WSJ does a piece on long-range hunting

[Cornell2012]

http://www.wsj.com/articles/huntings-newest-controversy-snipers-1481316596?mod=e2fb

Edit:
The article doesn't really take a stance on anything, but highlights the uneasiness that some hunters have with the long-range (like, electronically assisted, 1000+yd, $25k) setups.

"[FONT=&quot]Of about 14 million rifle hunters in America, about 5% are using new long-range systems, estimates Gunwerks founder Aaron Davidson. “And I would expect that 5% to turn into 50%,” says Davidson, a mechanical engineer who started his company in 2006. In the hopes of spurring such growth, Davidson’s company produces a cable hunting show called “Long Range Pursuit,” which he says gains about 300,000 viewers a week.

...

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]In a 2014 statement, the Boone and Crockett Club, a 129-year-old conservation and record-keeping group, said the club “finds 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 and the hunt.”"[/FONT]

 

[LopeHunter]

Is behind a paywall at Wall Street Journal so unless are a subscriber or will now subscribe then can only read first few sentences. Maybe a subscriber can post a brief recap of the article?

 

[el unit]

"In a 2014 statement, the Boone and Crockett Club, a 129-year-old conservation and record-keeping group, said the club “finds 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 and the hunt.”

Like

 

[Elkmagnet]

Being good at long range shooting is a fantastic skill. So is being a good hunter. They aren't the same thing nor does one make you better at the other.

 

[hank4elk]

being good at long range shooting is a fantastic skill. So is being a good hunter. They aren't the same thing nor does one make you better at the other.

word!!

 

[sbhooper]

"In a 2014 statement, the Boone and Crockett Club, a 129-year-old conservation and record-keeping group, said the club “finds 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 and the hunt.”

Like

This, but where do you draw the line on what is long-range? They don't know you are there at 500 most likely and the elk sure did not know that I was there at 320, when I shot a cow the other day. This topic is a difficult one to define both ethically and mechanically.

 

[Southwind]

WSJ is about a decade behind on the curve, I would say the trend has been going the other way for at least 2-3 years.

 

[406LIFE]

This, but where do you draw the line on what is long-range? They don't know you are there at 500 most likely and the elk sure did not know that I was there at 320, when I shot a cow the other day. This topic is a difficult one to define both ethically and mechanically.

I think if B&C struggles to make a determination on this, then the rest of the hunting community will find it difficult as well. I think like most other things hunting-related, this is a deeply personal definition. I think 100yds in archery is too long, but 60 is ok. I think the species of the animal also determines what I think may be too far (target zone on an elk is bigger than an antelope, so I might take a longer shot with my bow). My new rifle setup is theoretically a 1000yd gun, will I ever take a shot that far, no. But if I am accurate and experienced at reading conditions, will I take a 400yd or 600 yd or 700 yd shot? I don't know...

I do echo what B&C says about the pursuit and FAIR CHASE of the animal should be an ideal that we strive to get closer to every time we set foot in the woods. To followup on what elkmagnet said, I think that the two (long range shooting and hunting) begin to move further apart the more proficient one becomes in either skill.

 

[u1299]

I'll go with the conservation guys (B & C) on this one. If technology allows us to shoot accurately out to a mile is that ok?

 

[Sawtooth]

http://www.wsj.com/articles/huntings-newest-controversy-snipers-1481316596?mod=e2fb

[/FONT][/COLOR][FONT=&quot]In a 2014 statement, the Boone and Crockett Club, a 129-year-old conservation and record-keeping group, said the club “finds 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 and the hunt.”"[/FONT]

This is very well written and I agree completely. In my opinion, you go from "spot and shoot" which relies more on your equipment and shooting skills, to "spot and stalk" which adds stalking/hunting skills once you enter the distance that the animal's senses and instincts have the ability to detect danger. Most hunters tend to take longer shots at an animal because they have more faith in there equipment and shooting ability then they do in their stalking/hunting skills.

 

[sbhooper]

This topic always goes on and on. I really enjoy the technology that has brought about the long-range hunting craze, but personally, don't care to ever shoot animals at anything over 500 yards (that is usually too far, but my rifles are dialed in at that range). Everything has got to be perfect for a good shot at extreme range and it sure seems to me that it is difficult to get things set like that.

I believe that I will stay with my moderately-priced rifles, scopes and rangefinder and leave the high-dollar, long-range "systems" to the guys that want to prove something. I am afraid that people like Davidson and others have started us down a slope from which there is no return. If enough people get to using this technology and it indeed makes a difference, then hunters will see the results in fewer permits being issued at some point.

 

[Sawtooth]

Double post.

 

[airlocksniffer]

No doubt it takes a lot of skill and practice to hit something way out there. Ethically I don't agree with these guys shooting live targets (not hunting) way out there. I think it's our responsibility as hunters to do everything we can to ensure a quick, humane kill. The further you get out, the more likely you will not make a quick humane kill. Plus getting close is pretty damn fun.

 

[Gr8bawana]

The term "long range" is very subjective. It has lot to do with ethics which is also very subjective. I'm an old school guy, so to me a 400 yard shot on game is a long shot for me. To some of you that is a dink shot. At what point is shooting at a game animal from xxxx yards just shooting and no longer hunting the animal? I don't know. It's up to every hunter to decide what they believe constitutes hunting.
I believe that just because it's may be legal does not mean you should.

 

[belly-deep]

This, but where do you draw the line on what is long-range? They don't know you are there at 500 most likely and the elk sure did not know that I was there at 320, when I shot a cow the other day. This topic is a difficult one to define both ethically and mechanically.

????

I've shot elk at 40 yards that didn't know I was there. I'm not sure they need to know you are around for it to be ethical.

 

[fishing4sanity]

I don't want a legislative body to ever set a limit on how far someone can shoot, but long-range hunting seems to be an oxymoron. I love long-range shooting and do it very often at the range, but hunting is a different endeavor. It has to be a personal choice, but hopefully most hunters take killing an animal seriously and get in close to increase the likelihood of a quick ethical kill. I don't think you can mandate ethics, I'm not even very sure you can teach it in a classroom setting, but a parent or mentor can do a lot to help a new generation to be ethical hunters. Practicing is part of being an ethical hunter and long-range shooting skills are beneficial, but when it comes to hunting I like an animal as close as possible. For some reason when an animal is in the crosshairs my heart rate sure can get a lot crazier than when I settle in on a steel plate.

 

[Fire_9]

This is a very tough subject to talk about because there are so many variables. What bothers me though are the people that bash the long range shooters because they aren't ethical. I agree that people stretch the ethical limits but people have been doing it for years. That ethical limit just keeps getting pushed further and further out. I think there are just as many if not more 'short range' unethical hunters as there are 'long range'. We all see the guy at the rifle range that is perfectly content with a 5" group at 100 yards but doesn't hesitate to shoot at a deer at 2-300 yards with a crappy rest. What makes that shot more ethical than a guy with a solid rest that can shoot 6" group at 600 yards?

This subject has been and will continue to be beat to death. People will never agree and I hope they never put a regulation this sort of thing. More regulation is the last thing we need

 

[beginnerhunter]

One thing that bothers me a bit about the long range trend (and I am by no means an authority on this matter) is watching them shoot an elk at 1000 yards and then having to find/recover the body. What if you can't find your way to it? What if you just can't get to it? Just seems to add a degree of difficulty to the recovery which is the most important part.

 

[Gerald Martin]

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.

 

[jhudson1]

Amen.