For what it's worth I don't agree with long range shooting at animals for a couple of reasons. First, I personally would not want to instill in my kids the idea that it's ok to take a long shot if you can't get any closer. I would rather teach them how to get closer and make a quality close range shot opposed to setting them up with a long range gun and allowing them to start sniping game. Part of what makes some hunts so memorable are the ones that got away. Not missed, just couldn't get close enough for the shot. I wouldn't be able to take much pride in the hunt if I killed them at 800-1,000 yards. Would it be a good shot. Yes. Would it be a good hunt? Not in my opinion. I think that bragging rights over shooting long distances is best left at the range.
Second, tag quotas are based off of historic success rates and include a percentage for wounded animals. If people start thinking that it is ok to start shooting animals out past 400 yards then success rates would increase, wounding loss would increase, but tag quotas would have to be cut, resulting in a net loss of opportunity. I'm not saying that animals don't get wounded each year at ranges under 400 yards but a shot under 400 yards is certainly better than a shot over 400 yards and a shot under 100 yards is even better yet. There are too many factors that come into play when shooting long distances in the mountains and if anyone is interested in learning more about these should look into taking a micro meteorology class. There is some interesting stuff discussed in those and thermals is certainly one of them.
