Recently I had read multiple posts on YouTube and other places about ethical hunting in relation to videos. It seems every so often hunters (and anti-hunters) are looking for a reason to criticize other hunters. So, after some careful consideration, I would like to posts some of my thoughts on the matter to add to the debate.

A couple of years ago I was sitting with some of my in-laws around the Thanksgiving Day table. 90% of them are hunting FUDDS. When a hunting show host (we were watching TV) made the comment that he prefers to hunt Caribou with a 338RUM, they started to bring up the idea that taking long shots on animals over 400 yards was unethical. Keep in mind, I have only fly fished with them and never hunted with them. So I made the comment that actually the only ethical and fair chase hunting is what you do with a knife, sword, or spear. I further pushed the edge by saying that it is very unethical to use any sort of bow other than a primitive bow with arrowheads made of flint or obsidian. Since several of them were bow hunters (as am I), their jaws dropped as if they were the Sanhedrin and I called them non-Jews. They told me I was out of my mind and asked for an explanation. So I simply said that, by their own definition, they are not engaging in fair chase and taking ethical shots. I even went so far as to show them the picture of bloody remains of a gutted deer that had an old arrow in it. It was actually one I had shot a couple of seasons ago. But to keep the ruse alive, I claimed it was from a friend. I went on to state how so many novice bow hunters wounded deer over the years. And after all, just how fair is hunting with a rifle or shotgun anyway? I mean, can you really call it hunting if you are sitting in a deer stand just waiting for them and using bait such as food, salt, or "doe urine". After having spent a half-hour agitating them; I finally go them to see the light and recognize that long range hunting is not only ethical, it is fair chase.

I am sure you understand that the real problem they had with long distance shooters is not any real ethical or fair chase problem. The real issue is that they are control freaks and want everyone to conform to their desires and ideas, as narrow as they are. After all, isn't that the problem with our society today?

In order to have a real discussion on hunting, ethics, and fair chase; we must first define the words with scope, purpose, and context.

1. Hunting is the submergence of a person into the animal's habitat and its life such that we experience the hardship and environment of the animal and bare witness to its activities in that life. In doing so we participate and become part of that life and the order of nature. The very act of learning about the animals habits, stalking, scouting, setting up an ambush, baiting, watching, and waiting is that submergence. Even a person with no legs who can only hunt from an ATV has taken on some sort of hardship and submerged themselves to the best of their abilities. The end result of a hunt is the attempt to end the life of that animal and make it a part of your life by eating it, sharing the story of your hunt, mounting the trophy, wearing the hide, or using its other parts for things. When you do this, you bring the animals life into your own and keep the natural order and cycle of life in motion. The only thing you need for a litmus test when you hunt is to ask yourself a few simple questions: Did I submerge myself into its world and experience its environment? Did I pursue or ambush the animal to kill it? Did I make it a part of who I am and bring it back into my life/world. If you can answer yes to these three questions, there is no doubt in my mind that you hunted.

2. Ethical hunting is when you use your weapon to kill an animal, of which you have a competent amount of skill, knowledge, equipment, and experience to do so; such that the probability of success is very high that you will kill it. Notice that I wrote "probability". There are many expert hunters that have wounded an animal by a shot that should have killed it. Nothing is perfect. Which leads to the second part of the definition. You must take every REASONABLE attempt to end its life speedily and without undue suffering beyond normal means of death. This means you must track and recover your game and take the necessary actions to finish it off when needed. I have no problem with trappers drowning a mink or muskrat. These are normal courses of death that those animals experience every day. But the methods and execution must be so that it is not prolonged. Remember that we must keep our humanity and maintain separation from the animals on our standards of quick death, lest we reduce ourselves to the level of prey. Even an alligator tries to kill a horse as quick as possible. It's not the alligators fault that it does not have opposable thumbs. A further add on to the ethics definition is that you do not hunt the species in a manner such that you substantially kill off or endanger the species.


3. Fare Chase hunting. Fair chase is simply the activity of hunting an animal in its own habitat such that it can escape your attempts to kill it if you do not correctly execute your hunting skills. There must be enough freedom of movement that the animal can run off and away from your zone of influence. As an example: If I hunt a moose with a spear and miss by throwing it at its feet, and it runs off; then I have performed fair chase. If I hunt a moose with a 50BMG from a mile away and miss, falling short, and it runs off; then I have performed fair chase. In both actions I have had to gain a specific skill to kill the animal and failed the attempt. In both cases the animal was able to flee to the point that I had to re-plan my stalk. In both cases, the animal may have escaped; even if I attempt to stalk it again. Now if I had a fence up such that its escape is blocked and I can take another shot, then it would not fall under my definition of fair chase.

Ethical fair chase hunting (EFCH) is not determined by the weapon of choice of the distance you hunt from (as long as you are still within the habitat). EFCH is the culmination of unique skills, knowledge, and experience that you develop for your game and your weapon; which you apply by submerging yourself into the life of an animal in an attempt to kill it and incorporate it into your life.

The opposite of this is to attempt to kill an animal by means outside of your skills, outside of your knowledge, or outside of the experience of you or your guide such that you cannot successfully apply the required skills or knowledge.

It is totally ethical, totally hunting, and totally fair chase to hunt a Moose out at 2000 yards with a 50BMG so long as I have the skills/weapon, knowledge, experience, and desire to kill it with the first attempt.

I hope this may be a good guide for those who enter the debate.

Very nice write up and I would agree with you on all points.

I killed a wounded deer with a knife when I was a teenager. Something about the feeling of the knife breaking though its skin while it was struggling to survive bothers me to this day. Killing stuff with a knife makes you a cold mother f-er in my book.


OP some people say that shooting a deer past X number of yards is unethical. These are generally the same people that drag thier rifle out a week before the season to make sure ole betsy is still shooting minute of pie plate at 100 yards. I shot a doe at just over 425 last year and plan on shooting them farther given the opportunity this year. If you practice and feel comfortable that is the only thing that matters.

I may sound like a bit of a fudd here, but at what point does it go from hunting to shooting? To me a big part of hunting is the getting relatively close be it through luring in the animal (scents, calls, etc) or spotting and stalking. Not saying that bow hunting or rifle hunting are the only ways to go, but every person will have their own definition of hunting.

Also how much of that moose is going to be wasted by your .50 BMG? If you hunt an animal with a caliber like that that you know is going to blow away/blood shot a LOT of meat is that not unethical?

On the flip side of your coin I have seen long range hunters that thought they missed and never wanted to walk across the canyon to see if there was blood. The shot they took might have been 800 yards across the canyon, but the hike would be miles. How few people truly have the equipment and ability capable of quickly ending the life of an animal at a long distance compared to the number of people who think they might be able to? Every time I hear the story of "So i put him at the bottom of my scope and pulled the trigger" I cringe and want to slap that person around some.

Unethical people are all around, and that has nothing to do with the style of hunting that they do or what equipment they use. From my own personal experience though long range hunting seems to give these people more of an excuse to be unethical hunters.

FYI, I am hunting with a 300 Hulk. Pushes a 240gr 30 cal bullet at 3050 FPS. Don't waste any more meat than a 30-06. I also acually bow hunt. I agree that getting close is awesome. I like doing that as well. Actually, most of my deer have been killed by a bow at under 10 yeads. Next is a shotgun at 20-50 yards. Once with a handgun.

To add to the mix:




Native Americans used to hunt bison by running them off a cliff. When horses became prolific, they started using more spears and bow with arrow. It usually took 10-20 arrows to bring down a bison or two spears. Most Bison bled out from the constand running.

To authenticate early native american art, a bison hide should have multiple holes in it from the horse era. Earlier era should have no holes in a whole hide specimen.

The real difference there is that Native Americans were not out hunting for the sport of it or to get out of the office for the weekend. They were hunting to survive. They had no super market to go to, and they killed their game in the most effective way possible. For all practical intents and purposes they were not "hunting" as we know it, they went out to kill game by any means necessary.

I would go so far as to speculate that if a young hunter had an injured animal get away he would have gotten one hell of a whoopin. Remember that game was not as plentiful in all areas as Hollywood makes it out to be. Lewis and Clark almost starved to death because they could not find enough game to keep The Corps of Discovery in regular meals. From this we can only assume how meager the rations were in a nomadic tribal village.

Modern people who claim they hunt because it's cheap meat have never added up all of their costs and then divided that per lbs of venison. Time, license/tags, gas, weapon, ammunition, butchering (if you don't do it yourself) all add up very quickly. Not to mention any other hunting specific equipment you may buy. If you're one of those people fortunate enough to walk out your door, shoot a deer with granddad's rifle you inherited, hang it at your home, and have the knowledge/tools to cut and wrap it yourself you are the exception to this rule and are in the very small minority of hunters.

In short comparing people who live in our modern society to members of a Great Plains tribe is like comparing apples and oranges.

Also, I would like to clarify that just because a person does shoot game at long range I don't automatically consider then unethical. It just seems that the long range hunters I have experience with seem to have a fairly high percentage of "missed" shots they never check up on or animals that got away.

Nope. If you put yourself into a primitive situation with only primitive tools and subsistence hunting/gathering to survive I doubt it would change the ethics. Your morals would still tell you to kill your quarry as quickly as possible, and to use as much as you could. The situation itself would demand those things. You are not going to want to chance losing a deer that you're stalking when all you've had to eat for a week are some berries. You're also not going to want to waste any of the meat, hide, usable bone, etc because your survival might depend on it.

My point is that just because the technology changes doesn't mean that the ethics should. Every inch that a bullet travels presents another possible variable that could effect it's flight. A branch, a gust of wind, an unseen updraft from a canyon the list goes on and on. Any one of those things or a combination of them could mean the difference between a dead on the spot animal and a wounded animal that because of the distance you may not realize you hit, or that you have to chase for the next 8 hours while it bleeds out internally.

Can all of those things happen at a shorter distance? Yes, but the likelihood for it is multiplied by increasing the distance. Also at a shorter distance I have a better chance of getting a follow up shot into an animal with a badly placed first shot. I realize that's where having the right skill set plays a factor, but all the skill in the world doesn't get rid of Murphy's Law.