Boone and Crockett on Long Range Shooting

joelkdouglas

Handloader
Jun 5, 2011
1,310
3
I got this in an email from the Boone and Crockett Club. Seems to be a reasonable position. The key topic missing from the article is hunting with intent to kill for meat. Sure, I would love to kill a huge bull or buck every year, but I'm not passing up a yearling doe if the freezer is empty. I would also add the furthest kill I've had is 175 yards, so I wouldn't describe any of my shooting as long range.

--------------Begin Article Cut and Paste---------------

Long-Range Shooting: Defining a New Ethic in Hunting

Tuesday, August 12, 2014

The ethical issue isn't the 350-yard shot. The real concern, as Boone and Crockett Club sees it, is hunters not trying to get a closer one.

Long-range shooting is a hot topic in hunting. Improved and specialized guns, gear, bullets and sniper skills are growing in popularity, stretching the lethal range of hunters further than ever before. But many hunters wonder how it all fits with traditional, ethical standards. How far is too far to be considered fair chase?

Boone and Crockett adopted a new position statement to help define the ethics of taking game from long range.

"It's not about distance; it's about intent," said Bill Demmer, Club president.

He explained, "Hunters have varying degrees of marksmanship skills and capabilities. Some are steady only out to 100 yards. Others are very efficient at much longer distances. All kinds of field conditions also factor into what is or isn't an ethical shot. So, within reasonable sideboards, it's impossible to use distance as a measurement of fair chase."

But the Club firmly takes issue with hunters who choose shooting long rather than trying to get close. Intent is what separates hunting from merely shooting a live target.

"The honor and lasting memories in hunting have always been in our ability to get close to game animals. And every hunter has better odds of a quick, clean kill at closer distances. That's one of our most imperative responsibilities as a hunter, and that's the legacy of sportsmanship that we believe is important to uphold," said Demmer.

Maintaining the integrity and public support of hunting is vital. The tradition, along with its indelible ties to conservation, is a key to sustaining wildlife for the future.

C.J. Buck, president of Buck Knives and a Boone and Crockett member, said, "Hunting is personal and the reasons why people hunt are personal. For many, making a kill is merely incidental to their time afield. This elevates hunting to mean something more than just filling a tag, and that's one of the things that make it special. Sure, we have laws for safety and to conserve the resource, but at the end of the day our satisfaction has more to do with our own intentions. I think that is why so many sportsmen are disturbed by those who make the shot or the kill more important than the hunt itself."

Boone and Crockett has been a standard-bearer for hunting ethics since 1902, when Club founder Theodore Roosevelt refused to shoot a captive black bear during a hosted hunt in Mississippi. The incident, widely covered in the press, popularized the concept of fair chase on this continent, elevated public appreciation for sportsmanship and even inspired introduction of a new toy, the Teddy bear.

Demmer concluded, "Some people don't like us talking about ethics, claiming it divides hunters when hunters should be united. Rallying around hunting ethics is how sportsmen did away with the anything-goes culture that nearly eliminated big game in the early days of the conservation movement. I believe doing right by the game and the traditions of hunting still unites hunters."

The Club's position statement and an article by noted gun and hunting writer Wayne van Zwoll are posted at www.boone-crockett.org

---------------End Article Cut and Paste----------------
 
I saw it.
Don't agree with it.
If the shot is within the skill set of the individual, and they want to, I see no problem with long range hunting. This is just another tool to be used by the anti hunters to further divide us. One person's long range is another's chip shot. It is up to the skill set of the individual.
Maybe we should outlaw hunting with firearms and other tools? Make it bare hands and rocks.
 
Certainly a thought-provoking article, and one which I heartily endorse.
 
Funny..... don't they put their name on a reticle, in Leupold scopes, thats sole intent is to aid in longer range shooting?

Furthermore..... I'd rather see a guy hike his azz 6 miles into nowhere, and kill a buck at 600 yards..... than see a guy shoot a bear at 20 yards over a bait pile.... or a half-tame whitetail out of a treestand in a "food plot".... or a feeder-fed deer from an elevated and heated box blind.....
 
Songdog":1asowk1i said:
Funny..... don't they put their name on a reticle, in Leupold scopes, thats sole intent is to aid in longer range shooting?

Furthermore..... I'd rather see a guy hike his azz 6 miles into nowhere, and kill a buck at 600 yards..... than see a guy shoot a bear at 20 yards over a bait pile.... or a half-tame whitetail out of a treestand in a "food plot".... or a feeder-fed deer from an elevated and heated box blind.....
Me too.
I forgot about that reticle. Thank you for the reminder. It seems they, Boone & Crockett, may be a little a little bit hypocritical.
Vince
 
I went through this over on "Long Range Only" forum...and when it comes down to it...I'm just not sure how I fit in.

I hunt "long" because it "fits" the area I have to hunt (wide open river bottoms and power line cuts)...is making an 800 yard shot as exciting as sending an arrow through one at 10 yards...NOOOOO!!!! But making that 800 yard shot puts a lot more meat in the freezer...any of you that have seen pics of the deer I've shot over years have probably noticed that most of the bucks I've killed are "scrubs" that, in my opinion, needed to be culled...I'm primarily a meat hunter...but if I happen to get wind of a nice buck, I will go after him...I've never mounted a trophy, have only killed one single deer worthy of mounting, in 30 years of hunting...but I was only 13 when I killed it and didn't have the money to mount it, don't even have a picture...it was a huge 8 point, probably pushing 150 B&C points, dressed 205 lbs...thats one heck of an east Tennessee deer! But its only a memory...

I can also get close...real close...have let deer step over my legs as they walked by me sitting under a tree...them never knowing I was anywhere in this world....I love bow hunting, its a challenge and thrill like no other.

I love rifle hunting...because its a more relaxed way of hunting...I've shot deer at ranges from a few feet to a little over 1,000 yards...I've shot them with handguns (45acp, 44 mag), 243, 30-30, 25-06, 270, 308, 300 WM, 30-06, 45-70, and probably a few others that I'm forgetting...

I put my stand, blind, hide...whatever I'm using...in the place that gives me the best chance of success...if that means I may have to shoot 400, 600, or even 800 yards...then so be it.

The thing that B&C is overlooking...I think...is that in many areas, the days of hunting deer that aren't heavily pressured are over...long gone...the woods are so full here on the east side its amazing that any deer survive, but they do...thankfully!

Hunting just isn't the same as it was 40-50 years ago...or even 20 years ago...I wish it was, as much as anybody...but its not.

I've been making some calls to some folks the last couple of weeks...trophy deer hunt folks...looks like its gonna cost me $3,000-$4,000 to hang a true trophy on my wall...most likely be in KS...the shot may be long, I'll be ready...$4,000 is too much money to waste arguing about ranges and ethics.

So...wherever that puts me, thats which side of this I'm on...my intent is to bag me a trophy...clean and quick. I'll know if I can make the shot when I see it...if I can't make it, I won't try it.

I'm 1,000% all in favor of preserving wildlife and land to hunt on...I wish we had more of both!
 
DrMike":6uh7by76 said:
Certainly a thought-provoking article, and one which I heartily endorse.

Yup, same here. I prepare for long shooting but would always work to get in their lap if possible. I wanna be prepared but would rather shoot as close as I can.
 
Doc, after 54 years of hunting I agree with you completely. Much more satisfaction in putting your abilities against the animal you're hunting.
 
...let yer conscious be yer guide, but it's not just about shooting. Recovery becomes increasingly more difficult w/ dist., & it's not just quantitative, it's a geometric progression of all the little factors that can make things difficult. I do a lot of shooting out to 600yds just in case, but I'd much rather shoot critters under 200yds., makes it a lot simpler to find 'em. Up to you if you want to shoot 6, 8, a thousand, or 1200yds., but ya better damnwell know you have a 90% or better probability of a cold bore, clean, killing shot under the conditions you're gonna be required to shoot in. If you have any misgivings about taking the shot, you're balancing on the cliff of "ethical hunting"...
 
Well said, Gene. I have no problem with people who pay their dues by practising long range shots because they anticipate encountering game at such distances in the field. My personal observation in my own AO is that far too few who boast of equipment to shoot long range are willing to spend the time at the range to justify the equipment. Consequently, we seem to be witnessing a larger than usual number of animals wounded and/or left for dead in the field. Anecdotally, it would appear these animals have been shot from a distance farther than the shooters' capabilities. The older I get, the less I'm willing to hazard on a long shot. I'm prone to say I'm a hunter and not a shooter. I do some work at longer ranges when shooting, but I'm not inclined to hunt much beyond 450 yards. It was my understanding of the article that this was the view of the writer, as well. They were not condemning long range hunting; they were cautioning long range shooting instead of hunting.
 
I hunt the way I like to hunt. If it means I pass up a shot due to distance, whether it is 40 yards with my bow or 350 yards with my rifle. I think this line says it all

"But the Club firmly takes issue with hunters who choose shooting long rather than trying to get close. Intent is what separates hunting from merely shooting a live target."

I interpret this as hunters who purposely go out and try to shoot animals, any animals at extreme distances just to say they did so.


We all have our own views. That is what makes this forum so great. We can agree to disagree and be gentlemen/ladies.
 
I am one of those hunters that will always attempt to get as close as possible :)!
But I am confident in my ability to take a 500 yard shot if I cannot stock closer.
When I going out hunting I truly believe that getting the animal is just a bonus :wink:!

Blessings,
Dan
 
Drmike.... please show me where there have been any verifiable recent reports of "larger than usual number of wounded, left for dead, etc.....". I believe that's pure speculation.... and harmful to us all as hunters.

I would use that same line of reasoning to argue against shots at running animals. Folks are buying bigger magnums.... and they're harder pressed for hunting time.... and hunting pressure is higher on public land.... I subject that more guys are taking ALL kinds of shots they shouldn't be taking.

If you haven't practiced, and made, THAT shot.... with THAT rifle... under FIELD CONDITIONS.... then you hadn't ought to be taking it at a critter. If you have.... and something goes haywire... then that's hunting. If you haven't.... and it turns into a rodeo.... or even a pole-axed critter.... that isn't an 'ethical shot' as far as I see it.

Hunting Ethics is a matter of being honest with yourself.... before the shot.... and after. It isn't about results and it isn't a distance.... or a bait pile.... or a high fence..... or baying hounds.... or insert personal crusade here:__________.... that's for a different debate.

If you take a good shot.... and bad stuff happens.... be honest. Was it really a shot you should be taking? Did you err somewhere down the line in your choice of caliber and projectile? I've had that happen.... that's hunting... that's how we learn where our 'ethical limits' are.

If you take a bad shot.... and get a bad result... punch your tag and take it hard. Wear it.... learn.... Pass on the next one. If you take a bad shot.... and get a good result.... don't call it a 'lucky shot'.... or brag about it. Learn... and pass on the next one...

As far as I'm concerned.... the B&C club has brought as much of this on as anyone.... with the advocation of shooting larger and larger animals, and the acceptance of animals shot on their winter ranges using auctioned "Governor's Tags". Guys want their name in "the Book"... and they'll always push the limits to get there.
 
A story...happened last year...in the spot pictured below.

About 300 yards in the direction the rifle is pointing there is a small pond down in a low place, can't see it in the pic, but its there...and it has some blackberry bushes along the side nearest me in the pic, you can see some of those in the pic...to the left of the me the ground goes down, up, then down again, then up again...to the top the mountain....it's a power line cut.

Two spikes came out to my left, about 150 yards away at the time...they were butting heads and carrying on, I could have shot them easily...but I was having too much fun watching them...one of them was a deer I wanted to take, a few years old and he's always been a spike....well, I watched them a little too long and they got down the low place where I couldn't see them, lol....I kept waiting for them to show up on the other side of field but they never did and it was getting dark by this time...I figured they were at the pond...so I decided to put a stalk on them....I followed the low ground in front the rifle, then turned to the right towards that distant tree in the field, then back to the left towards the pond....getting ahead of them, and the wind in my favor...I made it to within 20 yards of them before they noticed me on the other side of the blackberry bushes, they didn't spook but they noticed at a bad time....when they looked up, I froze....with my weight on the wrong foot and turned the wrong way to do any quick shooting, lol...I couldn't shoot through the bushes anyway so I was gonna have to get them to move....so I just stood up, figured they'd run...they just stood there, lol....so I fired a round into the ground...that worked, they moved at a high rate of energy consumption....the shot reminded me of my bird hunting days....swing through and pull....piled him up at about 120 yards, whirled him in a 360 when it hit him....stone dead when he hit the ground, not even a kick.

It had been years (about 20 of them) since I had stalked a deer like that....I had forgotten what a rush it is.

I knew that was gonna be a running shot...and on an empty chamber...was that unethical?

Which is the more difficult shot to make....running full speed at 100 yards....or standing still at 600?

Do you try to get closer even though you don't think you can?

Do you let it walk (or run) even though you know you can make the shot?

Each hunter will have his or her own answers to those questions....since B&C first mentioned this on Facebook....I have given it serious thought....and I honestly don't know if I would be considered an ethical hunter by B&C's standard.


 
Ridgerunner665":uuk60t6q said:
A story...happened last year...in the spot pictured below.

About 300 yards in the direction the rifle is pointing there is a small pond down in a low place, can't see it in the pic, but its there...and it has some blackberry bushes along the side nearest me in the pic, you can see some of those in the pic...to the left of the me the ground goes down, up, then down again, then up again...to the top the mountain....it's a power line cut.

Two spikes came out to my left, about 150 yards away at the time...they were butting heads and carrying on, I could have shot them easily...but I was having too much fun watching them...one of them was a deer I wanted to take, a few years old and he's always been a spike....well, I watched them a little too long and they got down the low place where I couldn't see them, lol....I kept waiting for them to show up on the other side of field but they never did and it was getting dark by this time...I figured they were at the pond...so I decided to put a stalk on them....I followed the low ground in front the rifle, then turned to the right towards that distant tree in the field, then back to the left towards the pond....getting ahead of them, and the wind in my favor...I made it to within 20 yards of them before they noticed me on the other side of the blackberry bushes, they didn't spook but they noticed at a bad time....when they looked up, I froze....with my weight on the wrong foot and turned the wrong way to do any quick shooting, lol...I couldn't shoot through the bushes anyway so I was gonna have to get them to move....so I just stood up, figured they'd run...they just stood there, lol....so I fired a round into the ground...that worked, they moved at a high rate of energy consumption....the shot reminded me of my bird hunting days....swing through and pull....piled him up at about 120 yards, whirled him in a 360 when it hit him....stone dead when he hit the ground, not even a kick.

It had been years (about 20 of them) since I had stalked a deer like that....I had forgotten what a rush it is.

I knew that was gonna be a running shot...and on an empty chamber...was that unethical?

Which is the more difficult shot to make....running full speed at 100 yards....or standing still at 600?

Do you try to get closer even though you don't think you can?

Do you let it walk (or run) even though you know you can make the shot?

Each hunter will have his or her own answers to those questions....since B&C first mentioned this on Facebook....I have given it serious thought....and I honestly don't know if I would be considered an ethical hunter by B&C's standard.


I doubt I would be either, an ethical hunter that is.
I know my odds are pretty good to have a long shot and getting close is seldom an option. With that in mind I focus on looking for deer at the limit of my range and then work in.
It's easy to sit and pontificate, harder to do. I'll let those that do decide for themselves.
 
The article, as I read it, does not seem to be an attack on riflemen who can and do make long range shots.

Re-read it, look at it carefully without being so defensive. Nowhere in there does it state that the long-range rifleman is a jerk unworthy of the name "hunter" or anything remotely like that. I've had a lot worse attacks come my way from fellow hunters who decry my use of (for goodness sake) a mere .25-06 to shoot a mule deer at 400 yards or a .375 on a bear at 300 yards. Those attacks have been very personal, very insulting.

This B&C stuff seems more cautionary in nature, and I like the tone. To me it's more like "remember the hunt, not just the challenge of the shot" that kind of a thing...

Maybe I'm just looking at the world through rose colored glasses. The coffee is real good this morning.

Regards, Guy
 
sask boy":iix5urhr said:
I am one of those hunters that will always attempt to get as close as possible :)!
But I am confident in my ability to take a 500 yard shot if I cannot stock closer.
When I going out hunting I truly believe that getting the animal is just a bonus :wink:!

Blessings,
Dan

I like that a lot. Thanks for injecting some well reasoned, pleasant words. We're hunters. Hunting season is upon us or nearly so in many places. Let's enjoy, not argue.

Like others here have stated, I thoroughly enjoy the short range hunting. Have taken game with bow, pistol, traditional muzzle loader, iron sight rifles... And I also enjoy the challenge of longer range shots. I know my limits and stick within them.

I see nothing in that B&C article that attacks what I do.

Regards, Guy
 
Back
Top