Quote:
I have to wonder about people who shoot game animals at vast distances, as if it's something to be proud of. A glance at a ballistics chart shows how many inches a bullet in flight can deviate from the target in just 100-200 yds. Even the super-duper "magnums" aren't exempt from the laws of physics. Also, almost everything in the field detracts from accurate shooting.
It's sad that so many kids now grow up thinking "hunting" means executing animals at 2-3 times an ethical hunting distance, with of course a large percentage of animals wounded and left to die slow, painful deaths. I have a lot of respect for bowhunters, handgun hunters, and close-range rifle hunters, who have the skill, wisdom, and integrity to really hunt. It's nice to see the great majority of people who voted on this thread do just that.
|
"Vast" distances? What is that, exactly? What some folks from back east think is a "vast" distance", may be a common, every-day shot in places in the west. Glancing at a ballistics chart may tell you how many inches a given bullet drops but if you KNOW your distance and your gun and cartridge and are sportsman enough not to try and take a shot that you are not absolutely sure you can make, then who decided what is "ethical"? I've seen just as many or more people lose deer and other animals at "ethical" distances due to over-confidence as I have long distances due to other factors.
Where are your facts that there are a "large percentage" of animals that have been shot long range that go off and die slow, painful deaths? Do you have any clue how many deer bowhunters lose every year?
"Ethical" is in the mind, not the distance. If you can make a good clean, humane kill at 600 yards, it is just as "ethical" as someone else making the same type of kill at 40 yards.