Then of course there are the Axis of evil. Yum. ;o)
There is never a good reason to give deer a shot of whiskey, unless you are going to operate on the deer and whiskey is the only anesthetic you have.
Where is the SPORT in such extreme ranges? How do you hone your stalking and concealment techniques from a quarter mile away?
I agree with the last sentence posted: It takes most of the “hunt” out of the experience and turns the experience into target practice on live animals.
I abhor using live animals for practice.
When the fawn is bedded down, waiting for the return of its mother?
The word "ethical" has nothing to do with guns or ammo, but taking a deer.
Take a deer and eat it ?
The most ethical thing you can do.
Kill it n' grill it, as my man would say.
Then of course there are the Axis of evil. Yum. ;o)
If you’re hunting for food then the rule I was taught is: “If you can’t make the shot then don’t take the shot.”
If a shooter is skilled enough to make a 1000’ shot then God bless him!
Oh, and if it’s a coyote I’ll give it a go no matter what.
I see more military applications.
Instant sniper kit.
Asking the wrong question.
The proper question is whether it is unethical to kill for ‘sport’.
If you are hunting to eat, there is nothing unethical about the longer range.
OK, going to play devil’s advocate here. What is the difference between a guy that taking or missing a 100yd shot, which he thinks he can make, and a guy taking or missing a 1300yd shot he thinks he can make? What is a “ethical” range to take an animal from? Are bow hunters more “ethical” than rifle hunters, because their shots are normally 10-40 yds, vice 50-100+ yds? Are the guys that run up on wild pigs and stab them with a spear more “ethical” than bow hunters?
Did the animal suffer, was it just left on the ground to rot, or was it taken illegally? If the answers are no, then anything else is just anti-hunting fodder, IMO
As one who endured $8,000 damage to his fairly new Chevy Colorado and three weeks to get it back, (by the way Chevy guys did a great job), I vote, ANYTIME!
One man passing judgement on another man’s skill and ability based on their confidence and ability with their own weapon is unethical.
Not everyone is hunting for the “Sport” or the “Challenge”. Some are hunting for the meat.
A man hunting in the hills of the South East is not going to have the same experience or skills of long distance shooting as someone in Montana or Wyoming.
Neither is more ethical than the other. If the animal is dead and is not lost, wounded or needlessly suffering, the question of ethics has been answered.
Clean kill = Clean conscience.
What about Elmer Keith’s (in)famous long range 600 yard shot with a .44 magnum pistol! He got the deer.
If CWII ever breaks out, these sharpshooters who routinely make 1300+ yard shots will be in high demand.
1: If you put out a salt lick for them.
2: If they are in a zoo.
3: If they are pulling Santa’s slay.
There’s hunting and then there’s stunting. His first two shoots luckily were clear misses, what if they hadn’t been? A gut shot deer can travel a long ways before dying and it can take hours if not a couple of days for it to die depending on the actual wound itself. Not much for this type of stunting but I do like that caliber.
Being an old geezer, I rarely shoot over 50 yds
and usually much less as I tend to hunt where
the cover is thick. I can’t tree hunt anymore
so have to build hides and clear shooting lanes.
Watch the wind and your scent and stay awake.
It’s unethical. This is guys pretending they are Army snipers. They aren’t recovering these animals. And they aren’t hitting where they should. They are hitting “the deer”. Anywhere on the deer will do for these slobs.
The game it they shoot at extreme range, “can’t” locate the animal, conclude they must have missed. Then they save the tag and just keep shooting animals. Cal sportsman again.