Thread: Long-range hunting: is it sporting?

The latest issue of the NZDA magazine “NZ Hunting & Wildlife” has an article by Tony Orman on the ethics of long-range hunting with the above title. This opinion piece roundly condemns long-range hunting for a number of reasons. Included in the reasons are the ethics around the risk of not making a clean kill as ranges increase. However I'd like to set aside this aspect (for maybe another thread) as I was interested in another of the reasons given, supported with the following statement:

“Physically and philosophically shooting game animals this way is not hunting. It’s specialised, highly skilled shooting, more like execution than a sporting hunt.”

Also cited is the view from the Boon & Crocket Club that:

“long-range shooting takes unfair advantage of the game animal, effectively eliminates the natural capacity of an animal to use its senses and instincts to detect danger, and demeans the hunter-prey relationship in a way that diminishes the importance and relevance of the animal in the hunt.”

My interest is at what range do forum members feel the above applies, if at all?

Are we still “hunting” when we make use of any degree of advantage that a rifle gives us in distance over the bow or spear?

Been there, had the "Discussion" not going there again.

I have yet to head butt a rabbit to death, so I guess the answer lies somewhere in the middle.

It's ethical. It puts food in my kids bellys.

I'd say using a recurve bow is as sporting as it gets.

About the only way we don't have an advantage over a deer is if we throw spears or rocks. Even bows these days have a technological advantage over the animals senses.
Guys that condem long range hunting still use scopes because of the advantage they give the shooter. At what point does it become long range? Range is a continuum. Technology keeps improving.
Give me a calculated long range shot at a feeding deer over a snap shot a running deer in the bush any day.

I have no problem with not giving the animal a chance. If I'm killing it, it's because I want to eat it. I want to do that as ethically as I can, causing the animal as little distress as possible. To that end, a rifle is the best option. Romantic ideas of 'fairness' about an encounter between a prey animal and the earth's most successful predator are not something I consider.

Puffin, is it raining in Porirua? Or are you just bored?

;-)

I think that its extremely perverse that the hunters level of excitement is enhanced at closer proximaty, because of increased chances of detection by an animal who will be frightened by that detection if it occurs. To me that is disturbingly like exploitation for self stimulation. Thats not ethical....

Remote clinical execution is far far more humane and far less exploitive.

The bollocks about increased sporting chance is lame. The animal didn't agree to the competition.

Tony's argument is facile, and prehistoric and easily rebutted.... some of mine is as well... but that is sort of my point.

You can't accept only arguments that suit you, and then call them ethical..... there is no substantive objective rationale for his position... only his subjective view.

And I'm not a long range hunter....

To me long range hunting(shooting) is just another aspect of hunting in general, I still enjoy stalking and being up close when a deer is seen or breaks but I also like the idea of stepping out onto a clear cut or clearing and spying a deer 400-500 yards away and being able to take a shot with confidence.
As stated before that's technology, what's it going to be like in another 50 years????

its hunting mate.... there ain't no imaginary line somewhere between 280-320 metres that makes it shooting...

looking for animals with the intention to kill them is just hunting..

being unethical can happen at 0 metres or 2km. I do acknowledge that the chances for being unethical will raise as the distance increases simply because of the increased difficulty in being technically precise enough to not be cruel....

but it is not an arbitary thing its different for everybody.

I've seen kids with 7mm Rem Mags at the 100 meter range that can't shoot better than 6" groups. It would be unethical for them to shoot past 200m, sort of makes you wonder why they bother..

Others can shoot 8" groups at 1000m...

making little rules and judgements is easier for those without the capacity to think about things...

The author should sell all his rifles an knives as lets face it a fist sized rock is an unfair advantage if you want to look at it like that.

I have seen (and been guilty myself on occasion) animals wounded from 5y to 1000y and by far the most represented in the wounding stakes is the close range....less than 100m.

depends on wind. thats the big variable. its all about shooting within your capability. practicing at 1000 yards so you can shoot a deer at half that. just my opinion.

Meat in the freezer to feed the family = game hunted....by bow or "sniping"
It just means some cave men can throw their spears further, doesnt mean one is more than the other. both take time practise and skill to master

Whether it is 6m or 600m is still an execution shot
Ethics are whether once you have made the LR shot are you going to go the distance and recover the meat