Under what circumstances are long distance shots appropriate in hunting dangerous game? And more broadly, to what extent should we insulate ourselves from what should be the appropriate dangers inherent in dangerous game hunting?

As hunters, we can only preserve our sport if we periodically question our practices and hold them up to scrutiny. For me at least, it stretches credulity for someone to announce to all and sundry their intention to ‘hunt dangerous game’ only to see them procure a high-powered scope mated to a large-caliber ‘sniper’ rifle so that they can fire on buffalo from the safety and comfort of an adjacent area code.

We need to ask ourselves, at what point, if any, does the distance of a shot change dangerous game hunting into target shooting? There is a difference: With target shooting, you need not rely upon fieldcraft to approach your animal – extreme distance makes such skills irrelevant. For example, should we consider a 200-meter shot on a buffalo dangerous game hunting? How about 400-meters? 600 meters? What if the shot is taken from a helicopter from similar distances? The platform shouldn’t make a difference in this case, given the irrelevance of stealth at those distances. Where do we draw the line? This is precisely how the cowardly business of hunting live game over the internet with computer-controlled rifles came into being.

Of course, distance in the case of dangerous game is relative. I don’t know how someone can honestly define the common practice of shooting a river-borne hippo from 75-meters as it comes up for air as an act of ‘dangerous game hunting’ – unless the ‘dangerous’ part is quite separate from the actual hunting and is meant in some distant, unassociated, and altogether theoretical context.

In my view, this style of hunting perverts the whole notion of there being some inherent danger in the pursuit of dangerous game. Shooting hippo in a river is no more dangerous than shooting a woodchuck as it peers out of its burrow. On the other hand, hunting hippo on land at close range seems both sporting and in keeping with the notion that hunting dangerous game should involve a modicum of risk to the participants.

I worry about those that are just now entering our sport and looking for examples of propriety. Unfortunately, hunting videos are replete with examples of hunters ‘sniping’ dangerous game. For every video by Craig Boddington, who consistently hunts his dangerous game up close and often with iron sights, there is one with a client or PH that seems to equate distance with prowess. Marc Watts, one of the finest rifle shots of our generation, also limits his long-range skills to plainsgame. Like Boddington, ‘Moja’ demonstrates a respect for his dangerous quarry by typically hunting them inside of 100-meters – even though he is quite capable of dispatching them from eye-squinting distances.

My point is not that we need to assume unreasonable risk in our pursuit of dangerous game; indeed, it would be foolhardy for anyone to expose themselves to unnecessary danger. But what is unnecessary? No one is forced to hunt dangerous game. For those desirous of a risk-free hunt, plainsgame are abundant and divorced of danger.

On the other hand, when it comes to dangerous game, then perhaps those hunters unwilling to accept the risk of a fair-chase, close-in stalk to an animal that could, under such proximity and circumstances, harm you, should content themselves with safer pursuits. There is a culture and an art and a beauty - albeit brutal - to dangerous game hunting. Those alluring characteristics can only be preserved if we ensure that the pursuit of our trophy is as worthy as the trophy itself.

It is always appropriate to question one's own ethics, and difficult to question another's.

IMO, very few ele, lion, or leopard are taken beyond 50 meters by sport hunters. Occasionally buffalo in groups are very difficult to approach in certain terrain, and might be shot at longer ranges--but still the chance of following a wounded buff exists.

In the long run, the hunter who whacks a game animal from the truck or at long range without much effort, whether DG or not, is just cheating himself out of some of the enjoyment of the hunt. Not sure I see any harm to the rest of us in it.

There are worse things that could happen.

I've only been gone from the forums about a month, but it seems longer. (I moved back out west.)

Hunting hippo in a river not that dangerous?

Risk-free plains game hunting? Haven't you ever seen a pissed off bushbuck?

Maybe long-distance shots can be abandoned when the quarry gives up their long distance hearing and sense of smell.

So in essence, you are proposing to set Standards for everyone to follow when hunting anything that is considered DG?

When ethics become Standards are not they called Laws, and as such, will their not need to be someone on hand to enforce those Standards/Ethics/Laws?

Simple question here, and the most dangerous thing I have ever hunted is, nothing, I have a high powered rifle in my hands and if I don't place the bullet correctly, something may run from me for a while before dying, but nothing I have shot has ever posed a serious health risk, but, do you feel that everyone should view the business of hunting DG the exact same way you do?

The only DG I have any desire to hunt would be a Cape buffalo, several of them in fact, but I would want to be doing so at ranges under 100 yards/meters, preferably 50 or under, same if I were to get the opportunity to hunt a leopard.

Just my opinion here, but your post is just one more example of why the anti-hunting/anti-gun crowd is not really having to work real hard at their goal, hunters are doing it to themselves.

You feel that unless a person hunts DG under your Personal set of guidelines, then they either should not be considered a DG hunter, or possibly should not be allowed to hunt DG altogether.

I have no desire what so ever to set out on the plains of Wyoming and shoot Sod Poodles at a quarter of a mile, does that mean that according to my ethics and standards, No One Else Should, I don't think so.

What next, force PH's that offer hunts for DG, to only accept clients that are willing to shoot all DG at 30 yards or less?

If a PH is found allowing his clients to shoot at something over 50 yards, pull his license?

This is just exactly the kind/type of fodder the anti crowd needs to keep circulating among hunters, to make their job, the anti's, that much easier.

Let's rare back on our high and mighties and declare that anyone that does not believe in hunting game regardless whether it is DG or not, as we do, either needs to be forced to do so thru the passing of more unenforceable laws and restrictions, or just classify so folks as not being true hunters.

People are going to make mistakes both ways, some shooting from too far away, some by getting too close and in to tight a spot and getting members of the hunting party hurt/killed.

I just do not understand why people have to want everyone else to do things just exactly their way, and if those folks don't, they should not be allowed to hunt that particular type of game.

quote:

It is always appropriate to question one's own ethics, and difficult to question another's.

Well said Steve. I not much on these "ethics" threads, aka the "My way or the highway threads."

Kim,

While I agree with much of what you say/believe, I don't feel the need to get on a soap box and preach.

Bob

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:
So in essence, you are proposing to set Standards for everyone to follow when hunting anything that is considered DG?

When ethics become Standards are not they called Laws, and as such, will their not need to be someone on hand to enforce those Standards/Ethics/Laws?

Simple question here, and the most dangerous thing I have ever hunted is, nothing, I have a high powered rifle in my hands and if I don't place the bullet correctly, something may run from me for a while before dying, but nothing I have shot has ever posed a serious health risk, but, do you feel that everyone should view the business of hunting DG the exact same way you do?

The only DG I have any desire to hunt would be a Cape buffalo, several of them in fact, but I would want to be doing so at ranges under 100 yards/meters, preferably 50 or under, same if I were to get the opportunity to hunt a leopard.

Just my opinion here, but your post is just one more example of why the anti-hunting/anti-gun crowd is not really having to work real hard at their goal, hunters are doing it to themselves.

You feel that unless a person hunts DG under your Personal set of guidelines, then they either should not be considered a DG hunter, or possibly should not be allowed to hunt DG altogether.

I have no desire what so ever to set out on the plains of Wyoming and shoot Sod Poodles at a quarter of a mile, does that mean that according to my ethics and standards, No One Else Should, I don't think so.

What next, force PH's that offer hunts for DG, to only accept clients that are willing to shoot all DG at 30 yards or less?

If a PH is found allowing his clients to shoot at something over 50 yards, pull his license?

This is just exactly the kind/type of fodder the anti crowd needs to keep circulating among hunters, to make their job, the anti's, that much easier.

Let's rare back on our high and mighties and declare that anyone that does not believe in hunting game regardless whether it is DG or not, as we do, either needs to be forced to do so thru the passing of more unenforceable laws and restrictions, or just classify so folks as not being true hunters.

People are going to make mistakes both ways, some shooting from too far away, some by getting too close and in to tight a spot and getting members of the hunting party hurt/killed.

I just do not understand why people have to want everyone else to do things just exactly their way, and if those folks don't, they should not be allowed to hunt that particular type of game.

Crazyhorse:

Hopefully you've found a chair and not succumbed to the vapours.

Nowhere in my post did I propose any standards, regulations, laws, license revocations, forced compliance, or restrictions of any kind (by people in black helicopters or whatever). From your response I suspect that presenting my opinion on hunting DG is an intrusion on your rights as a hunter and an act of treason to hunters in general. Whew! Might I suggest a decaffeinated coffee?

"How about 400-meters? 600 meters? What if the shot is taken from a helicopter from similar distances? "

Well that's quite sporting and could be potentially dangerous-- Hmmm, helicopters

We all have our thoughts as to ethical or not.

I do hunt game at very long distances,due to various reasons or choices ;though I reserve DG for closer work.

As others stated, I think you miss alot by not getting closer.

If,IMO, you are thoroughly accomplished at long distances both on inanimate and animate(varmint) shooting with the weapon in hand and you so choose to take a cape, a (daylight) leopard, lion, hippo,elephant at a distance it is your choice,as long as you comply with the local host.

However, the culpability for such choices increases when and if things go wrong,(again ,IMO), if a thusly fired upon DG then wrecks havoc upon a uninvolved party.

Now as to the argument, I mean discussion, about neck vs high shoulder vs heart/lung vs brain vs-etc----------

Oh and the Calibre question---

yeep if you want the full affect of DG slip up on one at close range and see how much adrenaline your system can stand. I know for a fact that and elephant at less than 20yds will get your heart going as well as your bowels if you not relly really sneaky be armed with nothing but a camera ha ha ha jokeing I wont do that again with only a camera OK OK OK well maybe once or twice more. BUT i will not have the cobera back at breakfast time ever again!!!!!! (: (:

PS texas brain shoots at 10yds in heavy bush will make you know your alive to. The buff that kill Simon Combes was killed in heavy bush at that disatnce by a friend of mine. he was still pumped a few days later

DANGEROUS GAME HUNTING IS JUST THAT. IT IS ONLY

DANGEROUS IF THE HUNTER IS IN CLOSE ENOUGH

PROXIMITY TO BE DANGEROUS. SHOOTING FROM LONG

DISTANCE IS JUST THAT, SHOOTING, NOT HUNTING.

LIKE TEDDY ROOSEVELT SAID: GAME IS ONLY

DANGEROUS WHEN MAN IS AROUND.

quote:

Hopefully you've found a chair and not succumbed to the vapours.

No where in my post did I propose any standards, regulations, laws, license revocations, forced compliance, or restrictions of any kind (by people in black helicopters or whatever). From your response I suspect that presenting my opinion on hunting DG is an intrusion on your rights as a hunter and an act of treason to hunters in general. Whew! Might I suggest a decaffeinated coffee?

No Sir, I have not succumbed to any vapors, nor do I need a chair.

It is beyond my ETHICS to type standing up.

quote:

My point is not that we need to assume unreasonable risk in our pursuit of dangerous game; indeed, it would be foolhardy for anyone to expose themselves to unnecessary danger. But what is unnecessary? No one is forced to hunt dangerous game. For those desirous of a risk-free hunt, plainsgame are abundant and divorced of danger.

Let start with this statement here.

If you are not trying to equate YOUR idea of ethics when it comes to hunting DG than Pray Tell, what are you doing?

Your entire post, is just like the one about hunting game behind a high fence, anywhere.

You do not believe it is "Fair Chase", therefore, unless I am mis-reading your written words, you feel that if a person/persons are not willing to hunt DG under the conditions YOU choose to hunt them under, they are less of a person/hunter than you and those that think/believe the way you do.

Have I completely mis-read your entire post in this case.

If so than I do profoundly apologise.

Are you not saying or at least implying, that for a person to have hunted DG that they must have done so under some un-written set of guide lines that puts themselves and the rest of their hunting party in as situation where actual Dangerous circumstances exist, and if they did not, then they should not consider themselves DG hunters, and neither should anyone else.

Am I wrong on that part also?

The distance you shoot at DG is up to you and your PH. If the two of you agree that you want to wail away from a distance, then be my guest but for me the fun is getting in nice and close. Botch a shot and the followup is not usually fun. Tense, exciting and usually dangerous, but not fun.
The experience is what you put into it.

Well, I have known several snipers and as a group they are weird!
Now, my only DG has been elephants at 10-40yds: that is my thrill; however, if someone wants to shoot something from the adjacent area code then that is his business.

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:

quote:

Hopefully you've found a chair and not succumbed to the vapours.

No where in my post did I propose any standards, regulations, laws, license revocations, forced compliance, or restrictions of any kind (by people in black helicopters or whatever). From your response I suspect that presenting my opinion on hunting DG is an intrusion on your rights as a hunter and an act of treason to hunters in general. Whew! Might I suggest a decaffeinated coffee?

No Sir, I have not succumbed to any vapors, nor do I need a chair.

It is beyond my ETHICS to type standing up.

quote:

My point is not that we need to assume unreasonable risk in our pursuit of dangerous game; indeed, it would be foolhardy for anyone to expose themselves to unnecessary danger. But what is unnecessary? No one is forced to hunt dangerous game. For those desirous of a risk-free hunt, plainsgame are abundant and divorced of danger.

Let start with this statement here. If you are not trying to equate YOUR idea of ethics when it comes to hunting DG than Pray Tell, what are you doing? Your entire post, is just like the one about hunting game behind a high fence, anywhere.

You do not believe it is "Fair Chase", therefore, unless I am mis-reading your written words, you feel that if a person/persons are not willing to hunt DG under the conditions YOU choose to hunt them under, they are less of a person/hunter than you and those that think/believe the way you do.

Have I completely mis-read your entire post in this case. If so than I do profoundly apologise.

Are you not saying or at least implying, that for a person to have hunted DG that they must have done so under some un-written set of guide lines that puts themselves and the rest of their hunting party in as situation where actual Dangerous circumstances exist, and if they did not, then they should not consider themselves DG hunters, and neither should anyone else. Am I wrong on that part also?

Interesting point about the typing. Hemingway felt it perverse to write sitting down, having penned 'The Green Hills of Africa' standing at his custom-built podium in Key West. Ah, but I digress...

I do appreciate your imparting your thoughts on ethics (even if tongue-in-cheek). My post was an attempt to define some ethical parameters for hunting dangerous game in the context of exchanging ideas with like-minded folk. Far from being a sin, exchanging ideas, particularly on issues such as ethics, is a bedrock principal in any fair-minded society, and a staple of special interest boards like this one, for that matter.

As to the quote you used, I was saying that if a hunter is not interested in pursuing dangerous game in a fashion of hunting that allows for some elements of danger, then perhaps plainsgame hunting would better suit them. Or in the alternative, don't call it dangerous game hunting in an attempt to impress oneself and others. My point wasn't that a hunter shouldn't be allowed to fire at a buffalo from 250m; just that, by so governing the risk, it no longer qualifies as 'dangerous game hunting'. It is rather the hunting of game that under other circumstances would be considered dangerous. (We'll leave the ethical argument of the increased likelihood of wounding and losing a buffalo shot from that distance for some other time ...)

I'm not sure of the particular high-fence post you are referring to, so I can't comment there. Your contention that I stated that anyone is less a person or hunter than me or anyone else is rather silly and certainly not true. This is not about elevating any person above or below another; it is about how we as hunters choose to define the hunting of dangerous game. And that ultimately doesn't come from me or you, it comes from us as a community.

I do believe that those of us that quake at the prospect of making ethical judgments put our sport at greater risk to the anti-hunters than those that who are not content to adopt an existential approach to common orthodoxies. For example, if we don't stand up when fringe elements of our sport tether game to a tree for a 'hunter' to shoot or rig up rifle to the internet so that animals can be 'hunted' from a desktop, then we play into the hands of those that would abolish hunting - and we deserve our fate.

Finally, I will concede that your last statement is fundamentally correct: Don't call yourself a hunter of dangerous game if by design and intent the greatest danger encountered in your hunt is the prospect of blisters on your feet. But then, those are only my opinions, Crazyhorse, and I welcome yours.

Maybe I hang out in an unusual crowd, but I've never once ever heard anyone say they were going "dangerous game hunting" in an attempt to impress anyone or assert their manliness. Rather, most for say they are going after lion, buff, etc. Nor have I ever heard anyone refer to themselves as a "dangerous game hunter."

Risk as a goal of itself or something to be proud of is foolhardy and incredibly immature (IMHO!), akin to those who "conquer" or "defeat" mountains by climbing them rather than enjoying a challenging if sometimes dangerous hobby. I mean, if the elephant is unaware at 10 yards should you run up and poke it with a sharp stick to make it more "sporting?" and get your Sullivanesque footage to show the boys at the bar? If you have to prove yourself to anyione by cheating death, you've got serious issues.

To each his own, but to me the point isn't the danger, but rather the fun. Really now, how many sport hunters are squashed or mauled each year as a percentage? Driving on the freeway is probably more hazardous. I think each hunter needs to define for themselves (with the PH) the range they can responsibly secure the animal, based on skill, terrain, vegetation, rifle, caliber, light, etc, rather than hard and fast rules.

It is your hunt, enjoy it. If you feel others are diminishing the clout you should command as a dangrous game hunter, get over yourself.

My 2 cents.

Bob

Ethics or the preferences of the pedantic prig.... (rhetorical)

We really need to keep our ethics to ourselves, its far too devisive and creates exclusivity.

This is slightly off topic, but Sue: What would cause you to move to a small town like Beaver, Utah? (Yes, I am very familiar with Beaver, Utah)

quote:

Posted 17 June 2009 03:44 Hide Post
Maybe I hang out in an unusual crowd, but I've never once ever heard anyone say they were going "dangerous game hunting" in an attempt to impress anyone or assert their manliness. Rather, most for say they are going after lion, buff, etc. Nor have I ever heard anyone refer to themselves as a "dangerous game hunter."

+100

Hunting is hunting. Do it the way that you enjoy. So long as all of the laws are obeyed, it's a matter of personal choice.

Pete

KPete,
Marc Watts is "one of the finest shots of our gereration"....where did you get that one from??

Nothing against Marc now, he is an awesome shot.

I don;t think of it as a matter of ethics so much as experience. If you want to shoo tyour buff from the back of a baaki @ 200yds, far be it from me to call you unethical, but don;t go telling everyone how you "hunted" DG, becasue you didn't, you shot it. Big diff. in my book. Would I take a DG animla farther than rock throwing ditance, sure if the circumstances dictated it, but if yo ucan get closer, get closer. That's what hunting is all about, especially DG IMO.

quote:

Originally posted by KPete:
Under what circumstances are long distant shots appropriate in hunting dangerous game?

IMO, never!

Long distant shots and DG hunting are an oxymoron. It's a relative question with as many opinions concerning what long distance is in the mind of the hunter. Keep in mind the following conclusions of distance and DG are my own convictions. When I shot my first cape buff in 1991 in Zambia at 80 yds with open sites I had no more feeling of accomplishment than if I had shot an impala at that distance so I vowed I would never shoot a buff over 50 yds no matter how big it is. I will never shoot an elephant over 25 yds nor will I shoot a nice brown bear over 50 yds. These are my personal rules and I'll shoot them without a scope on my rifle (another personal rule for me). To each his or her own, if you get the rush or excitement of shooting a buff at 100 yds Harah! Harah! who am I to judge, I'll rejoice with you at fulfilling your dream.

quote:

Originally posted by Leopardtrack:
KPete,
Marc Watts is "one of the finest shots of our gereration"....where did you get that one from?? Nothing against Marc now, he is an awesome shot.

Leopardtrack:

The quote is mine; the sentiment is one shared by a number of PHs and experienced hunters that I've spoken to over the years. We often talk about who out there is the finest PH or the finest gunmaker or the finest taxidermist. In Marc you undoubtedly have one of the finest marksmen I've ever seen in the hunting community.

Fair enough and well said.

I think this is an interesting topic- here is why.

Last year I had a PH visit me during show season. He and I watched Buzz's elephant hunting video.

The PH, who hunts in Tanzania, is a very experienced and busy PH in his 40s, and has hunted quite a few ele with clients, had quite a reaction to the vid.

He was surprised how close Buzz got. He said he preferred heart/lung from 25-40 yards away.

Is one PH right and the other wrong? No, both hunt ethically, but a client would certainly get a different experience with each.

Plus I don't think 25-40 yards on an ele counts as "long distance".

When I asked the PH about the distance, he said closer was unnecessary and he worries about putting the client in danger.

I do know he insists on up close and personal on leopard, building the blind as close as possible to the bait.

And what about lion? You are 75 yards from a black maned beast, stalking, he rises, and is seconds away from bolting, you have the shot- do you take it from 75 yards?

I dunno- probably would but the consequences of a wounding are pretty severe.

Anyway- interesting topic - a real issue with hunters, and with PHs and their approaches. Doesn't it really depend on the PH- how many times on a DG hunt would a hunter make a decision without the PH's input?

Thanks Kim. You raise a lot of good points in your opening and this is certainly an issue that seems to be gaining some traction in recent months. Craig wrote a piece about long distance shooting in a recent SportsAfield, or maybe it was his blog. I can't seem to remember exactly.

And then at the same time as thoughtful gents such as yourself raise the issue of "at what distance is it not hunting", I see more and more guys shooting elk and bear at distances regularly out to 600-800 yards. The fine shooters seen at www.greybullprecision.com .....make some of my 400 & 500 yard hartebeest and zebra kills look like chip shots.

It really does boil down to responsibility, knowing the capabilities of your gun and what does it take to get your jollies off at that point in your hunting career. In the early 2000's I was a rookie rifleman full of piss and vigor (might still be), and wanted to shoot everything from the next county.

As I've grown up, I've pursued more of a close encounter style of hunting if I can. I totally get the close up thing and for the exception of a couple buffalo I've whammed from 160-plus yards, I try to work hard to close the distance on DG. With cats I do feel the rush from being as close as possible. I have known guys who've shot pen-raised lions from Landcruisers, posted pictures on the Internet and bragged to their wives that they're great hunters. So you see it is really what floats your boat.

Is it "element of surprise" when you shoot something beyond 400-yards? Many would argue yes! Sometimes it laziness. Sometimes it's just the hunter acting on his curiosity to see if he can kill something from that distance.

Today the long distance accuracy is just another tool I have in my gunbag. If I need to take a long shot, or perhaps have stumbled onto the perfect natural rest (or videotaping angle) I tell the PH let's just stop here.

I do miss. I whiffed on a bushbuck with Jason Roussos in Ethiopia in November 2008 at 70-yards. I seem to have trouble with warthogs, and have made some erratic shots on of all things, hippos. On crocs however, the long distance accuracy has come in handy, and fortunately I've been able to nail three of them beyond one-hundred yards.

Regardless of distance, to me it's always "hunting," not sniping or just shooting. Pinpoint accuracy is an element of proper hunting.

I think when you start maiming animals, and losing game from long distance shots---that's when it starts to get ugly for the hunting community. It's then up to the individual to stop the practice of risky long distance shooting. The animal deserves better and as hunters we must first and foremost always carry out our mission with responsibility.

Moja

quote:

Maybe I hang out in an unusual crowd, but I've never once ever heard anyone say they were going "dangerous game hunting" in an attempt to impress anyone or assert their manliness. Rather, most for say they are going after lion, buff, etc. Nor have I ever heard anyone refer to themselves as a "dangerous game hunter."

That is the best on this thread as far as am concerned.

Every animal is dangerous. I know, some are certainly more likely to cause you damage than others. But, hopefully if you do not do something very stupid, or very unlucky, you won't come to any harm.

I am going to be devil's advocate, and go to the other extreme.

What about those who claim they want to shoot dangerous game at spitting distances?

Are they trying to tell us of their bravery?

Why bother with a rifle then?

Use a knife, and you sure going to impress me much better then with your argument.

I enjoy hunting, and I take it as it comes.

If I follow an elephant or buffalo or lion into thick bush, and he appears a few yards from me, I will shoot it.

If I follow an animal for hours, and then catch up with him in an open area where there is no way in hell to get any closer. And I think I am capable of killing him, then I shoot it.

The distance becomes immaterial.

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:


.......
I enjoy hunting, and I take it as it comes.

If I follow an elephant or buffalo or lion into thick bush, and he appears a few yards from me, I will shoot it.

If I follow an animal for hours, and then catch up with him in an open area where there is no way in hell to get any closer. And I think I am capable of killing him, then I shoot it.

The distance becomes immaterial.

+1 .....Well stated and true

Kpete. maybe it is just a case of my misunderstanding the intent of your original post, or you misunderstanding the point I was trying to make in regards to the "ETHICS" aspects of your OP.

I have no idea how active you are on the Inter Net Forums/Chat Rooms/Bulletin Boards, so it is possible I jumped the gun and read more into your OP than you intended for their to be.

From the time I have spent on the various forums, there are some words and phrases, that in my experience usually throw up a Red Flag.

One of those is any mention of Personal Ethics, and how they relate to what is legal, and how other individuals ethics relate to the issue.

On the surface, it appears to me, that your ethics dictate how far you will take a shot at DG, and that anyone that does not conform to Your parameters, is not equal to you or as Ethical as you are.

Therefore, to me it appears that you feel such hunters/shooters are not on the same plane as you.

It appears that it does make any difference that what they are doing is legal, and that the PH they are hunting with is not discouraging the behavior, but that in your estimation what they are doing is wrong and the folks doing it should be treated as outcasts/lessers.

The point I am trying to get across is that as a group, we need to stop finding so-called Ethical reasons to seperate ourselves into individual cliques/groups simply because of the way, we Legally choose to hunt animals.

I see discussions similar to this on other forums and they all end up the same way.

As an example, one of the biggies this year in Texas, is the legalization of the use of crossbows by non-handicapped individuals during Archery Season.

It is legal to use compound bows with Hold open devices for hunting in Texas, but archers fought tooth and nail, and have for years, to keep people from using crossbows.

Part of it is an ethical question, part of it has to do with not allowing other people to hunt an animal that is over abundant here in Texas, simply because they don't want to or can not use a bow.

If I have mis-interpreted your intentions with your OP, I apologise.

If however your intention is to try and place an Ethics barrier between people that have different views on hunting a particular group of animals than you do, in this case DG, then I feel that is wrong and you are wrong.

It goes back to the High Fence issue I mentioned that you claim to not understand.

On many places in Texas, deer and exotic animals are hunteed on places that are surrounded by a high fence.

Some of them are really decent places and provide a good hunt, others are a joke, but because so many of them have been below what folks consider a hunt and looked at as only a shoot, it has given all of the places a bad reputation.

Surprisingly however, it does not make one bit of difference how folks on places like AR view the folks that frequent such places, because the places stay in business selling hunts.

Kpete, I do apologise if I came across too strong at first, I just have a problem when people start placing their personal ethics about hunting, above what is legal and what another hunter has no problem with.

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:
Have I completely mis-read your entire post in this case.

If so than I do profoundly apologise.

Crazyhorse, I don't think you missunderstood Mr. Kpete's post! He writes very clearly, and spells far better than I ( but then who doesn't). I think you are dead on target with this thread, however his only crime is thinking his is the only way!

There are many things I agree with him on, but not for the same reasons. I agree that snipeing Dangerous game from afar, is not the best way to take one, for a couple of reasons that are not in his post, and seems to have flown right over his head, and the heads of many who discuss this activity.

#1 Because the end result of hunting any animal with a rifle is to kill it, so in my opinion we owe it to any animal we hunt to give him the quickest and most painless death possible. The longer the shot on a tough animal that falls into the dangerous catagory, the more likely you will have a wounded animal, requireing him to suffer longer than is needed to accomplish the hunter's goal of collecting him. When you pull the trigger on an animal, especially an animal that takes some killing, and you do it from long range, when you pull the trigger, and he takes a step at the same time, now you have a gut shot animal.

#2 Shooting DG from long range the hunter only commits a sin against himself, because he has cheated himself out of one of the best hunts he can ever experience.

#1 is IMO, an ethical sin against a regal animal that deserves better respect, than to take a chance on wounding him with a very painfull shot in the belly. In this case the animal becomes even more dangerous when you have to follow him up, and sort him out, so you don't save yourself the danger, you increase it.

#2 is self explanitory!

Personally I think that the game laws are what decides what is ethical, and what is not, because evry person has his personal ethics that, if honest, he lives by. These ethics differfrom hunter to hunter, and the game laws are the referee. I don't tell you how to hunt nor will anyone tell me how to hunt, any game animal as long as I do it within the law of the land where I'm hunting.

There are ethical reasons to take animals like Hippo in water, for food to feed the locals, and/or for lion bait. However, I do agree that it is far more sporting to take one at close range on dry ground. I've done it both ways, and appologise to no-one for haveing done so. I like to get in close to old duggaboy buffalo,in tight jess and place a couple of barrels full of 500gr bullets in him, and like Mr.Kpete, that is why I hunt dangerous game in the first place, but I don't care if you,he or anyone else wants to not take that risk, that is your choice.

Crazyhorse you are right that threads like this one are fodder for the anti-hunter's cannon, and should only be posted after a great deal of thought as to who will be reading it, and useing it for thier own hidden ajenda!

.............With that I'll sign off this thread, and let the worm squirm, where it will!

I haven't posted here in a long time. I haven't shot as many buffalo as others, but I may have the widest range. The closest was 20 yards. One shot killed him. My next one was at 45 yards. Shot him in the head, as that was the only shot I had. Dropped like a sack of potatoes. I shot one buff at 200 - toughest to die buff I have ever shot - took 14 rounds of .416 between me an my PH. The last 13, you can be assured, were at close range. That buff went down on the first shot and just wouldn't die. The longest I have killed a buff is 308 yards. He died with one shot as well, but I worked harder for him than any other buff. I will always remember crawling over the dry flood plain, trying to get closer to the herd. We ran out of water after 4 hours. I was dying.

What I do have is a problem with folks shooting at ranges when a 1 mph wind error will cause the bullet to blow completely out of the vital area. I shoot at long range at least once per week; I also shot competively for a while and have a bunch of trophies. In fact, yesterday I shot at 700 yards. Guessed a wind drift of 1.6 mils. My bullet hit 3 inches to the left - that is 37 inches of wind drift. I would have killed a deer, but believe me, I wouldn't bet a trophy fee on making that shot every time.

Mac,

I have shot a number of hippos, both in water and out.

And I never felt I was in danger while shooting one out of water.

I have felt very uncomfortable shooting a bull from a pod while standing in the water.

In fact, after I shot him, and we were trying to pull him to the shore, a cow raised its head out of the water a few feet from us.

The water was very murky, and a deep chanel was right next to us.

In fact, I think I felt more scared then than I have ever been. Even following a wonded buffalo into very thick bush, or being chased by herd of elephant cows.

quote:

The longest I have killed a buff is 308 yards.

Please elaborate...country, outfitter, PH, rifle used, shot placement etc.

I have no idea how many buffalo I have shot at 250 yards or less.

But, the few that I have at longer range and stick in my mind are:

1. We found a number of buffalo feeding across the river in Zimbabwe. I fired a shot at one at about 120 yards. They all took off running into the hills. I fired another shot at him while running at about 250. They stopped about 300 yards away, and the one hit turned towards us at an angle.

I fired another shot at him, and he dropped.

1st shot was in the lungs, second in the lungs, third was in the heart.

We followed a herd in Tanzania, and after a few hours, found them feeding late in the morning. We were in a dry river bed, and there was an open area between us and where they were feeding. I fired a shot at one. He ran a few yards and stopped. I fired another shot at him. He ran off and disappeared from our view.

We walked to him and found him dead. Both shots were in his chest, and we measured the distance at 270 yards.

We followed a herd in Tanzania, and found them feeding in a valley.

They were across from us. The middle was clear, so there was no question of getting any closer.

We all underestimated the distance.

I fired a shot at him, and all the herd ran off and turned towards us. We saw the one I hit hobbling, and I fired another shot at him, at which he dropped.

We measured the distance of the first shot, 340 yards.

PHs involved were Alan and Roy Vincents.

Rifle is a 375/404, using Walterhog 300 grain bullets.

Last year we had a bit of an argument with Walter.

He was with us when we found an eland. He stayed in the truck while we followed that eland.

Eventually we caught up with the eland, and again, without much choice, I had to shoot him at about 400 yards. There was absolutely no way we could have gotten any closer.

Walter came with the truck, and we were talking about the distance I shot that eland.

Walter reminded me that I have said before I did not like to shoot enimals at long distances.

Alan answered him "After you have been following him for several hours, rules change. And plans have to be made"

That is hunting.

quote:

Originally posted by SableTrail:

quote:

The longest I have killed a buff is 308 yards.

Please elaborate...country, outfitter, PH, rifle used, shot placement etc.

Tanzania/Wendell Reich/Scott ? was PH/Mod 70 Win mod by Gordy Gritters/shot was in the lungs.

Wendell used my rifle and shot one at 350 a few days later. Killed him with one shot through the heart.

Some guys may think we "shot" these buff and not hunted them, but in the case of Wendell's long shot, there was a magnficent herd of elephants that sort of got in the way.

I like to climb mountains as well as hunt. I can guarantee you more guys die climbing mountains than hunting dangerous game. In fact, I bet golf is more dangerous than hunting DG for the simple fact that lightning kills more people, probably even per capita, than DG ever did. It isn't exactly dangerous.

I have shot 30 buffalo (not all trophies) at various ranges. Most close (as close as 10 yards). I did shoot one at about 220 meters(243 yards)

It was late. It was the only shot we were going to get. We were is desperate need for meat both for the staff and baits. I felt supremely confident that I could make the shot. It was the single most spectacular shot (in terms of effect) that I think I have ever made.

At the shot, I could hear the bullet hit. The bull reared up om his back legs pawing against the sky for perhaps 4 seconds. He then fell over backwards and was dead on the spot.

I looked at the PH. He was standing there with his jaw open. His cigarette had fallen out of his mouth. He said,"F#@k me I have never seen that before."

I shot it with a custom 416 Remington with factory 400 grain Swift A frames.

Great shooting guys, Saeed and Another AZ writer!
Wonderful stories!

I'll second that, great posts from Marc, Saeed and AZ. I especially liked the 300 yard buffalo story. jorge

The only problem I have with the proponents of hunting DG at extreme close quarters is that they give newbies the impression that it is ONLY way to do it. People that have never been on safari tell me they would not take a shot at a buffalo at 200 yds. Where did they get that from? If the shot on the buffalo that you want comes in the open at 200 yds. you better be prepared to take it. For a hunter who has taken several buffalo and wants that bad breath smelling expereince that fine. For a novice on a short hunt he needs to take the shot presented. This also applies in my mind to 100 yd. shots on elephants. If that's the shot presented take it.

On the other hand this elk hunting where the shots are in as someone said the next zip code seems to not be hunting to me but does fit my definition of sniping.

Mark

quote:

It is always appropriate to question one's own ethics, and difficult to question another's

I love that quote, Steve.

I find I usually bristle when someone tries to define "ethics" in their own restricted definition and then apply it to everyone else. I really didn't see that in Kpete's post... but maybe I did not read it and interpret it as some others might have.

There are laws and there are ethics and one should never confuse the two... laws are absolutes, ethics can differ depending on one's experiences, view of the world, social or economic situations, or even technical profeciency, etc... our personal ethics are the moral compass each of us live by. There are certain general expected behaivors we all should share as hunters... but we will vary from individual to individual on the finer points of what defines our personal ethics.

I don't hunt deer with dogs but it is an accepted practice in some parts of the south. Right or wrong? Neither, really. But as hunters we all believe in the concept of fair-chase. So while hunting from a stand over bait, with dogs, within a high fence might appear to be outside the bounds of your moral compass, to others, it is perfectly natural and still allows for their interpretation of "fair chase". Right or wrong? Again, neither.

I firmly believe in the notion of "common sense" and try to apply common sense to "in the field" situations. The distance at which we try and shoot game certainly falls within my common sense notion of what is fair chase and what is ethical. While I have never shot a buffalo over 75 yards... if I were to come across a 48" bull in the open plains of Lolkisale, could get no closer than 150 yards and had a steady rest and a clear sight picture with an adequate caliber, would I take the shot? Yes I would... but would I at 200 yards or 300 yards? Probably not. Why? My own technical proficency and moral compass. Should I disparage Marc or Saeed if they did take a 200 yard or greater shot... absolutely not. They may be, hell probably are, much better shots than I am... hence they are more technically proficient and they have the confidence they can cleanly kill the animal at that distance. Thus, their moral compass allows them to be comfortable to ethically take a longer shot.

Does this in and of itself make the buffalo nondangerous... in the end I hunt buff as much for the thrill as the trophy... but a 48" head is a lifetime bull for most. So common sense, at least mine, dictates I shoot at 150 yards, dangerous situation or not... again, right or wrong? Again, depends on your moral compass...

Great discussion throughout this thread...

Entertaining thread, and a great post Russell and quote Steve! I agree, within reason, "ethics" are best left to the eye of the partaker.

"Preferences", well that is another matter and subject to change over one's hunting career (I've gone 360 on some).

I recall somebody making the tongue-in-cheek argument previously when this topic came up, that long-range buffalo shooting is actually the most "dangerous" in that after the shot, one gets to follow-up the wounded buffalo in the thick stuff!

I've shot buff at 30-yards and I've shot buffalo at 200-yards. The two most satisfying happened to be the two where we were the closest, the shot culminating once after a long crawl, the other after tracking and stalking to within slingshot range and waiting on the sticks for the bull to stand. My two least satisfying were long shots, once where we saw the bull from the truck, walked a bit, set up the sticks then shot. The other was after some long and frustrating tracking, where finally the PH setup the sticks from a distance. In both cases, the follow-up was indeed the most interesting part. I did make a 200-yard heart shot on a buffalo once where there was no great option to get closer, and that was cool and I consider it to be one of my better shots...especially neat as this was when I first started hunting (2nd trip to Africa) and was more into the shooting aspect of the hunt. But moving forward, for me, I'll leave the long-range stuff to you guys who are better shooters then I, and/or who enjoy this element.

If I had lots of buffalo on license like Saeed, I might be a bit more liberal, knowing that with the next one we might get closer. But when I'm looking at only one every couple of years maybe, I prefer seeing if I can get in close, get a bit of an adrenalin surge just by being within the animal's comfort zone, and hopefully make a clean shot - and be the hero and not the bum!