Incredible footage and marksmanship but I've got to wonder how many shots gone wrong and wounded animals ended up on the cutting room floor.

I haven't watched the video just the clip, but I've seen the Best of the West t.v. show a bunch. It's done very well and what I really like about it, is it's the West. I get so tired of watching people shoot bucks from a box feeding on a bucket of corn. I also like that they do hunt some public land. Although many of their shots are "guided" maybe not by a pro guide but many are non-residents being "guided" by some of the staff. They do a pretty good job (given their time) of explaining that they use good equipment and practice. BUT, bottom line they are selling a stunt. And it's obvious that many times they could get closer (when they say they can't) but choose not to so they can film said stunt. I'll be the first to say they have the right to it, but IMO it ain't hunting.

Any arguments made against this type of shooting/hunting as not truly sporting/hunting can be made for using a bow/flintlock instead of any high power rifle.

In the realm of the bowhunter/PRB muzzleloading anything beyond 40-60 yards does not require much in the way of stalking ability. How much skill does it take to stalk within 200 yards ... if there is cover? If the lack of cover or terraign justifies a 250 yard shot it can also justify a 500 yard shot.

The ethical question has nothing to do with yardage per se but everything to do with skill, practice, and proper equipment which limits the yardage. You can buy good equipment, but anyone who suggests that this is all that is required has never done much long range shooting. You must learn to read wind and mirage to make such shots as well as having the physical ability. The blink of an eye at the squeeze of the trigger is enough to throw the shot. You cannot make the "unethical" argument and the "it is all about expensive equipment" at the same time as those arguments are contradictory and mutually exclusive. If it is all about having the right equipment, then ethics are a non-issue. If it is all about ethics then it is not merely about buying good equipment. Nor can anyone prove to what extent it is a combination of the two.

Most (not all) of the arguments made here against long range hunting reveal an ignorance about the disciplines of it. Until a person has actually practiced or shot competetively at 1000 yards they are in no position to critique the ability of a sniper. In fact a sniper with the proper equipment will most likely miss less at long range than the average hunter will shooting freehand at 100 yards. Are they both unethical? It is all about ability, conditions, and equipment whether it be 100 yards or 500 yards.

If a marginal hit is made at 100 yards, the animal will run hard, hide, and be difficult to recover. At 500 yards, they will be confused as to what happened, not know which way to run, and often offer follow-up shots. Many times the animal would have to travel a considerable distance to get out of range for a follow-up shot. At 100 yards the adrenaline is up and the animal usually takes off at a dead run immediately.

As for wounding an animal, it can happen at any range, any time the trigger is pulled, and the hunter must be prepared to track game. No one should ever hunt without being prepared to track. At long range many times a wounded animal will only go a short distance ie to the nearest cover and lay down and bleed out.

Hunting ethics are the same for a bow, muzzleloader, high power rifle near or far-- proper equipment, practice, skill, patience, scouting, tracking, etc. Everything else is mumbo-jumbo.

For myself I hunt with the bow, muzzleloader, and rifle. When I carry a rifle I am prepared to shoot from close to 500 yards -- if I set up with a good rest maybe more. In long range hunting the thing which a person really needs to watch is using a cartridge/bullet which will reliably expand at the intended ranges.