Has Technology Made Hunting Too Easy?

[jeff]

Long range hunting has taken much of the hunting out of the equation and substituted shooting, I am not knocking it, I just see the difference.

 

[Mr. 16 gauge]

Ah, yes.....the "I have the latest SuperDupermagnumBoomer rifle/cartridge combo and a scope that has X-ray vision capabilities, so I can kill anything up to infinity!" mindset.
Way, WAY to prevalent where I hunt (waterfowl).....duck hunting is suppose to be a "long range" game, right? So taking shots at 100 yards isn't unethical, is it?
.....it is when the ducks you hit sail well on past your means of retrieval and they are still flapping their wings when they hit the refuge. See it every fall.....and it sickens me. I am always finding piles of dead ducks floating along the edges of the marsh where I hunt...it's a horrible waste.
....but "skybusting" isn't illegal. Even if it were, who defines what is "too far"? 20 yards? 30 yards? 60 yards? Some folks (damn few, though) can make those farther shots....most can't.
And what about all the variables? Change of wind direction, animal moving as bullet is fired (resulting in a hit too far back), bullet performance at long range (will it mushroom properly and provide enough shock), etc.
I feel part of the blame for this "long range" hunting(?) trend needs to be placed squarely on the shoulders of the ammo/rifle makers; check out the ads that they put in magazines and on-line....every one talks about "extended range", etc. Every damn TV show and video shows the "star" making those "far, way out there" shots.....and hell, if he can do it, so can I!!!
I'm all for technology............I bet it makes better shots out of some people, but it doesn't make better hunters.
.....and as for technology: I started hunting with rubberized canvas waders, wool socks, and flannel long johns.......I appreciate the technology of neoprene waders and gloves, polypropylene long johns, & gortex socks and nobody's going to take those away from me.....but none of those have ever left a game animal out to suffer needlessly.
As for the trend continuing in S.A., here are my thoughts: Here in the states, if you hit a big game animal and loose it, most "hunters" just figure "What the hell, just go find another one". When you are in S.A. and you have to pay $1000 or so for a wounded zebra, wildebeest, etc, I think that those "long range shooters" might have second thoughts after loosing a poorly hit animal or two......
FWIW.............

 

[jeff]

I'm all for technology............I bet it makes better shots out of some people, but it doesn't make better hunters.
.........
FWIW.............[/QUOTE]
You have hit the nail right on the head!!

 

[JTEX]

It's all perspective. I always shoot whithin my limitations and will turn down shots I'm not comfortable with. That being said, I shoot a bunch and I shoot pretty regularly out to 600yds.

How many that decry all this "technology" hunt with spears? Or rocks or clubs?

Even bow hunters with the latest carbon fiber space shuttle engineered bows with fiber optic sights and carbon fiber arrows........

It's all perspective. We stand together or fall apart! I personally hate these types of threads where one type of hunter calls anothers methods unethical.......we are in this together. If you don't want to don't. If you can't don't.

 

[BRICKBURN]

Here you go. We can save the Air fare.

 

[bluey]

It's all perspective. I always shoot whithin my limitations and will turn down shots I'm not comfortable with. That being said, I shoot a bunch and I shoot pretty regularly out to 600yds.

How many that decry all this "technology" hunt with spears? Or rocks or clubs?

Even bow hunters with the latest carbon fiber space shuttle engineered bows with fiber optic sights and carbon fiber arrows........

It's all perspective. We stand together or fall apart! I personally hate these types of threads where one type of hunter calls anothers methods unethical.......we are in this together. If you don't want to don't. If you can't don't.[/QUOTE

bingo...

 

[Pheroze]

To the extent technology enhances what we do it is a good thing. But, I am not sure technology alone makes anything easier.

I personally love all the technology that was invented about 100 years ago. I love it because those actions and cartridges just work well on many levels. I love the new clear scopes that have come out. I think modern manufacturing makes any scope work very well. So for me there is technology that enhances my experience and allows me to be the best I can be.

But there is technology that I cannot use because it demands skills I do not have. In a lot of ways hunting at long range is not the same sport and requires different skill sets to use the technology available. It would be unethical for me to buy the technology because it would be like sticking me in a formula one car. I would just find a very expensive way to make a mess! Btw, for the same reason I have not bow hunted because I have not dedicated the time it takes to be competent with that technology.

My point is that whatever form of hunting you do, you have an obligation to do it well. I don't think it would be easier for me to try a shot at 1000 yards with all the gear than to shoot at 100 yards. I just don't have the training.

The question may also pertain to electronic calls, manufactured attractants etc. But, again it may come back to how we use it - does it allow us to be better at what we train to do?

The problem is more in the fact that the folks here on AH think about this stuff. A lot of people who hunt may not consider these questions. And, when they try and buy their way to success they make a hash of it they make us all look bad.

 

[Ridge Top Ranch]

I agree that we all use technology to varying degrees. The enjoyment or thrill we get from hunting is very different. To some it is the SKILL of stalking very close to animals and beating them at their own game. For others it is the SKILL it tales to place a projectile accurately at distances most of us can't even imagine. Another group may be more interested in the enjoyment of being outdoors with a group of friends for a "SOCIAL" event. ALL of us enjoy some aspect of all of the above to varying degrees.

Hunting, as beauty, is in they eye of the beholder.

 

[jeff]

Hunting, as beauty, is in they eye of the beholder.

I agree that we all use technology to varying degrees. The enjoyment or thrill we get from hunting is very different. ALL of us enjoy some aspect of all of the above to varying degrees.

Hunting, as beauty, is in they eye of the beholder.[/
You summed this up very well, I think as we mature as a hunter over years our enjoyment and objectives also change.

 

[Big5]

Long range hunting has taken much of the hunting out of the equation and substituted shooting, I am not knocking it, I just see the difference.

I agree.

 

[Ruark]

I think a lot of it happens slowly, incrementally. I remember when just having a scope was REALLY exotic, back when zooms hadn't been invented yet. Now you can buy a halfway decent 4X12 AO scope for $79 and nobody thinks twice about it.

But you'd think sooner or later things would max out. I was thinking of this about a month ago when I ran across this new scope technology online. Right now it costs several thousand dollars because it's a scope/rifle combination, but it's coming. Just takes your breath away. Here's how it works:

1. Turn on the device and look through it at your intended target.
2. You look through the crosshairs, even if they're wiggling around, and lightly tap a button when they're over the exact spot you want to hit.
3. Hold down the trigger (it's sort of a trigger). That's all, nothing else. Continue aiming at your target, holding down the trigger.
4. The scope/device calculates distance and bullet drop, and when it's aimed at just the exact right point, it automatically fires the gun. Bang.

I might have left out a little detail, but that's how it works. I'm sure that eventually, this will be a Walmart item for $99. Thoughts?

 

[Troy McLellan]

Technology certainly has made hunting easier. Scopes, cartridges, atv's, mobile refrigerators, clothing the list is endless. It all comes down to education and above all ethics. Yeah go and get all the latest gadgets if thats your style or use a primitive bow. Personally I don't care. BUT only take the shot you know you can handle. You owe it to yourself, the hunting fraternity as a whole and above all the animal you are hunting.

 

[Big5]

Technology certainly has made hunting easier. Scopes, cartridges, atv's, mobile refrigerators, clothing the list is endless. It all comes down to education and above all ethics. Yeah go and get all the latest gadgets if thats your style or use a primitive bow. Personally I don't care. BUT only take the shot you know you can handle. You owe it to yourself, the hunting fraternity as a whole and above all the animal you are hunting.

Very well said Troy. Some of the 'hunting' has been lost to modern technology. But above all else sport hunting is about the shot and the ethics of taking that shot.

 

[jeff]

I can see Ruark's point, where will it all stop to make us more efficient killers, I think sport hunting is all about the hunt.

 

[Velo Dog]

Good morning,

What's next, computerized drones that you operate from the comfort of the pool deck, back at the lodge?

Will the Trophy Hunters be able to program their drones to measure the horns with a laser and/or estimate the tusk weight, etc., so the Hunter can decide if they wish to take the animal or pass on it and instead send their drone on to look for a bigger one?

For Rifle Hunters, we'd probably need to consider how much recoil our specific drone make and model can stand?

For Archers, perhaps drones could be fit with a device that launches a "smart arrow" or a heat seeking arrow or, how about one that will not only never miss the vitals but, will only select the largest animal on your I-Phone or Laptop computer screen, in the event of wanting to bag the herd's largest bull, ram, buck or whatever?

LOL ?

Velo Dog.

 

[Red Leg]

I am going to agree to disagree somewhat with you. There are those who practice long range and are proficient at it. There is a time and a place for it. Much of Africa is not necessarily suited for long range shooting. On the prairie of WY I am situated where it can be done. I have 2 friends that are consistently capable on long range shots. One has a .300 WM that he and friends use. Over the last 3 yrs they have 23 big game 1 shot kills with NO misses or wounded animals. Ranges from 300 to over 1200 yards. It takes practice and dedication. Just because you don't want to or cannot do it does not mean that others can't ethically take big game at those distances.
I will agree that many don't have the practice and dedication to do so and they should respect the animal enough to not take a " maybe" shot. We need to understand our limits and stay within those boundaries. For some people 200 yards is too far away. That is fine as long as they know what their EFFECTIVE range is. I don't practice enough. I'm working on upgrading equipment that will do the job to 1000 yards. Right now I'm pretty comfortable to 600 yards with good wind conditions.
A couple of yrs ago I took my whitetail at 563 yards. 6.5-06 with a 140 gr Berger bullet. I had a dead rest and a proper rangefinder reading. I got excited and missed the 4 inch wind adjustment. First shot was slightly far back, but lethal. 2nd on the shoulder. He never took a step after the first.
There several points I want to make. First is that we as hunters need to stand together against the antis on everything that we can. Whether it is long range hunting, leopards or Bongo with dogs or archery equipment at 60 yards. We are stronger together. Just because I don't do it or even want to do it does not make it wrong. Let's not give them ammunition to help defeat us.
I believe that most of us on this forum are gentleman and have a common core value and respect for our wildlife. We need to help teach that to the coming generations. We are the leaders and teachers and need to help those coming behind us.
There are those who can ethically hunt big game at 1000 yards. That is a fact. Should everyone shoot at a animal at that distance? NO,of course not. Only under the proper conditions, training and practice. Things like a animal that is standing still. Proper rest. Little to no wind. Tried and true equipment. Time to set up do it right.
If a hunter can get closer to a animal then he should do so. That is part of the ethics.
Last story. 3yrs ago in the East Cape. My PH spotted a cull impala ram. Bad leg. Asked if I could make the shot. I said yes after ranging him. I was sitting in the back of the truck with a solid rest on the cab. Just like a shooting bench at home. At the shot he jumped and went perhaps 25 yards. We drove to the damn he had been standing on. Good blood. My ph asked how far away was he. When I told him 375 yards he swore and said he had thought 275. I was ready and had the right equipment for the job.
Last point. If I practice at 500, 600, 800 yards. Just how confident and easy does that make a 400 yard shot? Much easier than if I've never shot beyond 200 yards.
OK go ahead and tell me I'm wrong. Be a gentleman while doing it and we'll still be friends. Friends can have different opinions and ways of doing things. Long range hunting is not for everyone. If you don' have the right equipment and practice a lot then you should not do it. Bruce

When you tell me this, understand that at least one other fellow "hunter" finds a 1200 yard shot at a game animal reprehensible. Such a shot has nothing to do with hunting - it is about "killing" at long range. A game animal becomes the target, because it is legal, for what is essentially a stunt shot. And don't tell me that your buddy always hits at that range - I have been too long involved in the technical assessment of weapons that are designed to try to make repetitive shots at human targets at such ranges. Whatever they are doing, it has nothing to do with hunting. And I won't agree that I enable antis if I don't turn a blind to such "targeting" of our game animals. Indeed, if anyone is doing us harm, it is the U-Tube videos and TV shows lauding this behavior

There is indeed a gray line that divides us between using technology to assure the quick clean kill of a desired game animal, and using such technology to pull off a ridiculous long range "kill." I am pretty sure that putting a 180 gr bullet through a small window in brush in poor light at 200 yards through a 6-power Zeiss is ethical. I am equally sure dropping a mule deer or elk at 1200 yards by some sniper wannabe and his spotter isn't. I guess we all have to figure out where that line is for each of us.

 

[Big5]

When you tell me this, understand that at least one other fellow "hunter" finds a 1200 yard shot at a game animal reprehensible. Such a shot has nothing to do with hunting - it is about "killing" at long range. A game animal becomes the target, because it is legal, for what is essentially a stunt shot. And don't tell me that your buddy always hits at that range - I have been too long involved in the technical assessment of weapons that are designed to try to make repetitive shots at human targets at such ranges. Whatever they are doing, it has nothing to do with hunting. And I won't agree that I enable antis if I don't turn a blind to such "targeting" of our game animals. Indeed, if anyone is doing us harm, it is the U-Tube videos and TV shows lauding this behavior

There is indeed a gray line that divides us between using technology to assure the quick clean kill of a desired game animal, and using such technology to pull off a ridiculous long range "kill." I am pretty sure that putting a 180 gr bullet through a small window in brush in poor light at 200 yards through a 6-power Zeiss is ethical. I am equally sure dropping a mule deer or elk at 1200 yards by some sniper wannabe and his spotter isn't. I guess we all have to figure out where that line is for each of us.

Red Leg . . . make that TWO other fellow "hunters" who agree with your overall assessment.

 

[gillettehunter]

I find a 1200 yard shot unethical for 99.5 percent of the hunters out there. The friends that I referenced take far more animals at 500-800 than over 1000. The point I wanted to make was that some people practice enough with the right equiptment to ethically take animals at long range. They shoot enough to KNOW when they can and can't make the shot. There is a time and place for longer shots. For most of us under 400 is far safer. There have been times and conditions when I wouldn't take the 400 yard shot. We have to know our own limits. That is a big part of the ethics.
I call myself an " advanced beginner" in long range hunting. Had to almost relearn reloading to get the proper techniques. I'm still working on proper equipment and practice time to get better. Last hunting season 200 yards was my "long shot". Knowing I can accurately place a bullet at 600 yards makes 200 a " chip shot" under decent conditions. Learning to shoot accurately at longer ranges has made me a better marksman for my normal ranges. Sometime/some places you just can't get any closer. If your not prepared then passing on the shot is the ethical thing to do.
Red Leg, I think we're closer on the issue than some would think. I'd share a drink or a campfire with you any day. Bruce

 

[Velo Dog]

My capability at extreme range rifle shooting is one thing.
Some wild animal deciding to remain standing still, and not suddenly begin walking, between the moment my sear lets go and the actual flight time required for my bullet to arrive, is yet another thing altogether.
That is precisely why I do not engage in extreme long range shots at big game.

 

[Mr. 16 gauge]

Red Leg . . . make that TWO other fellow "hunters" who agree with your overall assessment.

Make it three.............