Thread: Long-range hunting: is it sporting?

I use a dog for taking me onto deer within meters ( not sporting as I would of walked past them ), if I didn't have him I would be shooting more at long range. Meat is meat at any range but just a bit more science, good gear and practice required.

is it sporting . . . wrong question, this just invites opinion without teaching anything

what skills and gear do you need to successfully shoot LR is the right question . . . my 2c

Originally Posted by gadgetman

Could it be considered that longer range is more ethical? It gives a better chance to assess the animal, and fully identify it, and decide whether to take it or not. I suspect fewer friends get shot with longer range.

Good point, I am yet to hear of a hunter shooting another at 600m.

I know of at least one hunter shot at from one ridge to another, he wasnt hit probably because the odds of missing are higher at range are they not? Good thing in his case maybe not if you are the deer that gets gut shot.
Surely wounding at range is a valid concern - what percent are wounded compared to closer ranges and also how many that are hit are found and killed swiftly? I have yet to see meaningful statistics that put either issue to bed

Yes ethics are a personal choice but they still matter- aside from what makes us tick individually its what we are judged on as hunters by the great unwashed - if we want to be seen as a bunch of spotlighting, helihunting yahooing wannabe snipers then we can not care about it, and watch sympathy for our passtime ebb away.

"Sporting" is bullshit....

How "sporting" is it to call in a stag in the Roar. The reason we do it in the roar is to maximise our chances and reduce theirs. Is that "sporting"?

I am not interested in sporting.... I don't deny a relationship between proximatey and enjoyment/excitment but the last thing in my head is making sure that the animal has a sporting chance. I want to be able to make the choice without the animal jeopodising my ability to execute humane dispatch...

Its historic bullshit and justification.... from an era that had all sorts of "sporting" contests.... you know like cock fighting and dog fighting...

Own it people... its evolutionarily culturally consistent. Top of the food chain stuff, master of our environment stuff. Responsibilty and sustainability to be practiced. Cruelty prohibited. Sporting? It aint a game of soccer --- sporting - bollocks

Lion hunting with a spear... now thats getting to be a contest...

And yet everyone wants to lynch the Americans shooting tahr out of a helicopter.......go figure

There seems to be a misconception about the word sporting, no one on this forum is going to starve to death if they don,t shoot a deer, if you are cancel your internet service and buy some food, so logically unless your full time job is deer control, then hunting is your hobby, I.e sport of choice, with a bit of meat added, just like fishing.

Throwing a stone at a wild deer and connecting and getting it on camera to prove the act, now that would be sporting!

Oh Christ! I haven't been on the fish n hunt forum for years...mainly because of pretentiousness of ethical agreements surrounding such topics. There were a couple guys who wanted to draw a line in the sand and anyone on the other side of it couldn't be an ethical hunter. Bunch of self important wankers...please don't let this forum head down that path.

Surely the individual must decide their own ethics, provided its lawful.

Kj

When guiding I saw more wounded or lost game from the bow hunters. Just saying

I'm waiting for the day when I slide down a bank and slice my arse open from a lost arrow head

Well if you want to be sporting and ethical in your hunting old chap, just walk up to a bull elephant with a tooth pick in your hand to do it in, R I P !

Just my 0.2 cents, but I consider it the range you feel most comfortable in taking the shot. With my current set up, yes its capable out to 700 or 800 yards (6.5mm SAUM, 140gr Berger at 3075fps). However, I've not had the opportunity to shoot that far so at the moment until I get out to a range that I can shoot those distances, than I'll limit myself to maybe 350 / 400 yards - I'm comfortable shooting that far.

I think if you practice on a regular basis at longer range, have a rifle that consistently groups into an inch or less (and carries enough energy) and have a laser rangefinder and can read the wind pretty well then I don't have an issue with it. Actually, there are more guys now successfully shooting at over 500m than say 10 years ago - thanks to great hunting technology.

If David had had a long range sling shot, I'm pretty sure he would have used it.

Traditionally speaking, 'hunting' meant releasing the hounds on an unsuspecting fox. 'Shooting' meant firing at gamebirds on the wing, and 'stalking' meant creeping up on large game with rifles.

Long range hunting is yet another discipline which has emerged within the last few decades due to the sophistication and increasing availability of technology.

I don't think you could argue that one discipline is more ethical than the other. Even with some of the more traditional means of hunting (e.g with dogs/birds on the wing) the hunter has a significant advantage over his quarry.

With that said, every discipline has its own nuances and challenges. Bush stalking deer requires the hunter to be more in tune with nature (reading subtle cues in order to pinpoint the location of an animal), whereas long-range hunting requires the hunter to be more manipulative of technology and have a sound command of marksmanship and knowledge of terrain. There are plenty of hunters who have mastered both.

Either way, an animal dies, and it's (let's be perfectly honest with ourselves) mainly for our own enjoyment and satisfaction; the whole shebang, not just the kill, of course.

I think it's a matter of picking a style which suits your own values and needs. Personally, the whole reason I like to get out in the bush, is because of the whole man vs wild element, and getting away from all the creature comforts of city life. Therefore, bringing a whole heap of technology into it, sort of contradicts my incentive.

In saying that, if I told myself..."I'm going out with the goal of obtaining meat, and doing it as efficiently and effectively as possible"...I'm sure I'd appreciate a long range rig.

So, as per my example, distinctions need to be made. If two hunters hunt for completely different reasons, how can one hunter then deem the other's methods 'wrong' on the basis of their own values, if the other is hunting according to values/interests of their own?

Not to mention...there are never ending variables. Is shooting a stag in a paddock at 50 yards, or in an easy to access block of Bush more challenging (or 'sporting') than utilizing mountaineering skills, Bush craft and physical stamina to get yourself high up in the alps to make a 700 yard shot on a tahr with a long range set-up?