Dealing with skeptics of long range hunting.....
In hunting circles, few topics are as controversial as taking game at long range. Most of the arguments made against taking game at extended range play the 'ethics' card right away. While there is certainly some validity to arguments made by the opposing view, by and large they are not hard to address and rebuke. Few stand up to actual examination.
Long distance hunting is merely another specialized form of taking an animal the same way muzzle loading and archery are. It's more than just the hunt, the method of take itself is every bit as much a part of the experience as the actual kill.
Like being an effective archer, the long distance shooter learns an entire set of skills specific to the task, equips himself properly for the hunt, and most of all makes his or her own judgment call of whether the shot is good based on one's own equipment and personal limitations.
One's own skill, and the limitations of specific gear is too subjective and varied to simply toss out blanket yardage for what is an 'ethical' shot. If the round will deliver enough energy to dispatch an animal quickly, and the shooter is up to the task, then the shot is ethical. What other people are capable (or not) of shooting is irrelevant.
If you are going to shoot at long ranges, chances are good that you are already familiar with shooting at lesser ranges. Likewise, odds are that you know a thing or two about the mechanics of what's happening in a long range shot. Few archers simply walk out to the woods and attempt to kill animals without investing in the knowledge specific to shooting an arrow. The same holds for the long range shooter. The long range shot is not merely a cop out to getting closer, but a calculated, considered effort that is easily as rewarding as the bagging of the game.
All shots taken from any field situation, are going to be less than perfect. While a lot of hunters use that as their reason for not taking exacting shots- the long range hunter doesn't look to excuse poor shooting and instead dedicates his efforts to being a better shot rather than one that relies on close range to 'hedge his bets.'
No one can control conditions in the field, and the factors to consider are far more complex than simply equating long range with more environmental factors than other types of shots. The archer, for example has a good chance of an arrow going totally off course given a hit on a twig. Even at 20 yards the archer has an increased chance of a miss, or worse, wounding shot given simple brush.
Back east and in the south with thick timber and short range shots- most hunters think nothing of shooting at a deer in brush. Many argue over which round 'busts brush' best. The argument can be made that any shot through cover is less ethical than long range shooting. First, long range shooting essentially requires open air between the shooter and target. You just won't even see game at extended ranges behind even the lightest cover. Secondly, the long range hunter almost never takes a shot at anything he can't see all of simply because it's so far away, and you can usually also see what's beyond the target better as well. That alone is safer than shooting at anything half covered by a tree with branches and ground clutter in the bullets path, regardless of the range.
It's no less ethical to send a bullet through 600 or more meters of air than it is to fire a bullet through brush at 100 meters and hope for the best.
The possible 'what if' factor rises due to any number of inputs, with simple distance to target being far from the most dramatic. It is simply not an adequate understanding of the topic to bleat that distance equals less ethical shooting.
Being similar to archery in that it takes much more practice and investment in time, and frankly, can be quite gear intensive, the person interested in long distance hunting is not your typical hunter that bought the base model rifle/scope combo on sale at a sporting goods chain. He's usually someone with a stronger interest in shooting than average hunters. Someone that isn't going to zero that weapon then stick it in the closet until hunting season comes around, then put it back in the closet until next year. Much like muscle car fanatics obsess over their vehicles, the long range shooter sees his rifle as a precision instrument, not just one that is adequate. As opposed to letting the rifle limit his shooting, the long range hunter typically gets high end equipment then further modifies it specifically to make it perform better. Then concentrates on the skill set that sniper quality shooting requires.
Reloading goes hand and hand with extreme range shooting so you'll rarely see the long distance hunter buying his ammo out of the sale bin at the local gas station or still carrying the same shells he bought a box of in 1986. Many of the modified rifles so common in long range hunting are more accurate at long range than the guns taken out to hunt by those that oppose it are capable of at short range. Long range shooting just isn't very 'entry level' and therefore is usually undertaken by people dedicated to the art.
Given the right gear, it's ultimately up to the shooter. It's that way with all forms of hunting. There are far more half drunk rednecks in the woods looking to shoot deer every year at close range than dedicated long range hunters that take questionable shots.
Of course there are people that take shots that they shouldn't. People that will shoot well beyond their or their gear's ability. But is that really a dedicated long range hunter or is that an 'average' hunter taking shots he's not capable of? Long range shooting doesn't have any higher incidence of irresponsible shooting than any other hunting. There are bad apples in every aspect of hunting, and perhaps it's even less so among hunters that choose specialty type hunting like archery or long distance shooting simply because they demand more dedication to be successful than basic- for lack of a better term- rifle hunting.
Remember that what constitutes 'long range' is subjective at best. Growing up in New England a 200 meter shot was considered 'wicked fah.' But in Colorado that just wont get the freezer filled with Antelope on the plains. So what is a long shot is certainly a regional consideration as well.
In the end, the ethics of a shot is determined by too many factors to merely slap an arbitrary distance on. Taking a long range shot is no less ethical than any other shot if you are within the parameters of the equipment and the shooter as a system. It is a totally individual measure. No one can slap a label on you that you don't earn. If you and your gear are capable, then the shot you take is ethical. You cannot control many factors that may or may not result in a miss, but no more so than any other shooter based on that individual's ability and the conditions the moment of the shot. The entire point of long range shooting is to minimize those variables rather than just accepting them and hoping being close makes up for not controlling those factors.
It's not about ego or whatever other ad hom attack the skeptics of long range hunting like to accuse us of anymore than it is for an archer to get 20 yards from game. We all do what interests us based on it feeding our ego to a degree. Of course the archer should be rightly proud of getting within spitting distance of wary game species. Equally the long range hunter should be proud of being rewarded for that investment in time and gear. There is no crime in pride, unless you're Amish. Those that oppose long distance shooting often try to paint long distance shooters as lesser hunters unable to stalk, but the long distance shooter can counter that simply with pointing to that hunter's lesser ability to shoot as accurately. Which ever you choose to agree with, there is no 'right' answer- only opinion.
Lastly, if you will permit me a personal moment, I am a disabled veteran. My mobility is impaired such that I have handicapped plates for my truck. It is increasingly difficult for me to simply get out to hunt, much less put a successful stalk on a wary animal. I cannot crouch and duck-walk for a hundred meters. I can't kneel or belly crawl to get in close to game. My legs aren't up to the task. If I can shoot that deer from one hill farther away, the chances of my stumbling about on bad knees and spooking game into the next county is reduced.
My eyes, however, are just fine, and time at the range practicing is not beyond my abilities. My days of jumping deer at 10 paces are simply over. For those with mobility issues, long range hunting may be the only realistic chance at filling the freezer. Investing in skill at shooting long distances is more worthwhile than stalking and scent elimination when you suffer from limited mobility.
As someone with a vested interest in the future of hunting, I do not bandy about accusations of unethical hunting lightly, as most opponents of long distance hunting are quick to do. Poaching is unethical. Hunting outside your designated game unit (if you are subject to them) is unethical. Training to take longer shots than is average for most hunters is not.
Instead of looking for yet another issue to divide hunters, should we not be supporting one another? Many opponents of long range hunting sound far too much like Jim Zumbo who only gave anti-hunters ammunition by calling AR style rifles terrorist guns and said they had no place in hunting.
Just as if we don't actually hunt with a bow, we do not bad mouth it. We accept that that method of take interests some people. It comes with it's own skill requirements, level of investment, and comes with it's own set of possible negative issues that participants need to deal with. As long as that hunter is capable and his equipment will get the job done, the method of take matters little.
And I promise you it matters not at all to the anti-hunters that live for statements coming from other hunters like how a type of weapon or type of hunting is unethical. Before you start agreeing with the anti-hunting lobby, for hunting's sake, you better measure your words and get informed on the issue. You owe it to hunting as something we may very well lose if we aren't vigilant, to do no less.
