the hunter, the agency, or the nonhunter?
<br>
<br>Like it or not, definition of fair chase is no longer the concern of only the individual hunter.
<br>
<br>For the hunter, fair chase serves at least two purposes. For one thing, fair chase helps define the hunter's relationship with the prey as one of respect for the organism and the species. A second purpose is to define the extent of the challenge associated with the hunt and therefore help to determine the benefits (satisfaction) to be derived from the experience.
<br>
<br>
<br>Hunters define the quality of the experience in their own way based on their individual motivations for certain benefits they can receive from hunting. Let's focus on four categories of motivations that have been found to be associated with hunting: desire to harvest; desire to practice/experience use of hunting-related skills; desire to experience challenge; and desire to meet ethical standards.
<br>
<br>Desire to experience challenge is more complex. Challenge may be created by decisions regarding choice of equipment, choice of method (stalking, still hunting, etc.) or conditions, and choice of the prey animal (restricting to large buck, etc.). A notion of fair chase is intricately linked to this motivation.
<br>
<br>Desire to meet ethical standards is also complex. Fair chase is one such ethical standard which reflects a value and respect for the prey, as well as defining the challenge and contributing to that motivation. Another ethical standard is concern for the welfare of the animal. Other ethical standards relate to hunting within the legal constraints, respect for other hunters and nonhunters, etc.
<br>
<br>These motivations are not independent and the hunter must decide on suitable tradeoffs among them
<br>
<br>I think that most reasonable people would agree that, while "ethical hunting" certainly invokes duties to other humans, "fair chase" necessarily implies direct duties of hunters and anglers to the animals they pursue.
<br>
<br>but unfair hunting and angling practices don't always result in more pain and suffering than do fair chase practices.
<br>
<br>Despite past and current efforts to legislate basic principles of fair chase, much of what constitutes fair chase will remain subject to the consciences of individual hunters and anglers.
<br>
<br>End Quoted text.
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>

I have posted my opinions previously, so won't go into that. Here's a question. What does Boone & Crockett say about trophies killed/shot/ taken ( you pick) using the means described in this whole discussion? I don't now, I'm just asking.

Saddlesore, answer....nothing.

Here is somthing to think about.
<br>
<br>I have heard references to our for father and indians and how they " stalked" game and "sneaked" up on them to get close in order to kill...
<br>
<br>Duh.. they had to.... Do you not think that if possible back then they would have much rather taken an animal in a relaxed state of mind from a spot and distance sufficient enough that even after the initial shot ( arrow or what ever ) the animal still would not be alarmed to the point of flight??? They could in theory taken numerous animals for their needs at any one hunting excursion.
<br>
<br>Would that be fair chase???
<br>
<br>my .02 I think so... remeber fellas we don't just go pick a spot and wait.. there is scouting, paterning, watching, and planning involved in our locations darn near year round, for me anyway.... and I am sure others as well.....

If B&C doesn't say anything, then it must be an OK fair chase.
<br>
<br>WW, but our ancestors or whoever, were subsistance hunting. If they didn't kill, they didn't eat. A lot different from what we do today. No argument here, just stating a fact

Darryl:
<br>
<br>Simple, if he was a friend, I would expect him to know my preferences, and second, if he showed up expecting to use his new found ability I would put him in one of the numerous spots that I have where a maximum shot was about 75 yards and he could either get the message or leave. Friends shouldn't step on friends feelings or opinions for the fun of it, particularly when they are hunting on my place..
<br>
<br>No question that you are entitled to your opinion and I am entitled to mine, however, let me remind you that the Long Range Forum was set up and the "Long Range" thread and "Hunter's Ethics" thread were moved to this location at the same time, and that I am not posting in the "Long Range" thread. Wonder if there could be some connection or do you think that happened by pure chance? I suggest that if you don't like criticism or someone questioning the hunting ethics of your activities then you are not going to like the 24hr Campfire since most of us are serious hunters and are not reticent about expressing our opinion. As far as fair chase and LR killing is concerned, I analogize it to a skunk, I don't have to know everything about a skunk, its habits, life styles, preferences, etc to know that one stinks. That said, if you think it is fair chase, and you want to do it, more power to you, just not on my place. And, I freely acknowledge the skills involved. However, there is a bigger issue and that is the public perception of LR hunting could and, if it became widely practiced, I believe would impact on all hunter's rights to hunt. Then your choices do become my concern. Simple solution that game departments could come up with, however unlikely it may seem, no scopes. More likely, they would ban hunting in the areas where LR was practicable or restrict it to shotguns only or several other possibilities come to mind. I'm not for any of those, but you are inviting exactly that result if you continue to evangelize how wonderful LR killing is.
<br>
<br>I don't know how to sum this up, I am not opposed to your activities, I just don't agree with them based on my ethics. It is a free country and, to this point, what you do is legal, so have at it, just don't try to tell me that a skunk smells like perfume.

Saddlesore and Big Sky:
<br>
<br>Here is the Boone and Crockett official statement on fair chase:
<br>
<br>FAIR CHASE, as defined by the Boone and Crockett Club, is the ethical, sportsmanlike and lawful pursuit and taking of any free-ranging wild, native North American big game animal in a manner that does not give the hunter an improper advantage over such animals.
<br>
<br>HUNTER ETHICS
<br>Fundamental to all hunting is the concept of conservation of natural resources. Hunting in today's world involves the regulated harvest of individual animals in a manner that conserves, protects, and perpetuates the hunted population. The hunter engages in a one-to-one relationship with the quarry and his or her hunting should be guided by a hierarchy of ethics related to hunting, which includes the following tenets:
<br>
<br>1. Obey all applicable laws and regulations.
<br>
<br>2. Respect the customs of the locale where the hunting occurs.
<br>
<br>3. Exercise a personal code of behavior that reflects favorably on your abilities and sensibilities as a hunter.
<br>
<br>4. Attain and maintain the skills necessary to make the kill as certain and quick as possible.
<br>
<br>5. Behave in a way that will bring no dishonor to either the hunter, the hunted, or the environment.
<br>
<br>6. Recognize that these tenets are intended to enhance the hunter's experience of the relationship between predator and prey, which is one of the most fundamental relationships of humans and their environment.
<br>
<br>End quoted text.
<br>
<br>Now, I am not going to "lawyer up" here and interpret what they say, but I would posit that they do have a position as relates to LR shooting, at least in some cases, and I leave it to the reader to decide what that might be. Hint: What does "improper advantage" mean to you, and evaluate your ideas on LR killing and #6.
<br>
<br>Finally, and I am not a B&C member, but why not ask them directly, describing the taking of an animal with a spotter at 1500 yards and get a response.
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>

Hey I was only asking because I didn't know. Maybe a reading on this might sway some folks to see the light.Read previous post and you will get my opinon on this matter.
<br>
<br>It is the non hunters that will decide the future. They are mostly nuetral, but when the percieve that we are not giving fair chase, or acting in a sportsmanlike fashion is when they become non nuetral. This is true whether we are talking about long range rifles, range finders, super light gahering scopes. compound bows. in-line muzzler loaders, or what have you. This seems to be a problem with the younger generation of hunters. Maybe because hunting time is at such apremium. Maybe they feel they just have to fill that tag. This is not about dividing hunters and picking on each other, this is about policing our own ranks. Have you not noticed that a lot of our license fees money are now going to non hunting programs. We are paying for the recreation of non hunters. The DOW has figured out what we haven't. That is keeping those non hunters happy.
<br>
<br>You have seen what is happening to ATV'ers in the west. They have refused to clean up thier act and are havng more and more country closed to them. It can happen to hunters too!

You asked what B+C had to say about all this and I still stand behind my statement. They don't have anything to say about long range hunting. If you kill an elk at 1400 yards, during the season, and legally tag it, and it's big enough to qualify for B+C, it's in. Just the same as if you shot it with a rifle at 100 yards, or a muzzle loader at 75 yards, or a bow at 25 yards. A person can interpret the Boone and Crockett qualifications any way they like and it still doesn't change the fact that animals killed at long range are still perfectly legal to enter AND WILL BE ACCEPTED. I'm not arguing. You asked, I answered with the truth of the matter.

If it flies
<br>
<br>I accept "your" analogy of ethics and fair chase as what you "yourself" have put into mind set.
<br>My feelings are certainly not the same so, I guess we will have to "agree to disagree."
<br>
<br>In other words, YOUR ethics seems to be a 75 or 100 yard shot as you mentioned where you would have your friend go with LR equipment, as per your post. That's fine ON YOUR PROPERTY, no doubt about it. If that's the way you prefer to hunt that's fine too.
<br>
<br>Quite possibly you or someone else here, may perfer hunting with a 30/30 lever action rifle like our Grandfathers did? Would this be more ethical to you for everyone to do, also?
<br>
<br>The factory equipment of today is MUCH more powerful and designed to kill at "longer ranges" and exert more energy. Is this ethical for you to use them at 200 or 300 yards Max instead of 75 or 100 yards? Am I seeing here that you guys are putting a yardage limit on ethics?
<br>
<br>Now apply fair chase to the new more powerful rifle or the 30/30. Should the various game commissions ban scoped rifles, magnum factory cartridges, bi-pods and also put a yardage limit on your shots? Would that make you or anyone using ethics and Fair chase as your main point, happier? You know thats rediculous to ever think that would happen.
<br>
<br>Should we go back to the 45/70 or the 50/70 that the buffalo hunters used to kill Buffs at yardages to 750 yards and beyond?
<br>Heaven forbid, THAT WAS "LONGRANGE HUNTING" and killing OVER 100 years ago wasn't IT?
<br>We could go back to it but, what about your ethics to that caliber and yardage it was used at?? Is/was it OK to do that back then?
<br>Probably the Indians used ethics and fair chase against the Buffalo hunters too, don't you think? I can't blame them either but I'm making the point as to the yardage they shot out to, back then. To me, it was NOT ethical to kill that many food giving animals and let the meat rot. THAT truely was unethical. Not the distance they killed it at but, the wasting of the meat
<br>
<br>It sounds to me that most of you denouncing LR hunting and using ethics or Fair chase as your platform, are trying to set limits that only you can accomplish with your own rifles? Does ethics and fair chase really have a yardage attached to it with modern day equipment? Better then that, should it.
<br>
<br>What we can do at 1000 yards many shortrange hunters can't at 100 yards. Who is unethical here???
<br>
<br>Is a compound or cross bow, ethical compared to the straight long bow?
<br>Is a 200 yard shot ethical but a 300 yarder not?
<br>Is your idea of fair chase to ALWAYS be within shorter ranges and to be on foot and stalk your prey. Don't ever use a horse or ATV because that may not be within someone's pleasure and they may complain about fair chase and ethics.
<br>
<br>I respect anyones thoughts on any type of hunting and who am I to disagree how far or close they choose to kill their game or, what caliber they use to do it?
<br>
<br>Our main objective is to kill the game and we as LR hunters and you short range hunters will agree with that, I'm sure.
<br>
<br>There's room for all of us and I don't see a problem forth coming from any game commission concerning the style of hunting one enjoys.
<br>
<br>Darryl Cassel
<br>
<br>

I'm a might confused here. Sky, you say nothing is said, Flies /Dies, I assumed what you posted was out of some publication by B&C. Would one of you claify for me. I'm not trying to start something here, just an answer. Thanks to both.
<br>
<br>Ok, let's push the envelope. What if it is killed at say 3200 yds using a 50BMG. Is that still fair chase. OK then how about 8500 yds using a shoulder fired stinger missile. What I'm getting at is at some time, something has to give here. Is the only limiting factor is that they be free ranging. I don't ever planning on shooting B&C head, but it could happen. Just seems like that would be a good starting place as to what is and what isn't

Saddlesore it would depend on if 50BMG's and stingers were legal firearms in the State of the Kill!! Remember it has to be killed by the book and unless on Federal property States decide the various game laws

I have been doing some serious thinking about LR shooting and its implications for the last few days and I have come to the conclusion that for ME(that is me, personally, not telling someone else what they can do legally) that it is well beyond my definition of fair chase. And the pricipal reason I came to that conclusion is that the animal has no real chance of using his natural defenses or knowledge of the terrrain to avoid several people sitting in a position where they can command a view of several square miles of countyside.
<br>
<br>I want to preface my statement by saying I respect everyone's choice to hunt how they want to as long as it is legal.
<br>
<br>I do have questions about the reality of this statement, because if I hunt over a clearcut or Sendero or across an open section of hardwoods that you can see several hundred yards in, and I do my part of staying downwind and still, I have denied the animal of its natural abilities of detecting me haven't I??? The only fair way to hunt is let lower order animals do it! We are by design a superior species with the ability to reason and draw conclusions so it is by design that we are an unfair match for the game we pursue.
<br>
<br>Just playing devil's advocate on this because I have neither the money to buy the equipment nor location to develop the skills to get out beyond 600yds.
<br>
<br>
<br>Mike

Is a person sitting inside a blind in a scent lock suit overlooking a food plot a FAIR chase hunter???????

Saddlesore:
<br>
<br>That is the official Boone and Crockett position statement on fair chase off of their web site. Sky is correct that the fair chase statement does not specifically address LR killing. Whether it would come into play if a trophy killed in such a manner and B and C had knowledge of it is open to question in my mind. If someone knows of one that has been accepted with B and Cs knowledge of the situation, then that would appear to settle that question, at least for now.
<br>
<br>Darryl:
<br>
<br>I debated whether I should post my "conscientious" objections to LR, but decided that I would because I believe them to be valid. Initially I thought, well, why not, but the longer I considered it, the more I decided that LR sporting game killing is fundamentally not fair. You obviously do not agree, and that is your choice, we all have to live with our own conscience. You are missing my point, either deliberately or on purpose. It is not the killing or the distance, it is whether it is fair chase to shoot something that has no chance of detecting your presence and has no reaction to "sighter shots". Obviously you think it is, I disagree. Somehow the idea of a spotter and sighter shots does not fill me with the thrill of the hunt. It is target shooting with live game to me, not hunting. Chac un a son gout.
<br>
<br>I had a very accurate .308 with a T 16 scope on it, with all the clicks to 500m memorized 2 years ago, saw the biggest buck anyone has seen in this country for several years standing broadside on a small pond damn on my property at 573 yards from me, lasered with the Bushnell Pro800 I had with me. I did not shoot him, even though there was no question in my mind I could have killed him. Why, he was out of what I considered to be my hunting area, and thus had no knowledge that I was there. You would have shot him and I don't blame you, I passed and have had no regrets. Maybe that says something to you, maybe it doesn't.
<br>
<br>Your buffalo hunters and indians observations have no relevance to todays sport hunters. One was for subsistence and one was for money, neither of which apply to most, if not all LR gunners I am sure.
<br>
<br>I am not disputing your right to do it, just whether it is right to do it. It is not your skill levels, which I respect greatly. It is how you choose to use them.
<br>
<br>As you said, our hunting equipment and knowledge have improved, but the game animals have not. Does that mean that we have to use every modern trick to kill them? Maybe to you, not to me. Would it be fair chase to hike around elk country and position video cams so that you would know in real time which draw to go to for the big one? Just more technology to you, I suppose. How about locating them by air? Just another modern convenience. I think Saddlesore had an excellent point above, would you consider ANY distance to be too far? 5000 yards? Why not? I haven't read all the relevant state laws, but I doubt that many would restrict the size of the gun on the upper end, why not use a 20mm? A 105? Or a 20mm necked down to .50 or .49. If it was legal, is that fair? If not, why not? I hate to sum up your position, but I suppose that if it is legal it is OK with you and that is your right. I just hold myself to some higher personal standards than the legal ones.
<br>
<br>And finally, I strongly believe that a spreading trend towards LR gunning would rapidly and inevitably lead to restrictions on methods of hunting, and it would likely be lead by hunters. You may disagree but hunters have a pretty good record of deciding what is fair and what is not, we just prefer that the members of our sport would be self policing, but that does not always seem to work. Only time will tell if I am right, but technology will continue to improve and at some point the use of it will have to be restricted.
<br>
<br>
<br>