Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Long Range Hunting Hunter Ethics

All the discussion on long range shooting raises questions about ethics on both sides. No this is not intended to be an attack on the long range shooters so don't get your knickers in a twist as the brits say. This is simply a discussion. Everyone has ethics some good some bad. Are mine better than yours or yours better than mine. Who knows. My ethics require I go for a clean one shot kill. I pass up shots where I do not think I can get the clean kill. If that means going home with an unfilled tag so be it. I teach hunter education here in Colorado and part of the course is hunter ethics and respondabilty. No you can not teach someone ethics, but maybe we can put them on the path anyway. My biggest concern is lost game. every elk or deer that is wounded and lost to die and that is found later by a non-hunter is a strike against in the war being waged by the anti's to end hunting forever. The reason I am opposed to the general discussion of long range shooting is that not everyone can do it. You guys spend a lot of time and money to pursue your shooting and I admire someone that can shoot at those ranges. The other tread was starting to fall into name calling so I just wanted to state my postion on this without any attacking. I think this is the postion that the others that have objected would take as well. tom

Tom,
<br>
<br>Personally I would say it is ethical to kill any animal with one shot. Unfortunately that isn't reality. To error is human. We all make mistakes. As long as they are non-intentional mistakes I don't have a problem with them. Personally I do everything I can to minimize my mistakes when making a shot on any animal.
<br>
<br>When I aim on a deer, whether it be 75 yards or 420 plus yards I have to have a certain level of confidence in myself for that moment to squeeze the trigger. If the confidence is not there, I simply don't shoot.
<br>
<br>You stated: "The reason I am opposed to the general discussion of long range shooting is that not everyone can do it." I would politely ask: Can everyone kill a dove everytime they shoot at one? Somebody told me, and I am not sure if the numbers are correct or not, that it takes, on average, 12 rounds to kill one dove. Do we call that unethical? Is it unresponsible? My intention is not to slam you or anybody by asking this. Anybody that has hunted for any length of time has missed and anybody that has hunted for any length of time has or will have lost an animal. I have, in both cases. I was extremely upset, with myself, when I lost an animal. When I missed I was glad it was a clean miss, or at least I was hopefull it was a clean miss. If I was not sure, and most times I wasn't, I always go over to where the animal was when I shot and spend a lot of time looking for any indication of a hit. To me, thats being responsible for my actions. I am hopefull that most hunters will do the same.
<br>
<br>I have a higher level of confidence shooting a deer at 400 plus yards (off a bench) then I do shooting a deer at 50 yards (offhand). In fact I won't shoot at a deer (offhand) at 50 yards since my level of confidence is so low for that shot. I shake like a dog [bleep] razor blades, thus for me to shoot offhand (unless the deer is very close) is futile, at best.
<br>
<br>By getting into the longer range hunting it has enabled me to continue to hunt. A sport I truely enjoy.
<br>
<br>I think we have to be carefull when blanketing the LR Hunters. I do not have the skill of these guys that can kill a deer at 1000 yards and further. These people have obviously done their homework and practice a LOT at their craft. For me to make a general statement that what they are doing is in any way wrong, would be wrong, of me. IMO.
<br>
<br>Becuase of my physical limitations I doubt I will ever get anywhere near their level of precision shooting/hunting at the distances they do all the time but I can still be interested in it and learn from them. To me, part of the joy of it all is the learning process.
<br>
<br>Have a good one,
<br>
<br>Don
<br>
<br>

And I quote, "The reason I am opposed to the general discussion of long range shooting is that not everyone can do it." Hmmmm, wonder if the same could be said for bowhunting or muzzle loading? Care to open that can of worms? Darn rights it's not for everyone, neither are the other two forms of hunting I just mentioned. For heck sakes hunting isn't for everyone, so quit knit-pickin. However some of us really appreciate the information shared on these boards and really don't like seeing good folks run off just because their style of hunting or shooting doesn't fit in with the masses. Open minds really need to prevail.

My grandfather once told me "A man's ignorance regarding any hunting issue is directly related to the piece of ground he's standing on when he opens his mouth". I didn't realize how right he was until I started hunting in other areas of the country and reading hunting boards on the net.
<br>
<br>Long range is something I presently have no desire to get into myself. I do however enjoy hearing about the performance of the equipment. Maybe some of the "ethics" police will explain some of these others to me:
<br>
<br>1. Hunting deer with dogs is unethical but hunting birds with dogs isn't?
<br>2. Hunting deer with 22 centerfires is unethical but bows/arrows aren't?
<br>3. Putting corn in a feeder out is unethical baiting but hunting at the edge of a harvested cornfield isn't?
<br>
<br>etc, etc.
<br>

NuAG. You know you are entirely right. Gene put me in my place when he said we are taking our selves to seriously. I genuinely admire people that can shoot long distance for the dedication and concentration it takes. I just disagree with the taking of game that way. I was raised in the very country that those folks are in. I disagreed with it then when I was 18 and I still do 40 years later
<br>
<br>Someone once said that ethics is what you do when there is no one watching you.
<br>
<br>Even in the baiting issue, you can sure get into heated discusions with the feds over shooting waterfowl. This is as to what is baited and what is normal agricultural purposes. In differnt parts of the country what is ethical in one place is deemed not in another. Re lion hunting in CA, Buckshot for deer in the south, running deer with dogs in the south, so on and so on.
<br>
<br>However, we need to police ourselves to the non hunting puplic such that the we do not portray our selves as just blood thirst killers. In the end, it is those people that will decide if our hunting traditional survives in the future. This was brought home very thorougly here in Colorado, when all the non hunters mounted a campaign as to how cruel it was to hunt bear in the spring as all the hunters were suppose to be orphaning cubs. By initiative, they brought the question to a vote before the general public and convinced the voters to ban spring bear hunting, baiting and hunting with dogs. This can occur in every state in the union. To boot, the effort was bankrolled by out of staters.
<br>
<br>Your grandfathers statement is very true, but in todays society, we must also worry about those other peple that do not hunt.
<br>
<br>

Tom, did you ever catch George Carlin on driving? "Anyone driving slower than you is a freaking moron, and anyone driving faster than you is a freaking maniac!" I think that pretty much applies to ethics. What you do without a thought may cause someone else alot of grief. Probably better to let that can of worms un-opened.
<br>
<br>We were all brought up differently, so we all have different ideas of what is right and what is wrong. I'm like you in that I limit my shots to what I'm sure of. I'm pretty picky of my shots because, as I've said, it bothers me very badly to lose one that's been hit. Someone who violates state game laws bothers me much less than someone who won't make the effort to recover a wounded deer.
<br>
<br>As for the long range stuff, well if these guys want to spend the money for gear, and the time to become good at it, that's up to them. They say that they never loose one, and while I generaly stay away from constant statements, who am I to argue? I can't prove they did any more than they can prove they didn't.
<br>
<br>The only thing bothering me is some inexperienced person reading these stories, and thinking he can do it too. The guys who know enough to limit their shots, generaly know they don't need a super-dooper magnum to kill deer. But those super-dooper magnums sell more and more every year. Do you think everybody buying one of them is bothering to practice like these guys? Me neither.
<br>7mm

Gentlemen -
<br>
<br>As hunters, we are taking the life of a living creature. I'm sure it could care less about our 'ethics'. If we comply with the laws governing the sport, the rest doesn't matter, otherwise, we get into the arbitrary process of determining what the 'ethics' should be, and who sets them. If I really cared how "proud and noble" the animal was, I wouldn't kill it. I'm going to cut it up and eat it. End of story.
<br>
<br>R-WEST

7mmBuster, don't misunderstand me and think that I'm trying to start an arguement with you because I'm not. I full well agree with pretty much everything you said in your first paragraph. I also understand your concern for someone running out and buying the latest mega-blaster to snipe deer with at a 1000yds. However here's the truth of the matter. Everyone has to start somewhere and hopefully along that line of education they develop some ethics and understanding of what hunting means to them. If it was mandatory that we all start as expert (meaning no mistakes allowed) then how many hunters do you think would be out there. I would venture a guess that bowhunting wouldn't even exist if that were the case. I used to bowhunt a lot, for over a decade it was an all consuming passion. However I eventually completely lost interest in it for a number of reasons. I was deeply involved during my hiatus though and I can tell you right now the average bowhunter isn't nearly as proficient as the average rifle man. Why? Because bowhunting takes more time to master....just like long range hunting. As far as time and dedication are concerned I see no difference between someone using a primitive weapon and someone wanting to become skilled at long range hunting. If you can't put in the time, one should think real hard about whether they have any business flipping an arrow or launching a bullet at a live target.

Heck, Sky, I know everyone has got to start somewnere. I was lucky enough to have a father who loves to hunt, and cared enough to start me off right and give me guidance. I think you mis-understood me. There are alot of folks buying these mega-blaster magnums who have no intention of learning. They hear someone talk of a 1000 yrd kill, and think "Wow, I got the same gun, so I can do it too!".
<br>
<br>We all agree that there is no substitute for experience, no matter how close or far you're hunting. But you and I both know that some will try to substitute money for experience.
<br>7mm

It's all good. Ethics means limiting yourself to shots you know you can make. Like for me, shooting a deer 50 yards offhand is not an ethical problem like it is for DonKnows. In the same token, taking a deer at 300+ yards isn't the ethical problem for DonKnows that it is for me.

I think a lot of the problem on the other thread is that - without realizing it - some folks are confusing ethics with preferences.I cannot fathom deer hunting as a two person sport,as in needing a spotter.It's obvious that a spotter is needed for the LR hunting those fellows do, but that is in direct conflict with what I enjoy about deer hunting.
<br>
<br>I would much rather share a camp with saddlesore where we each go hunt the territory we prefer and meet back at camp.I wouldn't enjoy the LR hunting at all.I don't have to try it to know I dont like it.
<br>
<br>I have my own hunting ethics and they dont differ greatly from the majority on here. I can agree with a man on ethics and be his friend even if we have different preferences.It's hard to imagine being friends with a man whose ethical standards were far different from mine.
<br>
<br>That's why I think it's important to distinguish between preferences and ethics.

I can't find a way to link ethics with range of shot! I know if I am hunting out of my climbing deer stand that my shots will be off hand or if enough time possibly propped on one knee! So I hunt in the woods when using this stand shots are 0-100yds...
<br>
<br>Now put me on the ground at the edge of a field and things change dramatically. Either froma sitting sling position or prone off a rest my range doubles or triples without a lot of hooplahh.
<br>
<br>Now throw in a bipod and some rear bags and it comes down to my knowlege of the range, trajectory of rifle and load, and ability to manipulate the scope for above! All of a sudden a hundred yards seems like rock throwing distance...
<br>
<br>The bottom line for me is making shots within our own ability and having the discipline to pass up a shot. I have met MANY people who have never seen a shot they wouldn't take a crack at....That is un-ethical to me.
<br>
<br>Mike

Gene you may just well be right. Everybody has what they were brought up with or what they have learned over time. I grew up with a certain set of more or less self imposed hunting rules taught me by my dad and uncles. I was also around a lot of outlaws who taught me other things. I know how to do a lot of things that will result in meat on the ground if that is all I cared about. Not exactly illegal things either but just things that don't fit with the way I believe I ought to do things. I could post them but I won't because somebody would try them and I wouldn't want it on my consience. I'd wager that most of us old heads are like that.
<br>No man is fit to tell another how to live his life as long as what the other fellow is doing is legal.
<br>As to the long range whoop te do going on the other thread all I have to say is this. My idea of hunting does not include killing deer with crew served weapons and computers. I won't be around it, I would not allow it on any of the property that I have or control, I want no part of it and I have my opinion concerning those who do that sort of thing. That opinion I will keep to my self even though it may be fairly obvious. I am reasonably sure that some feel the same way about the use of feeders and food plots as I do about the long rangers. Fine, they can stay on their side of the fence and I will stay on mine. Easiest way for me to keep the peace is just not read that thread any more and make no more comment about it
<br>BCR

Ready,
<br>
<br>"The bottom line for me is making shots within our own ability and having the discipline to pass up a shot. I have met MANY people who have never seen a shot they wouldn't take a crack at....That is un-ethical to me."
<br>
<br>I agree
<br>
<br>I think "some" of the people here have missed that point.
<br>Just tossing lead out there hoping to hit a deer is a lot different then knowing the distance (not guessing) and knowing through practice what needs to be done to kill that deer. It really doesn't matter if the distance is 100 yards, 400 yards or more.
<br>
<br>Don

I posted here because the other thread keeps burning my fingers when I touch the keyboard. The only thought lingering for me was that it has been said repeatedly that the LR guys always look for orange before they shoot. In Colorado and other states which require orange this is a good thing. However, can they see a guy in camo at those ranges? No sarcasm at all, just curious. 8ball

PBLR found a guy a few year's ago dressed in FULL CAMO the first day of PA BUCK SEASON.He said the thing that caught his eye was the sunlight reflecting off the guy's glasses. The main thing we look for is movement.A person sitting at 1000 yard's even in camo is easy to pick out when they move.And they WILL move.I did'nt know there were any state's that don't have an orange law on public ground.

Yes, Oregon still has held out. Don't know how long, but so far so good. If you don't get far enough off the road, the bright color makes you too good a target for the one-weekend-a-year warriors.
<br>
<br>

Well I know here in Canada at least here in B.C. we are not required to wear any orange and I know of people that have blinds set up on cut lines that I would wonder whether anybody would be able to see them.
<br>
<br>Makes me wonder sometimes how safe they are as they blend in and you can not see movement and being usually constructed of natural cover such as branches and small trees they could possibly have deer wander up to them and someone a ways away could shoot at said deer and never know someone was in there.
<br>
<br>As for long range shooting, I have taken some long shots but nothing out of the ordinary for most experienced shooters.
<br>I do pass up any questionable shots and that is just the way I am.
<br>Like Boggy has said, I was brought up in a hunting family and Dad instilled some hard and fast rules and ethics that we all live by.
<br>I have as someone said not YET lost one, don't intend to and hope never to, but there is always "Murphys law."

I'm in Oreegun also and while I hope we're never required to wear the "pumpkin suits", I won't wear camo either. With some of the "hunters" I see here (east side of the coast range) I'd rather be seen and not carried out. The day after a few of us were discussing it last season,I was sitting on a stump glassing , and what do I see across the canyon but a "hunter " glassing with his riflescope,and guess who was in the crosshairs?!! It being after a few cups of coffee and feeling a little twitchy I dropped behind the stump and commenced shouting a few choice phrases(such as a likely but physically impossible place to deposit said rifle and scope). Caught up with him and explained that he may want to purchase a set of binoc.s and that my first impulse when seeing a firearm pointed at me is to point back and REALLY hope I don't hear a shot in the near vicinity. As for long range hunting, my brother in law and I hunt moderate range (out to 525 yds or so,we're always within a couple miles of each other,when we spot one just call the other to watch the animal while we shoot. Unless spooked they won't move much in the meantime and always drop like a rock. As stated before, you have to know when to hold em and when to fold em , and I'v passed on more than a few that just didn't feel right. On the other hand thers a lot of guys that shoot quite successfully at moving deer,I would'nt feel comfortable doing that at 10-20 yds. Well the 24hourcampfight (shooters) is getting totally out of hand, guess I'll hang with you guys for awhile. Jeff

Glad you're back.gene

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>

If it flies
<br>
<br>Thank you for your very nice explanation of your feelings. I respect them very much.
<br>
<br>As per the 500 Yard shot on the large buck, I would not have teken it either (please don't think I am being a smart A__ here) That shot would have been too "close" for my hunting group. We would NOT have taken it, honestly.
<br>
<br>We dont even shoot at Ground hogs till they are at least 600 yards away. It's a waste of our barrel steel. An automatic kill, thats not much of a challenge for us.
<br>
<br>The game commissions know of our hunting technique and think that we are the safest hunters afield. This is especially true in Pennsylvania (we have Wardens hunt with us) and also in Colorado. With our safety record I don't forsee a problem as long as we can explain and help the newbie on how to do it correctly before an accident happens..
<br>
<br>Have a good one
<br>Darryl
<br>
<br>As an add on here---I really don't see a difference of a Bow hunter or gun hunter sitting in his tree stand with scent on to mask his human scent and waiting to "ambush" his quarry at REAL close range or 100 yards away. We as LR hunters are just further away and ambushing the same way. It's the elemint of surprise regardless of what range you shoot. Even the person sneaking up closer to an animal is doing it with ambush and surprise in mind. If the animal didn't know you were there, it is an ambush rergardless of the range.
<br>
<br>As I stated, we don't need the spotter or partner if we are only killing out to 1000 yards.
<br>The main desire in All hunting, regardless of the style, is to try to ambush the animal at any range we feel comfortable with killing it at.
<br>
<br>You and i both know that, you don't want an animal to know your anywhere around until after you pull the trigger and he is on the ground dead.
<br>Don't you agree to that?
<br>
<br>I also passed up 3 bucks this past season that my wife or I could have killed.
<br>I too want to be more selective.
<br>
<br>

Hey guys, I don't have a dog in this fight but do have what should be a simple question. If the long range shooting these guys are talking about is unethical, what range should people be limited too. To phrase it differently, at what range are shots ethical and beyond that unethical? TM

Adding to the B&C debate: I'm pretty certain of a few rules they have and will do my best to look them up. One is the use of electronic devices. I'm pretty sure that if it came out that you used a computer on location to figure your drop, you'd be disqualified, just like the dude who used an electronic elk call to call in what would have been the new world record bull. There are also restrictions on laser range finders. If memory serves, if they are built into the scope: no record.

Hello Muley
<br>
<br>My group and I would be safe as per the records.
<br>My drop chart is taped on the side of the rifle before I go out hunting. No computer used while we are hunting. Some do but, I don't.
<br> I have no laser rangefinder device that is in the scope, it is hand held and seperate.
<br>
<br>The computer for me is just for the elevation and temperature we are hunting in and to make the drop charts ahead of time.
<br>
<br>Darryl
<br>
<br>PS--- Don't forget to wave.
<br>
<br>Now if I could only find a record bull where I hunt.

I was just thinking (I know its dangerous for me) that todays vehicles are far superior and more powerfull than what came before, so therefore we should be able to use them at faster than posted speeds or to race someone or use them in a manner in which we feel is okay is similar to saying rifles are more powerful so lets use them for reaching out farther. Whereas I think one could make the point that all the manufactures set out to do was to make them more reliable and to do there designed job at the normal hunting range more efficiently, and offering up something that would allow you to get the job done quicker and deadlier to alleviate any suffering on the part of the animal. Just a thought, and yes I have taken some longer than average shots and as long as one has the skill I guess who am I to say they shouldn't.

Darryl:
<br>
<br>On a slightly different base we are replaying the original objections raised to sniping as a legitimate wartime activity. It was accepted as a useful tool of wartime because if has become the general view that, with the exception of the Geneva Convention, there are no "rules" of war. I just feel that game animals are not a legitimate target for assassination, as some poster put it. Yeah, it is a gray area and I am not sure where the line should be drawn, but my conscience says that it is long before a 1000 yards. BTW, I didn't get into this but in a no wind situation from a bench(I don't use bipods so can't comment on them) I agree that hitting a deer size targets kill zone at 1000 yards is quite easy with the proper set up. I dunno about past that, have never shot that far. But that is not my point.
<br>
<br>I appreciate the courtesy you have maintained in your replies and, while we have very different views about what constitutes fair chase I wish you the best of luck with your shooting.
<br>
<br>Unless I receive some more pertinent information about some of the topics we have touched on, I have explained my position as well as I am capable of so there is no gain for either of us in continuing this discussion. Best wishes CAT

Travelingman
<br>
<br>That was exactly my point.
<br>
<br>Who has been self appointed to put a yardage on ethics for another hunter?
<br>
<br>I believe that its every hunters responsibility to know what he and his equipment are capable of doing at ANY range. If he's comfortable with a set range fine, regardless of far it is.
<br>
<br>Ethics are for the individual hunter "himself" and not what he feels should be for ANYBODY and EVERYBODY else.
<br>300 Yards may be ethinical for one hunter while others may feel that it should be 100 yards Max.
<br>
<br>It's a no win situation for the Longrange hunter as opposed to the short range hunter because he doesn't have any idea how it's done (for the most part) and the equipment we have, to make sure it's done right.
<br>
<br> As long as my friends and I are comfortable with long killing shots, we will continue to do so because it is our choice to do and we have been VERY successful at it.
<br>
<br>We as Longrange Hunters are within the game laws
<br>of every State and kill cleanly, any animal the size of deer or elk, we go after.
<br>
<br>Hunting is hunting and dead is dead regardless of the range and method.
<br>
<br>Darryl Cassel

As several posters have mentioned on this thread and on others we hunters are not the ones who will be allowed to determine what we will be permited to do. The general population will determine that. At present the general population is neutral on hunting for the most part but that can change quickly.
<br>
<br>To the general population perception is reality. You who engage in ultra long range shooting see that a goodly number of your fellow hunters just on this board have reservations concerning your method of hunting being ethical. No matter how well you explain your postion and how articulate you are the reservations are still there. No matter how you reguard us or we you I believe our respective postions are honestly come by.
<br>
<br>What will be the opinion of the casual hunter who either can not afford the quite considerable financial outlay that your method requires. The one who does not wish to invest the time and discipline necessary to master ultra long range big game shooting. They vastly out number the dedicated. No matter how many disciples you attract you will always be outnumbered as I see it. If he perceives you as elitest snobs taking animals in a manner he can have no hope of taking I believe he too, rightly or wrongly, will turn against you as being "unfair".
<br>
<br>If the general population begins to believe that shooting animals from specialized firearms at great distances making use of the latest technological gizmo is somehow unfair then it will be legislated out of existence. It is my belief that it will be a very short time span before the use of the 50bmg round will be outlawed for hunting.
<br>
<br>It can happen. Indeed it will happen. Witness California and the ban on cougar hunting. Many states outlaw the use of dogs and bait for bear. Some states outlaw the use of bait for any game animal. I have had the pleasure of handling and fireing a fine 8bore shot gun. It was beautiful and not at all the ponderous thing you would imagine. They are outlawed for hunting because they were perceived to be unfair. In wildfouling the use of live decoys and baiting were outlawed because they were perceived to be un-ethical. Just the same the ultra long range hunting will be outlawed if it is perceived by the general population to be un-ethical. Whether or no you think we should cater to the opinions of non hunters in reality we must because it is by their sufferance we are allowed to hunt. That most especially applies to publicly owned ground.
<br>
<br>I suppose we are faced with the age old question of just because a thing can be done should it be done. That question must be answered by each individual for himself. Then again, perception is reality for most.
<br>BCR

I came on this quite by chance over breakfast this morning. I, like many people who like to read and grew up pre-computer(luckily, even though I love my cyberspace)used to and still do oversubscribe to publications on topics that interest me. At one time I was receiving over 40 magazines a month and, having other minor things to do, like make enough money to keep eating and shooting, I got behind on my reading. So am slowly catching up, by reading and discarding the old ones while saving any articles that I find particularly interesting.
<br>
<br>This is from Field and Stream, Jan 1998, written by David Petzal, the executive editor at that time and is just a part of the article titled, "Rifle Resolutions".
<br>
<br>Quoted text begins:
<br>
<br>In 1998, I will stop letting the rifle overload my other skills. Too many hunters lean very hard on the gun to get their game. A hunter must first and foremost be a woodsman and a naturalist. Being a hunter means acquiring knowledge of the animal and its habitat, and cultivating presistence and stoicism. A really skillful shot who is not all of these things will get game--possibly a lot of game, because modern rifles are so efficient--but he will not truly be a hunter.
<br>
<br>End quoted text.

I have been gone for awhile and kinda sitting back reading today..
<br>
<br>I want to stop for just a moment and say a heart felt "Thank You" for attempting to calmly exchange your very differant viewpoints and remain civil.. For the most part anyway... (grin)
<br>
<br>How nice to see you guys stay so cool on a subject that several of you feel very strongly about. Quite a pleasant change from some of the exchanges I have seen before. Oh sure there is a nitwit or two that usually try to spoil it, but it was nice to watch the wiser more level headed spearhead the exchange this time. Sure allowed the differant views to be more clea-rly understood without the shouting didn't it
<br>
<br>This has been a great read !! And a neat insight into some of the posters themselves...
<br>
<br>Bravo !! Wish they always went this well...
<br>
<br>Tex

BCR
<br>
<br>Our numbers are fast becoming more then you would think.
<br>The granola eating, tree huggers will concentrate their efforts on HUNTING certain species period, as they have done in the past. They don't like ANY kind of killing.
<br>Why should we try to fight between ourselves, as to your opinion or anyone else for that matter, concerning LR hunting? We are hunters , all of us.
<br>It's not my business how you hunt and kill and it's not yours how I do it as long as both of us are within the framework of the game laws.
<br>
<br>We shoud accept everyones right to hunt anyway they choose as long as it is legal to do so and in any State they wish to buy a license in.
<br>
<br>We should also ban together as ONE UNIT of HUNTERS.
<br>Maybe you don't like Bow hunting or muzzle loader hunting either but, it's here to stay. We must accept that fact.
<br>Some hunters would strongly argue that sticking an arrow in a game animal and causeing a slow death many times, is unethical? I don't feel that way because I am also a Bow hunter.
<br>
<br>I do believe we have the right to hunt and persue game anyway we wish as long as it's legal and would hope you would agree to that and give others their space. I certainly respect everyones (yours included) right to hunt the way they want to. I will never impose my style on anyone unless, they are interested and ask questions pertaining to it.
<br>
<br>FYI --I don't use a 50 cal on game but, several years ago Idaho put on a 15# rifle weight limit and no 50 Cals are allowed. I can certainly live with that as, we have 15# rifles that will kill at extreme range.
<br>
<br>*******************************************
<br>If It Flies
<br>
<br>Looks like we meet another time here.
<br>
<br>As per the article you read and posted, do you suppose that was another "Short Range hunters" opinion?
<br>
<br>That is just another uninformed person stating what "he" thinks a hunt or hunter should be.
<br>That sounds a bit familar to me. "HIS OPINION" again.
<br>
<br>I would have to bet, that writer has never seen what can be done at LR and how fast a kill is made. Until someone sees it done, they simply have NO IDEA what they are talking about concerning it. If they have seen it done correctly and still don't like it (normally not the case) then I could accept that from them.
<br>I just can't imagine "me" commenting on something I know nothing about or have NEVER seen and that's the problem with several people who have made comments on the internet over the years concerning LR hunting.
<br>
<br>I believe our style of hunting is here to stay and only time will tell.
<br>
<br>*******************************************
<br>Back to BCR for a moment.
<br>
<br>As far as expensive equipment is concerned, as I believe you mentioned, it's NO different then you driving a Cadillac and someone else driving a Chevy. I believe you call that "Personal preferance." My rifles and the LR hunters rifles, just happens to be a bit more expensive then some out there. We want the MOST accuracy we can possibly have and that normally means custom rifles.
<br>
<br>*******************************************
<br>Texas Hunter
<br>Thank you for the kind words pertaining to this thread. I believe I speak for BOTH sides of the issue.
<br>
<br>******************************************
<br>
<br>To sum this up, how about if we just consider all styles of hunting as "one fraternal organization" and just live with everyones else's decision, as to, how they want to do it?
<br>I can live with anyone's decision, even though it may not be for me.
<br>
<br>Darryl Cassel
<br>
<br>The smell of burning gun powder makes me horney even at my age.
<br>

Darryl:
<br>
<br>If you call this meeting, we will continue to meet. I'm not chasing you around, you are responding to a post I made with another man's viewpoint which reflects mine. Why don't you post some published views that support your activities if you don't like my choices?
<br>
<br>I don't know Mr. Petzal's, the executive editior of Field and Stream, history vis a vis rifle shooting but if you READ what he wrote instead of react it is immaterial how well you can kill an animal at extreme ranges. He says that it is not hunting and I agree, it is shooting at live targets to see if you can do it. He may not know how well you can do it, but read it again and see if you believe it would change his opinion or write and ask him if he would publish an article on your activities endorsing them. He might for the interest it would generate. IMO you had better hope he does not. Since he is the executive editor of one of the widest circulating outdoor magazines, somehow I think his opinion might carry more weight than yours. Did you ever wonder why Idaho restricted rifle weights? Maybe if Idaho and other states understand what you are doing, they will restrict the wt to 10 lbs or the caliber or both. Just as some states are now banning the use of in-lines in muzzleloading season.. It will happen if your "sport" becomes widespread. I cannot understand how from a hunting POV that you can be proud of what you do and firmly believe that if the knowledge of your style of "sport" becomes widely circulated then restrictions will soon follow. And, I can honestly say this, without it reflecting just my opinion, that if you can't convince even most of the hunters that what you do is fair chase, and I don't believe that you can, then if the public at large gets hold of it, it will without question, result in further restricitions on all hunter's priviledges.

If it flies
<br>
<br>I'm not chasing you around, just responding to your comments to me and to LR hunting as a whole.
<br>
<br>There is a great interest In longrange hunting. Even this forum has many interested posters that have responded in a positive way. They truly want to know how it's done.
<br>There is however, a handfull of you who disagree and always will and that's fine. It's NOT for you and I agree you probably should never hunt any different then the way you are.
<br>
<br>Magazines articles have been written about LR hunting many years ago and in the last few years.
<br>Even the PA Game commision writers have published In the Game news, accounts of what we do.
<br>
<br>We sometimes hunt with off duty Wardens , some of which are members of the Williamsport 1000 yard club.
<br>They don't have a problem with LR hunting at all.
<br>
<br>It seems the ONLY folks who have a problem with it are those who really don't know about it or have never seen it done.
<br>Even though there are some that, disagree with our way of hunting, it's not a grudge match BETWEEN us and those who don't AGREE.
<br>Maybe there are those that don't agree with your way either?
<br>
<br>You or I don't set the rules AND GAME LAWS in the big game fields and mountains Of all the States.
<br>
<br>All we are interested in, as all hunters should be, is to cleanly kill the animal regardless of the range.
<br>
<br>You will certainly continue to hunt your way and we will continue to do our thing because we enjoy the LR way better then when we hunted your way.
<br>
<br>For me, that was many years ago when I started but, I still do it your way from time to time. I don't JUST LR hunt all the time but, I do enjoy it MUCH better.
<br>
<br>I guess we shall just say "To each his own" concerning hunting, as long as it's legal.
<br>
<br>Lets just go out and enjoy ourselves in the hunting fields, OK? Fair enough? I think we have beat this to death, don't you?
<br>
<br>Darryl Cassel

Daryl wrote...
<br>
<br><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr><p>As per the 500 Yard shot on the large buck, I would not have teken it either (please don't think I am being a smart A__ here) That shot would have been too "close" for my hunting group. We would NOT have taken it, honestly.<p><hr></blockquote>
<br>
<br>This is the kind of statement which makes me think you guys are more interested in shooting than hunting. If you were truly hunting, you'd shoot that deer, and not worry that he was too close. Instead, you look for a way to utilize all your fancy rifles and gizmos, using live game as the target.
<br>
<br>This will come back to haunt our sport in a negative fashion one of these days, and all so you folks can prove what great shots you are.
<br>
<br>Sad.

I see no difference in the "opinion" of one man versus another on this subject. It matters not to me if the "opinion" is published or not, it is still the "opinion" of one person.
<br>
<br>Do we hold the "opinion" of a person in higher regard just because their word is published. I don't.
<br>
<br>Thats my "opinion".
<br>
<br>Don

BW
<br>
<br>To answer your statements.
<br>
<br>I think you missed the point. Remember , I hunt all ways, not just longrange.
<br>
<br>If it flies, passed up the shot (he's a hunter) and "knew" he could have killed it at 500 yards but, he left it live. His reasons are different then mine and that's fine.
<br>
<br>I simply said the same thing only for a different reason.
<br>I could have killed it too but , would be more proud if I got it at "OVER" 500 yards and I'm also a hunter.
<br>
<br>We are not trying to prove to anyone we are good shots at all. We have just had tremendous success hunting this way.
<br>
<br>Regardless if it's a deer of an elk, it is a "hunting" game animal and he is a "target" to anyone that shoots him no matter what the range is.
<br>That includes short or Longrange hunters.
<br>
<br>He is simply put, a marked legal animal that will probably end up in in someones freezer by the end of the hunting season. The game commissions set this quota, not the hunters.
<br>
<br>By the way, I do like elk meat very much.
<br>
<br>Darryl

It does not make one wit of difference to me if needone used a spear to take a deer at 20 feet.Or Darryl used his 338
<br>Eargesplitten Loudenboomer to drill one at 2000 yards.Both shots required skill and practice.The objective is the same.
<br>How you get there is half the fun.
<br>dave

First, I agree with you that this mule has almost been whipped to death. You may be growning in numbers but I hope you will agree that you (not personal here meaning ultra long range shooters) are and always will be a miniscule part of the scene as compared to the total numbers of big game hunters. It isn't the "granola eating tree huggers" that should concern you. We all know their agenda. We also know that the mass media portray all hunters as either Elmer Fudd or beer swilling, pot bellied rednecks. I contend that the general population is what will do you in. Just as the few that were leg hold trappers have almost been done in by the general population passing laws against something they did not understand but abhorred on an emotional level. I believe that they will, on that emotional level, object to your using "The Noble Red Deer" as a target for super long range shooting. Indeed, were I you, I would fear excess publicity more than anything.
<br>I have noted the statment made more than once; we have never lost a deer. Who is we? Just you and your group or all long range shooters. I am sure that you abhor the lead slinger that takes hail Mary shots at game animals as much as any one. How will you separate your self in the public eye? You don't have to explain it to or convince anyone on this board of the skill and dedication your mode of shooting takes. You have to convince the soccer moms. Good luck.
<br>You made a true statment saying that it is neither of our business' how the other hunts. However a few stories of some group, not yours of a certainty and I mean that sincerely, whanging away at elk on the opposite mountain side and leaving several wounded, circulated and before long all are lumped together as slob hunters and outlawed thus decreasing all hunting. You nor I have the right to persue game, the game is owned by the several states and unless it is a game farm the states grant the privelege of hunting under their rules. Rules that are made not just to satisfy hunters but the entire population of the state.
<br>I don't care for bow hunting though I have done it. I hunted with a flint lock muzzle loader for twelve years and took my share of deer. I don't any more not because they are too hard to use but because I got mortal tired of cleaning the durn thing.
<br>The question remains; just because a thing can be done should it be done.
<br>I bear you no ill will I just do not care for the methods you use to take game animals.
<br>BCR

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

Travelingman, 7mm and BCR
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>7MM --Thanks for the support.
<br>*****************************************
<br>
<br>Travel --that was a VERY good post and it certainly has merit.
<br>I don't really care if they put a weight limit on rifles in every State because we can build them to shoot longrange very accurately, regardess of the weight.
<br>Thank you for the fine suggestions and post. Very good reading.
<br>******************************************
<br>BCR
<br>
<br>I really don't fear losing the ability to use my Longrange hunting prevledges unless we DON'T help the large amount of hunters getting into to the sport.
<br>I don't fear the newsmedia either.
<br>I honestly think your trying to build this up to more then what it should be.
<br>
<br>I think if we just remember that hunting is hunting, kill is kill and dead is dead regardless of the range, we can all get along and continue to hunt the way we all have for many years.
<br>
<br>When I said we never lost an animal yet, that includes my hunting group (Includes my wife too) and my friends that LR hunt in other groups. I didn't say all LR hunters because, it would be impossible for me to know them all. There are many in EVERY State and it's growing rapidly.
<br>We (My group) have killed every animal we pointed the rifle at and pulled the trigger on. None have got away to date.
<br>
<br>For "anyone" Trying to stop LR hunting now, would be like trying to limit rifles to just open sights and all must be lever action 30/30s. No ATVs allowed either, could be added to that list. Do you think that would fly? You and I both know the answer to that one. Same applies to LR hunting elemination, that would never fly either.
<br>
<br>LR hunting , I believe is here to stay. Some of you that don't like LR hunting or Bow hunting probably should learn to live with it as much as you can. We are not infringing on your style of hunting, please don't on ours.
<br>
<br>Theres room for all of us regardless if you or anyone else don't like the consept.
<br>
<br>As one fellow said in Los Angeles---"Can't we all just get along"?
<br>Another way to say that would be, "Can't all of us hunters just get along"?
<br>
<br>Live and let live
<br>Darryl

Hey Darryl,
<br>I just relized I have been spelling you name wrong all this time.I AM TRUELY SORRY!!!
<br>
<br>
<br>For everybody else dont you relize that YOU ARE THE PUBLIC.We only lose hunting rights because we let it happen.You can talk all you want about LR hunting and losing the right to do it,but do you really think that it will stop there.I may not like to hunt by some other means,but I would defend just like it was the ONLY WAY.If we contenue to bicker over this we only serve to seperate ourselves.We have to stay together as hunters or we will all lose the right to hunt.Wether or not we agree it does not matter.

Sealsniper, yes, we are the public. But we are still outnumbered considerably. Ok, I think I see the ethical question here. Well, I used to hunt squirrels with my shotgun, but it seemed like every time there was one within 30 yards and I shot, a dead squirrel was a guarentee. I much prefer a .22. Why? More challenge, more misses, more enjoyment. And less to skin. I don't see the use of limiting on squirrels, they are a pain in the ass to skin. So, let's say I had a super long range rifle, with the most accurate scope in the world. There is a small grove of oaks about 400 yards away swarming with squirrels. The set up is accurate and can be fully utilized by a decent shot. So, if a guy is making 9 shots out of every 10 he shoots at a squirrel, and hitting them in the head without ruining any meat, is that squirrel 'hunting' per se? Of course, he can only shoot at non moving squirrel, but at that range, they have no clue he is around. With my .22, if I miss, I'm not likely to get another shot at that squirrel any time soon, due to the short ranges involved.
<br> Now, with the deer 3/4 of a mile away, and you there with a super long range gun specialized for such work, you can make a killing shot 99 out of 100 times say when you shoot. Am I right? The deer obviously have no clue you are there, or if they do, they think you are well out of their danger zone. So much so that when you shoot, they go over and stick their noses in the ground where it hit. Even if you missed 10 times, the deer would not likely panic, am I right? I am not saying you are likely to miss the same deer that many times, but I'm saying if you did, it would still be there. Now, looking at it this way, you have not defeated the deer's senses, you are merely out of range of them. So, in my view, it is not the same as a hunter in camoflauge and a no scent suit sitting in the woods. If he moves, he can still be caught. If he is in a blind, he can still screw up with noise. You are out of range of the deer's hearing, nose, and while not out of range of his eyes, the deer still doesn't see you as a threat with how far away you are. I do not condemn it is a sin, and do accept what you do since you do it responsibly. However, it is not really fair chase as I would define it. I am not flaming you, just stating my views for my case.
<br>

" cant we all just get along?" This is a campfire open to anyone who happens by.Y'all[ LR hunters] followed someone over to thjis fire to continue a discussion that was started at another fire.You wanted to defend your point of view.You have.
<br>
<br>You have also,at every turn,set yourselves up as a separate bunch;Long Range Hunters.You are the ones being divisive,and especially you,Daryl.
<br>
<br>I get the impression you are a bunch of one dimensional personalities.I know that's not so,but you leave that impression.It's as if YOU,not the rest of us,want to define ethics by yardage.It's not enough for us to agree that what you do is legal,you keep arguing that it is RIGHT and we should agree with you that it is RIGHT.
<br>
<br>If you can't do a better job convincing us hunters of your RIGHTNESS,how would you fare with the non-hunting public if your hunting style is called into question?
<br>
<br>Your " in your face" style smacks too much of the confrontational manners of all the liberal special interest groups like the homosexuals,for instance.If it's RIGHT,why don't you just keep on doing it without seeking approval?
<br>
<br>We already agreed it's legal.

Gene
<br>
<br>Thank you for the acknowlegment that, the way we hunt is legal. That's nice of you to let some of the other posters know that. I have always known that but, some of the posters here don't seem to know it.
<br>
<br>You are on the side of the short range hunters (I think) and seem to have make statements that really don't apply to me in your last post. If any of my posts comes off that way to you or anyone, it certainly is not meant to be that way at all.
<br>
<br>Now with that, I don't really care if you or anyone else hunts longrange or not. We are not defending our style of hunting to you or anyone other then saying, we want to be able to answer anyones questions concerning it if, they are interested in the concept and would like to get in it.
<br>
<br>Longrange hunting is getting so popular that many are interested and have already ordered equipment to do it WITHOUT HAVING THE EXPERIANCE THEY SHOULD HAVE, BEFORE GOING AFIELD.
<br>They want to know the correct way and that's why we are here or on any forum.
<br> FYI --We were asked by some of your regulars to come over here and answer questions concerning LR hunting and will do just that.
<br>I didn't come here to flame anyone or get flamed either.
<br>
<br>We just care enough about our hunting style that, we want to be able to answer their questions with the experiance we have had over the years so they do it safely.
<br>
<br>You certainly don't have to like our style of hunting and frankly, we don't have to like yours. The point here that most are not comprehending is, we are ALL hunters of many styles.
<br>
<br>We don't have to defend our style to you or anyone just as you/they don't have to defend theirs to us.
<br>
<br>Again you are the ones that seem to be talking of News media intervention and comparing Homosexuals and special interest groups to hunting styles, which is rediculous.
<br>
<br>We are not in a special interest hunting group at all, are you?
<br>
<br>We are in a group that enjoys our style of hunting very much. I enjoy it much more then your way. I did your way (the short range way) for many years and still do. It just so happens I enjoy the LR way much better.
<br>
<br>Some who keep posting here on ethics and so on, have never hunted our way, so they don't have any idea how it works and can't respond in an experianced manner.
<br>
<br>As I mentioned, we should probably all try to get along
<br>even though we hunt different styles.
<br>Maybe we can be one big happy group????
<br>You hunt your way and we will continue to hunt ours.
<br>
<br>Darryl Cassel

Hi Darryl....Talked to Bobby today.My Barrel just came in so He said I should have my babies in a week or so.The big Ultra should be done now..Did those rock's lose there horn's yet.I heard a rumor of a 20" 9 point up there.My BIG BABY(that's the name I gave the big Ultra)say's she can't wait to sink her teeth into the TOMMY.....Could be VERY interesting.I'll keep u informed....Later....Boyd...

"Big Baby"???? That name will be just "Baby" after the match up.
<br>Babies don't have teeth Boyd and if they did the TOMMY would knock them out.
<br>
<br>Those 240 Grain MKs in "Baby" better be going at least 3200 FPS. TOMMY will be spitting them out at that speed for sure in this cold weather.
<br>
<br>I just heard "Bad Boy" (TOMMY) out in the garage yelling, "Bring Baby On". I better go out and calm him down a bit.
<br>
<br>The challenge is on my young friend. I always did like a challenge anyway.
<br>
<br>Later
<br>Darryl
<br>
<br>PS--Bad Boy just yelled from the garage again. He said, "Babies butt is grass and he is the lawn mower"

Big Baby look's Really tough with her PINK AND PURPLE POKE-A-DOTTED stock.My wife told me if she was gonna shoot it that's the color she wanted.I'm gonna be the laughing stock of the 1000 yard club.LoL!!!!!!!!!!!!You tell Tommy that Big Baby has been chewing on her teething ring.She has a few coming through....I hope I can get 3200 out of it.That would make me as happy as a pig in poop........When she come's I'll let you know.....Later...Boyd...

Well I have stewed about this for a couple of days and I guess I have to say somthing. Afterall thats what this is for.
<br>
<br>
<br>"If it flies it dies "
<br>
<br>I have heard ( read ) your posts on this subject and a couple of times you mentioned things about the public and ethics etc.
<br>Look at your "name "If it flies it dies" to me thats more concerning than LRH.. Don't you think the non hunting public would be horrified by your name.
<br>The other thing is you are totally agianst LRH because you say " the animals have no idea you are there" I am not understanding your statment. One could interpret that as... You would rather have the animals know you are there and you shoot at a running animal??? In most if not all of my expierience hunting ( keep in mind I am a professional guide ) everytime the animal knew we were there he fled !!!!! For the life of me I cannot understand why you would want the animal to know you are there....
<br>
<br>I am hoping you can enlighten me on these points..
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>Ready on the right,
<br>
<br>I have to say that your statment that we are supiorior beasts and should be able to use or knowledge to our advantage is something that I completely agree with.
<br>
<br>

Perhaps some of you anti-LRH folks are put off by the amount of money required to successfully hunt LR, or perceive some cockiness on the part of the LRH's when they speak of their equipment and their successes.
<br>
<br>My best friend of over 45 years and life-long huntin' pard could afford to buy whatever hunting gear he wanted, I couldn't. He hauled my arse up to my camp every year in his new $35K pickup, I drive a beater. I hunt with anything from a old M94 to a HB 25-06 that I helped to build, he had Senderos, 40XB's and a 1000yd BR rifle at his disposal.
<br>
<br>At no time did I ever begrudge him the fact that his 6-figure income allowed him to pursue whatever sort of hunting tickled his fancy, while I was content to hunt the same way our forefathers did, for the most part.
<br>More often was the case, that I'd dump a varmint with my M788 22-250 and heckle him because he'd just missed one with his custom M700 22-250 varminter, (not that he ever missed much).
<br>
<br>Money will not buy you a thing if you don't have the skill, the dedication or the desire to hone those skills, be they at the loading bench or at the range.
<br>When I was range director at my gunclub, I saw dozens of folks show up with,say, a new Weatherby and proudly show it off. Most of them never managed to become proficient with such rifles because, although they could afford one, they didn't possess the dedication or determination to learn to shoot them well.
<br>
<br>Don't confuse these guys with dime store cowboys. They have committed not only a lot of money to their sport, but more importantly, one helluva lot of time and dedication to doing it well. More power to 'em, my opinion.