Thread: Long-range hunting: is it sporting?

I respectfully disagree about some of what's been said about Tony or the old guard in general. As much as I admire everyone's right to hunt the way that makes you feel good and allows you to enjoy the outdoors, I think it's important to remember that this country has a very rich history of hunting in a style (bush stalking) which has very much been eroding in many other parts of the world. Alongside that style of hunting, and the pioneers (many of whom were hardcore by today's standards), who helped drive the sport of hunting in this country, were examples of bushcraft and kiwi know-how, which is just not as common today. And I'm writing this from the perspective of someone who grew up in the city.

I think longrange hunting has unfortunately attracted some people who see it as a one way ticket to shooting animals without the need to learn all the other nitty gritty stuff that technology and money cannot buy (Bush sense, appreciation for the outdoors etc). The older guys are then hinging the newer discipline on the unfavourable (in their eyes) mentality of individuals who start out as shooters, and gravitate towards hunting with the goal of practicing on live targets... and not getting into the sport with 'knowledge from the farm' (so to speak).

So, in short, I believe it to be a stigma thing. But a lot can be learned from these hunters of old, and I think we shouldn't be so quick to write them off. They grew up and hunted in a different era. :0) We can still learn a lot from them, and if they want to be skeptical, so be it.

In 50 years from now when all the kids are using drones to zap deer, I'll call them a bunch of new age fuckers, before re inserting a straw in my nose and snorting my soup.

Typed on my phone in a hurry, and hence it probs makes little sense

Those old hunters like Tony Orman who started with open sight .303 were pretty quick to take advantage of technology and use scopes and "better" calibres.

Point taken.

So what proportion are wounded and of these what proportion are dispatched quickly?
Is it ethical to use a hunting method with a high wounding ratio?

Originally Posted by Frodo

The older guys are then hinging the newer discipline on the unfavourable (in their eyes) mentality of individuals who start out as shooters, and gravitate towards hunting with the goal of practicing on live targets... and not getting into the sport with 'knowledge from the farm' (so to speak).

I may have 'the wrong end of the stick' but here goes.

Well I would class those 'hunters' that have not learned to 'shoot' first as being unethical, as they would actually be the ones practising on live animals.

I have spent a fair amount of time in my younger years learning and practising bush skills. Fairly late in the piece I have decided to learn to use a firearm and learn how to shoot, having no-one in the family that was into shooting until recently. As such I don't have the hunting skills, but hopefully they will come. To me it was important to learn to shoot before bumbling around in order to maximise my chances of a clean kill once I got to that point (still waiting to get to that point). As such, with the skills I have amassed over the last few years I would be confident to take a short or a longer range shot within my limits. I think location and terrain plays a major roll in the type of hunting.

Originally Posted by stug

Those old hunters like Tony Orman who started with open sight .303 were pretty quick to take advantage of technology and use scopes and "better" calibres.

Your quite correct with that comment stug....

Seem to recall reading articles he wrote where he was extolling the killing virtues of his 303 with its heavy bullet and its slow velocity, and how wonderfully it killed over more modern chamberings such as the speedy 243 with its lighter weight bullets (probably aimed at Phil Holden).

Yep wasnt long before there was a magazine article where he lavished praise on his new 243 which had replaced his 303.....

It is what is it.... old people not adapting to changes in culture.

Sure nobody does the hard yards anymore might suit your'e way of thinking, but frankly thats bullshit. Sure there are skills learned in close proximaty hunting that may not be in long range hunting.... but so what?

It is possible to behave ethically in both situations... I wouldn't trust half the silly old farts with their shaky 303's at 50 metres in comparison with a young fart well practiced at 600.... with a rifle that he knows well..

Half the concern about all this is based on the awareness of their own personal situation. Just cause you are not able to shoot over 300, doesn't mean other people can't do it ethically.

Their is no point in talking about a hypothetical wounding ratio... you wll never get to know what that might be.

What we can do is try to establish practical range limitations according to ability. Choose the conditions and the range that allows you to hit a 10" kill zone 100% of the time..

Its pretty fricken simple...

And by that measure that will shorten the ranges for half the silly old elitest bush hobbits as well...

some of it comes down to whether a clean kill can be reasonably certain. I note that a very well known "long range" hunter usually has a capable tracking dog close by. Ethics do have to be considered and if in rough terrain with handy cover then a good dog is very useful.
Shooting a stag at 4-600 metres just on dark is often resulting in no recovery till next day, if at all, and then having spoilt meat unless certain criteria can be met.
Common sense , a powerful enough cartridge, very precise shooting and experience plus a good dog are all to be considered. Otherwise, just don't shoot.

Here is my take on it....

I think people are getting mixed up between "is it ethical" and "is it sporting."
The two are separate issues and neither are absolutes.

Ethics: In my mind ethics has mainly revolved around doing everything in your power to minimise suffering, now this depends on your abilities as a hunter, fitness, tracking and stalking skills and marksmanship. Basically it is can I be reasonably certain that my shot will be a clean kill, obviously mistakes do happen no matter how good we are, ethics then to me says that we make a quick follow up and end the suffering.
The long range aspect only comes in to me in the second part here, if a well practiced shooter can consistently produce clean kills at whatever range then it seems there is no issue with placement. With following up a wounded animal, the standard practice has been to give it 15 to 20 mins to let it settle, adrenalin ease, and let the wound stiffen anyway, rather than charging after it and making it run, so perhaps this is not an issue with long range anyway, taking into account the terrain obviously.

Sporting: Now, here is where it gets interesting, I think it only needs to be sporting if you want it to be sporting, let's be honest, killing deer on a deer farm is not sporting, but no one really worries about it do they? If the main goal is to put meat in the freezer then why are we even arguing? I don't care that my homekill is not free to fair chase, I do care however that it is killed humanely, which is more to do with ethics.
Now I hunt for sport, I will not go hungry if I don't hunt and I know the antis will crucify me for saying this but I enjoy it, not only the kill but the whole aspect of fair chase in the bush and pitting my skills against the animals senses to get close enough for a shot.
In my opinion long range hunting is not sporting (in the traditional sense) only due to the fact that the animals do not see you as a threat at extended ranges so you are not engaging and defeating their senses, but, I do acknowledge the skill it takes to make a clean shot at those ranges so in that sense I see it as a different kind of "sport" due to putting in the hard yards to get in position and get set up, judge the wind and range and atmosphere and make the shot.

So all in all, while long range hunting is not my thing, I do see it as a sport in a way and provided the work has been put in to ensure a clean shot and all aspects taken into account it can be ethical too.
I believe the issue that most have is neither of these but rather the fact (nobody can refute this) that it is not traditional.

There js a lot of very good analysis here. A great Showcase for the forum .


1. The Context of this article is the NZDA official magazine. The strength of the NZDA (to the eyes of non hunters) is that it has' rules. NZDA does reduce hunting to a sport.

2-Technology has advanced and where a 150m Shot was long range f0r My .303 with 4x scope , Now 250m i s OK with my 1 inch 7-mm 08, dial up 3-12× scope and rangefinder. A good dog would extend feasible range more.

3 Shooting skills may arguably not have advanced as much as equipment. Field target shooting at gongS is a new development and will build up a core of hunters capable of stretching out for longer shots. I suspect that hunters' bush stalking skills are alto better than they were a few decades ago .

4. If you fire a shot you're committed to going over to where the animal was and searching.Most often you may AS well stalk closer before shooting.

5. The Short shots Can be darned difficult too.

I think that on the whole you are right Spud.. however

My reading of the article clearly links ethics and sporting contest.

My position is that legitimate sporting contest doesn't exist in hunting, it probably never has but it is certainly is a prehistoric and completely inaccurate supposition and is even more remote in a dominantly urban based culture. That being the case a sporting contest and the relative merit of increased fairness due to proximaty cannot be linked with an ethical discussion. The ongoing risks of that argument for our recreational interests are significant and dangerous.

The second implication in the article is that long range hunting is unethical because of increased risk of being unethical.

Can you see the flaws in that position? If that is the strength of his argument, then we shouldn't be allowed to hunt at all. Any hunting activity substantially increases the risk of unethical behaviour. In fact apply that idea to almost anything and you might start to understand what a stupid position it is. Do you get how risky this stuff is?

Doing a survey of his peer group doesn't add any weight to his argument either, he is just seeking to justify his opinion..

Some good points there, Sidney. At the end of the day, if nothing else, money talks. And long range shooting accounts for a very large slice of the market. It allows for new technology and gadgetry to be continuously developed and sold to hunters. It's also a discipline where it's participants embrace consumerism to some extent.

I'd be interested to know the demographic of those who purchase the particular magazine Tony wrote his article in. If it's predominantly older hunters or not.

I am not into what I would call extreme long range shooting when it comes too animals. But in saying that, every shot I can recall over 300 and out to 800 that I have taken on animals, I have managed a 100% record.

I have only shot 3-4 animals over 500 but was only able to retrieve 2 of them for various reasons.
It put me off attempting it anymore. Laziness being the main reason.😆

It is a small sample size to be fair as far as my LR hunting goes. But in comparison I have missed hundreds of animals inside 200m. Wounded a few as well.
I even missed a red yearling with 2 shots at 5m once.😆

So I don't think anyone who puts in the time to know their gear and ability is unethical or unsportsmanlike no matter how far they decide to take a shot.
Wounding and losing an animal at LR is no different to losing one at a distance that some claim to be sportmanlike or ethical. If you do enough hunting, percentage wise, you are going to have a fuck up every now and then no matter what the distance.







Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

What concerns me most is the author's attempt to justify and apply to others' an ethical cloak for hunting, where-as I believe its a matter of individual choice. Individual choice mostly turns on an individual's values, and not on a certain ethical standard that others might wish to apply. Albeit that ethics might inform our values. Difference Between Ethics and Values - Key Differences

Its a useful debate, and at the least Mr Orman has raised our consciousness about the topic.

When I first began hunting (over 50 years ago) the average range for my kills might have been 80 yards. The deer were often running, and often many shots were fired. Some were wounded. Mr Orman would say that was unethical. I would say it offended my own values. As time went by and I became a better shot and a better hunter the average range increased to the point where mostly the animals were undisturbed and I had time for an accurate kill shot. So, after about 10 years of hunting I was head and neck shooting (hundreds) of deer with a .222. I would say that was consistent with my values, Mr Orman would likely say it was unethical because I was shooting too many and it was for money. And then things got even better...better 'scopes and better ammo...and hand loading. Now, by the mid to late 90's I could do what I did with the .222 with a more powerful cartridge but at 200-400 yards if I wished...and I did wish because I shot for the trade and wanted every deer I saw. Still consistent with my values, but offending the cloak of ethics Mr Orman would wish to throw over me. For the last 20 years I've hunted for fun. Fun is shooting undisturbed animals cleanly with one shot, analysing the results and talking ballistics and bull shit with my few friends and sons. And munching on meat, and giving it away. The last 3 deer I have shot have on average been 318 yards away. Totally consistent with my values, and Mr Orman can go and jump in the lake.