From: boardman%cancer.unm.edu@lynx.unm.edu (Bob Boardman)
Newsgroups: rec.hunting
Subject: Re: Long-range hunting
Date: 6 Apr 92 14:20:47 GMT
Article-I.D.: doug.1992Apr6.092047.8828
Organization: UNM Cancer Center
Originator: hunting@osnome.che.wisc.edu

In article <1992Apr3.075930.15041@doug.cae.wisc.edu>,
        X005CB@tamvm1.tamu.edu (Chris Barnes) writes:
>
> 
>   It is unethical for the same reason as I mentioned before
>(a point you have failed to address).  Namely that is ignores
>the concept of "fair chase".  Even hunting from a tree stand
>over a deer feeder have an element of fair chase in it; 1200 
>yard shots do not.
>
	O.K., I was going to stay out of this, but I can't let this
  go without responding.  Anyone who sees ANY ethical superiority
  in sitting on one's butt in a tree stand until a deer wanders by
  within range (tell me, just where do you see "an element of fair
  chase" here?), relative to making long shots on game, which may
  actually be required because the terrain is too open to stalk any
  closer (common here in N.M.), has split ethical hairs until they've
  gotten themselves into one big hairball, IMHO.
>
>   So your next question would probably be "so what range IS
>ethical?".  Answer:  it depends.  It would obviously be longer
>if you're hunting antelope on the plains than it would if you
>were hunting whitetails in the woods.  For deer I would
>have to guess that anything over 200 yards is pushing out on
>that barrier (although there may be times when the distance
>could exceed that, it would never exceed it by a multiplying factor).
>
	I sometimes take shots exceeding this by a factor of 2 with
  my Ruger #1 in 7mm Rem Mag, using 140 or 160 grain Nosler partition
  bullets.  I feel that these shots are at the limit of my particular
  combination of rifle/ammo/shooting ability, and wouldn't try a shot at
  over 500 yards or so, but I think any hunter has to make these decisions
  for himself.  I will always try to stalk closer if that is possible,
  but sometimes there just isn't any cover.  Then one has to decide
  whether they reasonably can make the shot from that point, taking
  all factors into consideration.  After all, it's always a matter of
  probabilites, not absolutes.  There is always some probability of not
  killing cleanly, regardless of the range.  One uses their best judgement
  and has to live with the consequences, just like with everything else
  in this life.
> 
>    It seems intresting to me that I am carring on the same type
>of discussion on 2 separate lists (the other being tx.politics).
>Namely, answering the question "Are morals (ethics) absolute or
>relative?".  I beleive they are absolute, and that they apply
>to everyone; whether you choose to hold to those ethics or not
>does not change whether or not the ethics of the action itself.
>But this argument is better served by another list.....
>
	Indeed! You are entitled to your beliefs.  Just don't try to
  tell the rest of us that we're unethical because we don't happen to
  agree with you.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
|**I _AM_ a member of a well-regulated militia - self-regulated, that is!!!!**|
| Bob Boardman,Albuquerque,New Mexico - NRA LIFE, NMSSA, Zia Rifle&Pistol Club|
|        internet:boardman@cancer.unm.edu    bitnet:BOARDMAN@UNMB             |
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=