No matter. Keep bringing it up, and i'll keep beating the horse.
Obviously you think it an unethical shot, and a long ways away. It probably is for you.
Old Hunter, one word answer to the How do I know what the wind is doing at 100 yards? : MIRAGE!
I shoot at 1000-1400 yards every week for competition.
Why not... Here we go The reason this is so controversial is because it is unethical. It doesn't matter how good of a shot you are or how often you practice, it is a matter of what happens when that animal takes a half step at a 1000 yards and your point of aim went from behind the front shoulder to in the a$$. And if you say you can only do it if the conditions are perfect, you're not being honest with us and more importantly yourself. Because the only way the condition exist, of the animal not being capable of moving, is if it is bedded, and bedded animals vitals aren't exposed at that distance. If you shoot at that distance it is only time before an animal is wounded and not recovered. We, at one time or another will experience losing an animal but shooting at long distances will greatly increase your odds. And I should clarify, all of this is in reference to a numbers game. You might get away with it a few times but I am referring to people who consistently harvest high numbers of animals on an annual basis.
There we go That's my 2 cents
Last edited by Montana; 03-31-2012 at 02:08 PM.
I think we all are missing the point here. We will all never see eye to eye on how we hunt, what we hunt or what we use to harvest the animals we hunt. Our passion is always under attack by people that do not understand why we do what we do. We all have to agree to disagree and stick together to keep this passion alive. Thats just my 2cents.
Can the animal see, smell, or hear you at 1000yds? Other than the shot. What skills do you need to hunt at 1000yds?
Just because I don't like sitting behind a reloading bench turning brass to within a micron doesn't mean I don't respect someone that does (I do enjoy reloading though). Just because I don't shoot iron sights much anymore (I did for many, many years and I guess I shoot one white tail doe a year with a Savage 99 that was my grandpa's) doesn't mean I don't respect someone who does. Just because I don't (or can't) shoot reliably at 1000 yards doesn't mean I don't respect the time and dedication it takes someone like Edelweiss or Elkoholic to hone that craft. I don’t recommend every young guy with cable TV, run out and start throwing bullets downrange at long distance just because they think they can because some guy on TV did. But to be honest, every hunter has a maximum range well short of what his weapon is capable of reproducing consistently (I don’t care if you shoot a bow or scoped firearm, muzzle loader or 45-70 with iron sights, yes Quigley went “down under” and a whole lot of guys hit the hills trying to be him as well. Tom Horn you aren’t.) Don’t try and sell yourself as someone who has never “stretched the max” a bit, or wondered “If I can”. If you are human, you have. I have SEEN Eastman’s shows where Guy shot animals further than his post in this thread says he LIKES to shoot (Mike is a different story, we love you Mike). The bottom line to me is this, I describe "ethical" as the ability to truly self evaluate, look critically in a mirror and honestly assess who you are (in this discussion that means asking what you are capable of) and doing the right thing in light of that evaluation (everyone should practice this in all areas of their lives). Don't for one minute tell me that still hunting the woods, shooting with iron sights, means you are a more ethical shooter (or even necessarily a more ethical hunter). For instance, there is no way in H. E. double hockey sticks that you can shoot as well (actual repeatable accuracy) with iron sights at even 50 yards as you can with a more modern sighting platform (protest all you want, no you can't). You can, I am 100% positive, shoot very adequately for a hunting situation, but not technically as well. That “hunting situation” part means we ALL make judgement calls. So extending the logic to many of you are using, we should all rail on the choice to shoot iron sights, or bows or whatever isn't the most accurate method of shooting. After all, your logic states that the lower the chance of a bad shot, the more ethical you are, and so because repeatably accurate shots are less likely to be bad shots they are by definition more ethical. Should mandate you use the better sighting platform (not just the many arbitrary distances people use to define what is ‘ethical’) to ensure you are the most ethical hunter possible. Or maybe we should MANDATE that every hunter shoot X number of 1000's of rounds at a range every year, keeping a skill that has a "shelf life" at it's peak. And using this logic bows are out (and I just dumped a bunch in a new rig, DANG), they aren't as accurate and don't produce the kinetic energy to "ethically" dispatch an animal as quickly as whatever firearm you are using (heard that one for years about bow seasons and archery equipment). Oh, and all you front loaders out there, can't use them any more. And why is it that some states won't let you use a scope on a muzzle loader, it makes it more accurate, so it is more ethical right? Or is ethical more "Primative", you can't have it both ways. These are just stupid divisive arguments about what happens "if" (the animal moves, or stops moving or the wind picks up/dies down or whatever). The challenge is in testing yourself, how you test is up to you. You ALL have my respect .... as long as you give respect.
And by the way, to me the word 'Old' means 'Old enough' to know how to exercise self control in what you do, in what you say (or type), AND in knowing when to let it go. Disrespect is deserving of disrespect, and to the respectful person respect is due, so lets all practice respect. I wish the Mods would lock this thread out and put it to bed. This is to great of a site for this GAR BAGE (said with a french accent ).
Last edited by ChadH; 04-01-2012 at 01:20 AM.