WSJ does a piece on long-range hunting

[Sagesniffer]

I can't hit anything beyond 275 yards. So that's my max distance. I practice at 300 a lot and I am just not comfortable at 300. Maybe it's me, maybe it's the rifle but I'm not lethal at 300. I love challenging myself to get at least 250 yards away. Even at 250 I feel a little like that is a long shot at an animal that has no idea I'm there. I would take no pride in a 500 yard kill shot because that means you couldn't or wouldn't get closer and it also means you took a big gamble with that animal's life.
I also think most people think they are way better at long range shooting than they actually are. Most don't practice at long range.
My 2 cents.

 

[tjones]

As long as you can pull it off consistently.

.

This is the problem, most can't and like long range archery, we never hear about the wounding loss.

 

[Gr8bawana]

This is the problem, most can't and like long range archery, we never here about the wounding loss.

^^This^^
It would be interesting to know just how many animals are hit and never found on these long range tv shows.

 

[Gut Shot]

This is the problem, most can't and like long range archery, we never hear about the wounding loss.

I can't argue with this point. Far too many people see it done on TV or hear someone brag about it on the internet and think if they drop a few thousand dollars on a long range rig they can do it too. Reality doesn't work that way, in our world of instant gratification many don't feel the need to practice.

I believe wanton waste is one of the biggest moral issues that hunters face. Too many people shrug off a miss without making sure. Too many "hunters" wound an animal and figure "he isn't wounded too bad, he'll recover". But then hunters do this with animals that are shot at close range too.

One of the easiest things to do if you don't like long range hunters is not to praise them. How often do they get complemented for making "an amazing shot"? One could just as easily call it a stupid stunt.

 

[JoseCuervo]

This is the problem, most can't and like long range archery, we never hear about the wounding loss.

You want to hear about the "wounding loss"? Here it is from my experience this year.


Headed out a ridge in the dark this year that I have killed deer before. Usually have it to myself. As headed out, it becomes obvious there are a few sets of boots ahead of me. I keep pushing, and eventually catch up closer to three guys that beat me to the alarm clock.

No big deal. I just slow my pace, knowing that this ridge is always productive. You go out the ridge, glass the finger canyons both directions, find a buck, and bale off the main ridge toward where the deer you want is.

It starts getting daylight. I glass the guys ahead of me. Turns out is 3 guys. One guy is just carrying a big-ass spotting scope on a tripod, plus a daypack. Another guy is carrying a larger pack, with a rifle strapped down on the pack. The 3rd guy is carrying a cannon, and a small daypack.

This country is steep, but not outrageous. But, you will burn calories and feel it the next day.

I find a pace that doesn't push those guys, I stop and glass, then move along. I can hear them talking, frequently.

Eventually, about 10am, I am glassing, and spot a fork-horn, about 300 yards to my East, kind of back behind where I came from. The three guys are likely 400-500 yards to my west. I can see them.

I glass the forkie, and his does. Thinking the guys are going to keep going. Eventually, I look ABOVE the little buck, and another hunter has came up the finger ridge from the bottom, and is sitting 50 yards above the little buck.

So, to recap, I have a deer 300 yards to my left, I have 3 hunters 500 yards to my right. Above the deer is another hunter, sitting, glassing, eating lunch.

A shot rings out. The buck looks up. My buddy and I hunker down, we now have lead flying over the top of us. The guy on the hill above the deer is oblivious.

A second shot rings out. The buck looks behind him.

A 3rd shot rings out, the forkie humps up.

A 4th shot rings out, and the forkie spins in his track and moves down 5 yards behind some brush.

The 5 does just stand there, completely visible, don't move. The buck is now out of sight.

I glass the "long range hunters", they are just standing there. Eventually they move another 50 yards away, and start glassing other directions.

After about an hour, we kept the glass on the does, and where the buck was last seen, still no "long range hunters". We decide to give it 30 more minutes, and then go deal with their deer. Another guy and a younger kid come up from behind us, we tell them the story.

We now have 4 sets of glasses on the deer, 300 yards away.

Finally, 30 minutes later, we hear the loud talking of the "long range hunters" as they come back along the ridge.

They get close to us, so we make ourselves known, ask how they are doing.

They ask if we saw the buck (forkie), we said "yes".

"Cannon carrier", aka "long range hunter" says "Yeah, I guess I misjudged the wind".....

I replied, dryly, "yes, that was a hell of a shot".....

He gets a puzzled look on his face. My buddy tells him where the buck is. (The does are still standing there, 90 minutes later, it is easy to point the location out.)

They can't believe their good fortune that they were able to shoot a forked horn at 800 yards, after all!!!

It take them another 30 minutes to close the last 300 yards, carrying their cannon, their packs, their big-ass scope on tripod.

The does run off. The buck stays out of sight.

The "long range hunters" look for 20 minutes, 20 yards away, and can't find the buck.

Eventually the kid that came up the ridge behind us walks over to show them the spot. The "long range hunters" argue with the kid, as that is not where they think the deer was when they were shooting.

Yes, after all the discussion, the buck stands up about 15 yards above them, and drags his back leg/hip and makes his escape, around the knob of the hill.

The "long range hunters" spent another 5 minutes working to the end of the knob, then gave up and hiked back out to the road.

Last I saw the buck, he was doing his best 3-legged escape.


Yeah, I am going to pass judgement on the unethical practice of "long range shooting" at game.

These guys left the truck in the morning with the full intention of shooting long range at deer, with no intention of actually "hunting".

 

[Elkhunter24]

I will say I love hunting LR. I shoot anywhere from 600 to 1000 and feel very confident in my shooting. You can hit and wound an animal at close range as well. People are always going to argue about this. Its just like what truck is better Ford or Chevy. And by the way its FORD! lol everyone is different and enjoy different things.

 

[tjones]

There is NO way anyone can argue the chance of wounding loss is not higher with long range archery or rifle. Its simple with so many more variables wounds are going to happen, some the shooter may not even know about.

 

[mtmiller]

Its just like what truck is better Ford or Chevy. And by the way its FORD! lol everyone is different and enjoy different things.

Worst analogy ever.

 

[JoseCuervo]

I will say I love hunting LR. I shoot anywhere from 600 to 1000 and feel very confident in my shooting. You can hit and wound an animal at close range as well. People are always going to argue about this. Its just like what truck is better Ford or Chevy. And by the way its FORD! lol everyone is different and enjoy different things.

Yeah, that ain't a good analogy.


And, if you are too lazy to close the distance from 600-1000 yards down to something you can hit, then you are too lazy to go see if you wound the animal.

There are lots of areas that going over to check for a wounded animal 1000 yards away will take someone 3-4 hours in the country I hunt. Those fat-asses with their "long range" set ups ain't going to waste their day dropping off ridges into the bottoms of a canyon, and then up the other side to see if they have a blood spot.

And, as I showed in my encounter this fall, when the fat-asses get over to where they were flinging lead, everything looks completely different, and they still can't find the animal.

There aint' nothing ethical about it.

Let's keep wasting our resources, future generations don't need 'em.

 

[JoseCuervo]

There is NO way anyone can argue the chance of wounding loss is not higher with long range archery or rifle. Its simple with so many more variables wounds are going to happen, some the shooter may not even know about.

Couple of weeks later, 40 miles away, in late Archery Season, 10 days after rifle closed, I kicked a forkie out of his bed with his right front leg swinging.

He wasn't able to run, but could 3-legged walk faster than I could sneak around on him.

Don't know what broke his leg, long-range, close-range, gun, bow, bad step on rocks.... But, as the snow piles up, he will soon be dead.

 

[Straight Arrow]

I shoot anywhere from 600 to 1000 and feel very confident in my shooting.

Likely you are confident because you are accurate and consistent on the range. However, as tjones pointed out, hunting in the field, especially where I hunt elk, involves variables, for some of which you have no ability to compensate. Even if you down an elk at 1000 yards across the drainage over to the next ridge or slope in the mountains, by the time you hike down, hike up, descend and climb to where you think that elk may be, perspective of terrain appears distinctly different, the elk may have moved, and your ability to find the game is significantly more difficult.

As many have explained there are many, many reasons not to unnecessarily take long shots at game.

... and it has absolutely nothing to do with preference of manufacturer of vehicle or what you "enjoy". If what you truly enjoy about hunting is taking long shots then we probably won't agree on the other aspects of enjoying hunting either.

 

[Tradewind]

This year my neighbor shot a bull at 590 yards at last light. He has a long range gun and has shot at animals out to 800. Being as it was last light he went back the next morning to look for his bull. Couldn't find it and chalked the shot up as a miss. Went back to the same spot the next day and realized he was looking in the wrong place. His bull was laying there dead. Meat was ruined.
The ethical consideration of each shot opportunity go way beyond whether or not you can hit what you are aiming at. Many more factors than just distance need to be weighed before pulling the trigger. I have less problem with the actual distance that a truly skilled shooter kills animals than I do with how that the idea of owning a "long range gun" seems to influence some guys to pull the trigger at distances beyond their skill level.

maybe it's just me. but if you are going to shoot at an animal just before dark. You should be prepared and willing to recover and dress it/quarter it in the dark.
I think in this discussion we are talking ethics as much as pure laziness ( maybe the same thing) for the most part. Sadly, i have seen the same behavior as Jose described. at much shorter ranges.

 

[Bambistew]

The long range shooting craze is tied directly to fear of failure. We're always looking to increase our odds of success. Doesn't matter what it is. Better equipment for fishing, hunting, camping, golf, etc. Increasing your odds by way of equipment has been part of modern human society since, forever. Failure makes us feel bad, or makes us realize that we have to work harder, or suffer longer. Why bother when you can save yourself a hike, or a blown stalk with the latest improvements?

The longer I hunt the more respect I have for the guys that hunt with "traditional" gear. Stick bows, open sights, no Kuiu, etc. There is a lot to be said for that guy that revels in success using the least technical gear made, knowing that he probably won't kill an animal, or will suffer trying.

I don't really care if others shoot long range, short range, or what ever, as long as they follow up, hunt 'ethically' and responsibly. Problem is there is a large contingent of hunters who don't, and the long range aspect is an easy scapegoat because of the general ease of introduction.

 

[quarterhorse]

Lots of ethical considerations suround the long range issue. Most of us have some pretty strong opinions about the subject. These threads are important to make us all consider our actions and really think about how we justify our position. What I think about most is the animals innate ability to detect and evade danger. There is no doubt we are shooting beyond what that distance would generally be and taking advantage of the animal. I have no idea what that range is as its constantly changing. For me "Fair Chase" matters and for others it doesn't.

I really don't consider my shooting ability to be a factor in how I choose to limit myself. The is no doubt that with today's equipment and practice I could extend my range if I wanted to.

Game departments really can't regulate this stuff. They could try but would it be very difficult to write a regulation for ethical considerations and impossible to enforce. They could address our increased killing efficiency in 3 ways that I see. Shorten seasons, limit tags or over-harvest the resource. Which one of those options do we find to our liking????

 

[belly-deep]

I will say I love hunting LR. I shoot anywhere from 600 to 1000 and feel very confident in my shooting. You can hit and wound an animal at close range as well. People are always going to argue about this. Its just like what truck is better Ford or Chevy. And by the way its FORD! lol everyone is different and enjoy different things.

Congrats. You won the "dumbest post of the thread" award

 

[Big Fin]

There is NO way anyone can argue the chance of wounding loss is not higher with long range archery or rifle. Its simple with so many more variables wounds are going to happen, some the shooter may not even know about.

If you state such fact on a podcast, expect your emails and FB messages to be on fire. Just stating from personal experience.

 

[Gut Shot]

The long range shooting craze is tied directly to fear of failure. We're always looking to increase our odds of success.

Shooting an animal is a poor way to measure success and failure on a hunt.

 

[Elkmagnet]

Congrats. You won the "dumbest post of the thread" award

Everyone knows Dodge owners wound more game.

 

[Elkmagnet]

For me "Fair Chase" matters and for others it doesn't.

We all draw our own line in the sand but it's hard for me to see how 1000yd across a canyon still hasn't crossed every hunters "line".

 

[quarterhorse]

I agree. It seems the essence of hunting is lost on some people.