What makes an unethical shot?

[IdahoElk]

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.

That's the way it should be but add a huge set of antlers on the target and most peoples ethics disappear,that's why someone would take a 350yrd running shot at a deer.

 

[mtmuley]

Ethics out the window, I bet the guy couldn't do it consistently. Hard to find range on a running critter then set up and take the shot. Sounds like BS to me. mtmuley

 

[Fixitman]

Unethical people make unethical shots

 

[Jimbo V]

I would say unethical shooting is the point where ones desire to harvest an animal becomes priority and the hunters understanding of his or her own abilities becomes second thought. I personally think that 350 on a running animal is unethical. Why? I feel the shot was most likely a stopping shot and not shot directed at the vitals. I don’t agree with someone who shoots to maim or wound to stop an animal and then follow up fatal shot placement regardless of how fast the follow up shot is. I believe if you don’t have shot placement where you can confidently place a lethal hit on animal the shot shouldn’t be taken. Understandably, bad hits happen and animals get wounded which is a unfortunate part of the process but the intent was ethical.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Scoot]

Unethical people make unethical shots

Generally, I think that's true. However, many good intentioned people have taken shots that they regret after the fact and they would actually decide they are unethical. I'm really careful about what shots I take and don't take, but I've taken shots that I have definitely regretted after the fact. It's not simply a matter of bad people taking unethical shots. But, consistent with what you said- there's no shortage of idiots who are taking a large percentage of unethical shots.

 

[Murdy]

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.

That's an interesting point. I started hunting in the 1970s with my uncle and some other guys who grew up poor and had come through the Great Depression. This was in northern Wisconsin, where you tend to be hunting some thick swamps and poppler forests and often only get short glimpses at deer. Those guys strategy was pretty much put a hole in it and track it until it topples over. They had different goals and attitudes about hunting.

Me, I don't have a problem with the 350 yard range, but shooting at a moving, much less running animal is problematic. You can practice for range, but not so much for movement. I wouldn't shoot at a running animal at 25 yards.

 

[Elknutz]

These threads are always interesting. I think I've read the best responses here - if you are surprised you hit it - it's unethical.

Running vs. standing? If you are confident that you can hit it running good on ya (not sure how you could be confident at 300+). On the flip-side why is it considered unethical to waterswat/groundpound a bird? I won't do it & I think it's lame but if someone wants to do it fire away - just don't do it around my dogs.

I married into a "hunting" family - I can't describe the thing's I have witnessed from them. My father in law is a complete tool & it's passed down to his boys & now I see it passed to my nephews. I will no longer hunt (nor associate for the most part) with them. In the end this makes me an arrogant azzhole who thinks I'm better than them. I'm good with that though.

From my observation it's a learned behavior & an embedded trait - most I know with questionable outdoor ethics carry over to personal/professional life as well. Just like the guys I do hunt with are good solid husbands, dads, workers etc.

 

[PathFinder]

I'm on board with the idea that if you know you will make the shot, it's ethical. Building on that idea, how do you know you will make the shot, 100%? It has to come from experience. Idiots that buy a "long range gun" and think because it all works out on paper that they can shoot long range, are idiots. The only way to truly know is to have done it. Not sitting on a bench in a sled on a flat range either. In field conditions. In my opinion and experience, idiots who barely know how to sight in a rifle, or never shoot broadheads before the season starts, are the most unethical. Guys who shoot hundreds of practice rounds yearly and take longer shots take a lot of crap from morons that can't even establish a proper zero. If you are one of those people who only sends ~10 rounds down range a year and says long shots are unethical, watching football is probably more your thing. Same thing with archery. A guy who isn't comfortable at 40 yards has no business criticizing someone who shoots all year and is comfortable at 80. Proficiency is the key to taking ethical kill shots. Establish what you are capable of with lots of experience in field conditions, and stick within those boundaries. As for running shots, same rule applies. They can be practiced. Coyotes and jack rabbits are good to learn on. A moving target can be set up too. Learn the math behind it and apply it.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

[Owenst7]

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.

That doesn't make you unethical, that makes you a dumbass haha.

I like Steven Rinella's statement that it's unethical for you if you were surprised that you made the shot.

I suppose a guy could take it further and say something like, "Would you take the shot if a game warden were standing next to you spotting the shot?".

 

[Murdy]

On the flip-side why is it considered unethical to waterswat/groundpound a bird? I won't do it & I think it's lame but if someone wants to do it fire away - just don't do it around my dogs.

A lot of people confuse ethics and aesthetics. Shooting a bird on the ground may be an ugly thing to do, but I have a hard time seeing it as unethical. If anything, it's probably more ethical -- for the same reason shooting at a stationary deer is. You are more likely to make a clean, killing shot, resulting in less pain to the animal and a surer recovery and use of the meat.

To me, ethics involve avoiding inflicting unnecessary pain and suffering and using all of the meat.

 

[Rich M]

If your surprised you hit the animal it probably wasn't ethical.

Perfect answer!

That being said, I did take a 250 yard shot at a full-out running antelope. Had a good hillside backstop and did not think I'd hit it, shot anyway, glad to hear the gun go off. Watched it run another 400 yards and cross onto private, then run another mile, out of sight. About an hour later, another one walked by, dropped it as he stopped to survey the surroundings at 340 yards.

I've got no problem with ground or water shooting birds - I'm not a snob. I also use fly, spin, and bait casting tackle when fishing.

There are a lot of folks out there who hunt differently for different reasons - if you don't agree with them, then don't hunt with those guys. My main concern is safety, not if you shoot at a running deer or not.

 

[Boreal]

As for running shots, same rule applies. They can be practiced. Coyotes and jack rabbits are good to learn on. A moving target can be set up too. Learn the math behind it and apply it.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

That's an interesting sentiment. Now this is over the interwebs, and I really mean no offense, I'm just asking questions. I wanted to get that out front since its easy to misunderstand intent with forum comments. But do you see the ethical question differently when shooting at a running deer vs. a running coyote or jackrabbit? Aren't you as likely to would a coyote or jackrabbit as a deer? Would the distinction be because one is a "game animal", one is a predator, and the other is a "varmint"? I haven't thought about it before this, but I think I would personally have trouble practicing on a living animal. Not sure how I would go about getting experience with moving targets otherwise, though.

 

[Rich M]

People don't have the emotional connection to coyotes, jackrabbits, prairie dogs, etc.

You could roll a tire down a hill with a target in it and shoot at that. You can also shoot skeet & trap to get your swing on.

If you have the practice, shooting a running deer isn't a big deal. Some guys take it to the extreme and won't shoot a walking deer or one that isn't perfectly broadside. I'm not one. Haven't shot a running deer in years but if I get a decent opportunity I can and will. Say inside of 75 yards with some room to swing.

 

[flatlanderhuffandpuff]

I think if I am going to shoot at an animal it deserves a quick death. The way some people talk about wolves and coyotes you would think they would torture them if given a chance. Those animals deserve a quick dispatch just like any game animal. I understand how important trapping is and the cultural significance it has but I opt out of it because I don't necessarily enjoy the thought of an animal being held in place by its foot.

With all that being said if you hit a groundhog anywhere with a high powered rifle it's almost certainly going to die instantly.

I'll take a shot at a running deer that has had a marginal hit on it previously, but being a meat hunter I prefer to not have them blown full of holes.

 

[PathFinder]

That's an interesting sentiment. Now this is over the interwebs, and I really mean no offense, I'm just asking questions. I wanted to get that out front since its easy to misunderstand intent with forum comments. But do you see the ethical question differently when shooting at a running deer vs. a running coyote or jackrabbit? Aren't you as likely to would a coyote or jackrabbit as a deer? Would the distinction be because one is a "game animal", one is a predator, and the other is a "varmint"? I haven't thought about it before this, but I think I would personally have trouble practicing on a living animal. Not sure how I would go about getting experience with moving targets otherwise, though.

If you spend enough time coyote calling, you will have to kill a few running/trotting with a rifle. They're a tough animal, but lightly built and small. Fast frangible bullets tear them up on any center mass hit. It's never the ideal condition, but I'm never going to hold back a shot because a coyote is running. Sometimes that's just how it turns out, and I get a lot of running practice that way. Jackrabbits, really? Touch them, they die (shooting a centerfire caliber). If you have access to a walk behind target station (like the military style ones) those work great too if you have someone else that wants to practice moving shots. Just remember no steel targets.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

[awaldro7]

Steve Rinella says it best "If you are surprised that you made the shot then it was unethical."

 

[mvmnts]

You can argue about what is ethical all day but the number of guys who can humanely dispatch a running animal at 350yds has got to fit on two hands. Take the shot if you want, whatever, but don't argue like it was no problem and you could make it 9/10 times. At that point you're hoping to hit it all, not hit it well.

 

[Odell]

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 the problem with firm statements around ethics. It sounds pretty good but still leaves much unanswered. As someone already pointed out, a persons level of confidence is only one part of the equation. How confident can you be in the direction of travel of an animal running? How confident are you that you can pick up any unsafe background while focusing on an animal running?

In other areas its perfectly reasonable. I really struggle with ducks moving away and crossing from left to right at the same time. That's a hard shot for me and I have a low level of confidence I can make it. But when I know its a legal duck and its within effective shotgun range am I now unethical for taking it? I can't count the number of times I've been surprised at making a really good shot duck hunting. Are those unethical? I won't shoot past 40 yards, I won't shoot a bird I can't retrieve but my level of confidence varies greatly on the given day, weather and bird approach.