02-11-2012, 04:46 PM
Montana,
I'm not going anywhere, my reason for being on this forum has little to do with what others think of my positions, it is simply to share what I know for those that are interested.
Let me ask you this to help us think this through. Do you think bow hunting is unethical? I was just in your state this fall and took three white tail deer with my bow, two of them went down within sight and required no tracking, one went about 75 yards but was out of sight and required a little tracking to recover. The closest shot was 10 yards and the furthest was 47 yards.
I know my capabilities well and stayed within those capabilities. I don't think any of those deer lived for more than a few seconds after my shot, and I know that two of them didn't.
Now let me ask you this, If I were using a .223 with 70 grain barnes X bullets and I limited my shots to those same three shots, do you think my .223 would be less humane than my bow? Do you think it would be unethical to head shoot a deer at 10 yards with a .223? At 47 yards?
I'm really not trying to put you on the spot, but I think hunting ethics is important enough to thoroughly understand and should not be boiled down to use X or Y caliber. It is much more dynamic and important than that. My experience leads me to believe that ethics are most often compromised by the desire to succeed that pushes a hunter to take a shot that is on the edge of their capabilities, or worse they don't even know what their capabilities are.
I've raised four sons and each of them took their first big game animals the first year they could legally hunt which was ten years old at the time because we lived in Arizona. I built a Remington Model 7 in .243 for this very purpose and three of my four sons used it for their first big game hunts and took animals cleanly with it. One of my sons Timmy who is now a Marine officer candidate and the Florida High Power Prone 600 yard service rifle champion was at the time recoil sensitive and could not shoot the .243 without flinching. So, rather than risk him wounding a deer with the .243 we changed plans for his first big game animal to be a Javalina (yes javalina are classified as big game animals in Arizona). The reason I did this was that for javalina the minimum legal caliber at the time was a .22 magnum. We trained all year with a chipmunk single shot .22 magnum so that we understood his capabilities from prone, sitting and standing, with and without rests. When the time came we stalked to within 25 yards of a herd of javalina and he took the shot from a sitting position. That is an ethical situation, I know without doubt, but I also know people who would say that a .22 mag is not enough gun and claim this was unethical.
My real point is that it isn't the weapon but the mind set that really determines an ethical situation.
By the way that Remington model 7 I started my sons with accounted for many many head of big game and is now a 6.5 Grendel. I consider that to be more effective than the .243.
I certainly don't have anything against anyone who chooses to hunt with a 30-378 if that is what they want to use, as long as they understand how to use it. But it seems to me that people who buy such calibers fall into two categories, those who understand how to use it's long range capabilities and those who are trying to make up for a lack of skill and confidence. I simply think the second group is in more danger of breeching hunting ethics than some one using a light caliber rifle within their capabilities.
With all respect,
Bob
I'm not going anywhere, my reason for being on this forum has little to do with what others think of my positions, it is simply to share what I know for those that are interested.
Let me ask you this to help us think this through. Do you think bow hunting is unethical? I was just in your state this fall and took three white tail deer with my bow, two of them went down within sight and required no tracking, one went about 75 yards but was out of sight and required a little tracking to recover. The closest shot was 10 yards and the furthest was 47 yards.
I know my capabilities well and stayed within those capabilities. I don't think any of those deer lived for more than a few seconds after my shot, and I know that two of them didn't.
Now let me ask you this, If I were using a .223 with 70 grain barnes X bullets and I limited my shots to those same three shots, do you think my .223 would be less humane than my bow? Do you think it would be unethical to head shoot a deer at 10 yards with a .223? At 47 yards?
I'm really not trying to put you on the spot, but I think hunting ethics is important enough to thoroughly understand and should not be boiled down to use X or Y caliber. It is much more dynamic and important than that. My experience leads me to believe that ethics are most often compromised by the desire to succeed that pushes a hunter to take a shot that is on the edge of their capabilities, or worse they don't even know what their capabilities are.
I've raised four sons and each of them took their first big game animals the first year they could legally hunt which was ten years old at the time because we lived in Arizona. I built a Remington Model 7 in .243 for this very purpose and three of my four sons used it for their first big game hunts and took animals cleanly with it. One of my sons Timmy who is now a Marine officer candidate and the Florida High Power Prone 600 yard service rifle champion was at the time recoil sensitive and could not shoot the .243 without flinching. So, rather than risk him wounding a deer with the .243 we changed plans for his first big game animal to be a Javalina (yes javalina are classified as big game animals in Arizona). The reason I did this was that for javalina the minimum legal caliber at the time was a .22 magnum. We trained all year with a chipmunk single shot .22 magnum so that we understood his capabilities from prone, sitting and standing, with and without rests. When the time came we stalked to within 25 yards of a herd of javalina and he took the shot from a sitting position. That is an ethical situation, I know without doubt, but I also know people who would say that a .22 mag is not enough gun and claim this was unethical.
My real point is that it isn't the weapon but the mind set that really determines an ethical situation.
By the way that Remington model 7 I started my sons with accounted for many many head of big game and is now a 6.5 Grendel. I consider that to be more effective than the .243.
I certainly don't have anything against anyone who chooses to hunt with a 30-378 if that is what they want to use, as long as they understand how to use it. But it seems to me that people who buy such calibers fall into two categories, those who understand how to use it's long range capabilities and those who are trying to make up for a lack of skill and confidence. I simply think the second group is in more danger of breeching hunting ethics than some one using a light caliber rifle within their capabilities.
With all respect,
Bob