Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
Articles
Latest reviews
Author list
Classifieds
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Hunting
Long Range Hunting & Shooting
Long Range Shooting or Hunting?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="JakeL" data-source="post: 1006297" data-attributes="member: 76526"><p>I found it and read it. I don't see any problem with their position. They say no one should shoot at an animal farther than their proven capabilities. Everyone here should agree with that. Their second point may sting the conscience of a few here, but I believe they are in the right. </p><p></p><p>They argue that to some, the distance of the shot matters more than the pursuit of the animal. The hunter would be more proud of killing a spike at 1000 yards than a 6x6 at 100. This is innocent enough, since feeling proud of a long shot isn't a real problem. But it can lead to serious ethical issues. For example, a hunter is sitting on a ridge and spots two similarly sized bull elk. One is at 100 yards and the other 1000. The ethical, responsible thing is to shoot the bull at 100. But there are people who would shoot at the 1000 yard bull. I don't care how good you are at 1000 yards (and you may be very very good), you are taking a much larger risk shooting that far than you would be shooting 100. </p><p></p><p>This is especially bad when you consider that the animal is what has to suffer the consequences of a poor shot. </p><p></p><p>Overall I guess I agree with most of that article. I think everyone should have an established range of competency and not exceed it. And I think everyone should always strive for a closer shot than a farther one. I don't have any problem with a skilled guy shooting an elk at 1000 yards. But if he spots the elk at 200 and backs up to 1000 so he can have more bragging rights he is a toolbag who shouldn't be hunting. If he spots the elk at 1000 at 8 am and has no good reason he couldn't get closer, he should. Period. I don't care how good he is. He should get closer. But how close should he get? Now that's a tough question. I guess the best answer is as close as he can without risking spooking the elk and while setting up a clear shot. I won't judge him if he tells me he made an honest effort and 999 yards is as close as he could get. OK then, that's fine. Fire away. But if he shoots from 800 when he could have perfectly well moved up one ridge and shot from 400, I am going to think less of him. </p><p></p><p>Alright. I'm done. I think this forum is too wonderful of a place for me to preach repentance and such at people. I can see where people might not like the article, but I respectfully disagree. I think that many need to be sure they are hunting when hunting, and not just long range shooting at live targets. The actual yardage to the target is only one small factor.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="JakeL, post: 1006297, member: 76526"] I found it and read it. I don't see any problem with their position. They say no one should shoot at an animal farther than their proven capabilities. Everyone here should agree with that. Their second point may sting the conscience of a few here, but I believe they are in the right. They argue that to some, the distance of the shot matters more than the pursuit of the animal. The hunter would be more proud of killing a spike at 1000 yards than a 6x6 at 100. This is innocent enough, since feeling proud of a long shot isn't a real problem. But it can lead to serious ethical issues. For example, a hunter is sitting on a ridge and spots two similarly sized bull elk. One is at 100 yards and the other 1000. The ethical, responsible thing is to shoot the bull at 100. But there are people who would shoot at the 1000 yard bull. I don't care how good you are at 1000 yards (and you may be very very good), you are taking a much larger risk shooting that far than you would be shooting 100. This is especially bad when you consider that the animal is what has to suffer the consequences of a poor shot. Overall I guess I agree with most of that article. I think everyone should have an established range of competency and not exceed it. And I think everyone should always strive for a closer shot than a farther one. I don't have any problem with a skilled guy shooting an elk at 1000 yards. But if he spots the elk at 200 and backs up to 1000 so he can have more bragging rights he is a toolbag who shouldn't be hunting. If he spots the elk at 1000 at 8 am and has no good reason he couldn't get closer, he should. Period. I don't care how good he is. He should get closer. But how close should he get? Now that's a tough question. I guess the best answer is as close as he can without risking spooking the elk and while setting up a clear shot. I won't judge him if he tells me he made an honest effort and 999 yards is as close as he could get. OK then, that's fine. Fire away. But if he shoots from 800 when he could have perfectly well moved up one ridge and shot from 400, I am going to think less of him. Alright. I'm done. I think this forum is too wonderful of a place for me to preach repentance and such at people. I can see where people might not like the article, but I respectfully disagree. I think that many need to be sure they are hunting when hunting, and not just long range shooting at live targets. The actual yardage to the target is only one small factor. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Hunting
Long Range Hunting & Shooting
Long Range Shooting or Hunting?
Top