What makes an unethical shot?

[Boreal]

Hello all, I've got an ethics question for you. On a Facebook hunting page, someone posted a photo of a deer that they claimed to have shot at 350 yards, while it was running. Another follower stated that it was an unethical shot, and the hunter should have reconsidered. Other followers disagreed, stating that the second poster knew nothing of the circumstances, and that 350 yards on a running animal could be an ethical shot for some hunters.

I've always been taught (for 35 years now) that there is more to an ethical shot than "can I hit it?", a hunter must consider what's behind the animal in case of a miss, a moving animal is orders of magnitude harder to hit in the vitals than a stationary animal, and always be capable and ready for any follow up shot. But what say you? Are there circumstances that automatically make a shot unethical?

 

[hflier]

I would say one that exceeds your capability and high probability of success. That varies by person. Some its 20-30 yards, other 60-70 bowhunting. I personally would shoot more than 50 yards bow hunting because that is where my skill level is. For rifle, I would probably not want a shot of more than 300 yards on deer and 400 on Elk. I am sure there are others that could do much longer and others much less due to their capability. What I think is wrong, is one hunter judging another without knowing the others skill level. There is no cut and dry answer.

I do not think it is ethical to shoot a moving animal (purposely, sometimes they move as you shoot).

 

[dotman]

Yeah it really is individual, had two older gentlemen at the range recently getting ready for KS deer season, at 100 yards they were so far off they hit the next target to the left of the one they were aiming, good 10ft. To me it's unethical for them to hunt if they can't get that rifle figured out but I bet they still hunt either way. Oh and when I was leaving they were excited, finally got it on paper at 50 yards.

 

[amp713]

Best way I've found to describe ethical shots:

If your surprised you hit the animal it probably wasnt ethical.

Once the shot is taken you should ONLY be surprised if the animal isn't hit.

 

[hflier]

Best way I've found to describe ethical shots:

If your surprised you hit the animal it probably wasnt ethical.

Once the shot is taken you should ONLY be surprised if the animal isn't hit.

That's a great way to state it!

 

[NDGuy]

For those guys at the range...problem solved

Yeah it really is individual, had two older gentlemen at the range recently getting ready for KS deer season, at 100 yards they were so far off they hit the next target to the left of the one they were aiming, good 10ft. To me it's unethical for them to hunt if they can't get that rifle figured out but I bet they still hunt either way. Oh and when I was leaving they were excited, finally got it on paper at 50 yards.

 

[dotman]

Haha

 

[ElkNut1]

LOL! That should slow down that wascally wabbit so you can finish him off! (grin)

Ya, ethics cannot be defined in a rock solid statement that applies to everyone!

ElkNut/Paul

 

[elkduds]

My first consideration in decision to shoot is, "Will this shot kill the animal fast," closely followed by "if something goes wrong, what happens to the animal?" I have no interest in wounding/losing game, so I pass on shots others might consider or take. I watched a guy send 7 shots @ a bull that was 600ish yards away when he first shot, w a 270. It finally fell over. He danced and hollered like he was a sniper/hero/hunting god. I think he was a tool.

I follow up every shot by going to where the animal was and determining what kind of hit or miss. I have read several internet posts this fall in which the author was, "sure it was a clean miss," w no description of going to the spot and really finding out. Then they are off shooting @ another animal. If you have ever found dead or wounded game shot by someone else as I have, this really hits home. It is a sign of a slob hunter. How many hunters shooting @ long range are physically going to the spot they shot toward, after every shot??

 

[WyoElk]

Best way I've found to describe ethical shots:

If your surprised you hit the animal it probably wasnt ethical.

Once the shot is taken you should ONLY be surprised if the animal isn't hit.

This is well stated and what I agree with. Steve Rinella says that if your surprised you made the shot, it wasn't ethical. You should know when you take the shot that it is within your abilities.

 

[flatlanderhuffandpuff]

because I know my family wont go hungry if I come home with something to eat I only take shots that I have full confidence in. I preach ethical hunting practices so I am certainly going to hold myself to that standard.

If I lived in any previous time period of human existence I would take any shot that might possibly yield a meal. We have the privilege of choosing to hold out for ethical harvests.

 

[Boreal]

Thanks all for the thoughtful responses. So far the discussion has focused on distance. I would bet large sums of someone else’s money that most on this forum could make a 350 yard shot on a deer sized animal. What about the fact that the deer was running? Is a running animal a factor? At any distance? Or is there a distance at which a running deer isn’t a big deal?

For my own limits, I would always pass on a deer that was running. If I made it run, I did something wrong. I have shot at running animals in the past, and got a lesson from my uncles who were teaching me at the time. So that affects my own choices.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Neverenoughhntn]

I agree with amp713... although, I would consider an ethical shot is one where you would be honestly surprised if you didn't hit where you were aiming. (Which I think was his point.... figure I'd throw that out there before someone jumps on claiming we all think it's ethical to be taking shots and breaking legs, etc because we still hit the animal)

 

[mtnkid85]

Ill step in and say a shot on a running animal at 350yrds IS unethical. Its unethical for anyone who hasn't repeatedly practiced that shot to the point that they KNOW they can make it. And further more having the experience with those kind of shots to know if they CANT make them. This isn't a case where ignorance is bliss, they shouldn't attempt a shot on live game just because they don't know if they can make it or not.

Also depending on the caliper/chambering they are shooting. A running animals front shoulder is going to be even more difficult to predict, so if your shooting a load that requires you don't hit bone... unethical.

Now you said everyone is focusing on distance, that is because of how much distance ramps up the difficulty/uncertainty of a given shot. Jump shooting a running deer at 35yards with a open sight lever gun is a different discussion then the same deer at 350yrds.

 

[LIWolverine]

Best way I've found to describe ethical shots:

If your surprised you hit the animal it probably wasnt ethical.

Once the shot is taken you should ONLY be surprised if the animal isn't hit.

I’ll hop on board with this. Good way to look at it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Shrek]

What I think is wrong, is one hunter judging another without knowing the others skill level. There is no cut and dry answer.

This sums it up. These discussions always bring out the “holier than thou” d’bags.

 

[Gorp2007]

Best way I've found to describe ethical shots:

If your surprised you hit the animal it probably wasnt ethical.

Once the shot is taken you should ONLY be surprised if the animal isn't hit.

I'll agree, but with the caveat that the shooter should be confident based on real world experience & practice. I have family members who are very confident in their abilities and would be SHOCKED if they missed on any game they deemed worthy; however, this confidence has no basis on their actual shooting abilities and they attempt shots that they've never even dreamed of practicing at the range. "300 yards off-hand? Well, I printed pretty decent groups at 100 yards off the bench, so this should be fine."

 

[BrushyHillGuide]

I worry about my own ethics and leave it to others to determine what's "ethical" for them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Where's Bruce?]

Hello all, I've got an ethics question for you. On a Facebook hunting page, someone posted a photo of a deer that they claimed to have shot at 350 yards, while it was running. Another follower stated that it was an unethical shot, and the hunter should have reconsidered. Other followers disagreed, stating that the second poster knew nothing of the circumstances, and that 350 yards on a running animal could be an ethical shot for some hunters.

I've always been taught (for 35 years now) that there is more to an ethical shot than "can I hit it?", a hunter must consider what's behind the animal in case of a miss, a moving animal is orders of magnitude harder to hit in the vitals than a stationary animal, and always be capable and ready for any follow up shot. But what say you? Are there circumstances that automatically make a shot unethical?

An ethical shot is the one you KNOW you can make and will quickly kill the target. If you aren't confident you can and will do that...it's not an ethical shot.

 

[texag10]

Agreed with the others that say it is a shot you are very confident in that you have practiced. "I group x at 250 yards, so I should be able to hit a 2x sized target at 500 yards" isn't good enough.