# Ethics and Technology



## Kevin D (Sep 15, 2007)

This thread is a spin off of the 200 gr/overkill/underkill discussion.

Does one have to make use of the latest technology to be an ethical hunter?? Where do you personally draw the line??

As rifle, optics, and ballistic technology have advanced, so too have the ranges at which shots at big game are attempted. Grand dad with his .30-30 would never have considered an 800 yard cross canyon shot at an elk, yet to a competent shooter with a 300 RUM and the proper optics this is a very makeable shot. At what point does technology give too much of an advantage to the hunter that it is no longer fair (ethical) to the target animal?? Is a 150 yard shot with a .30-30 more or less ethical than a 800 yard shot with .300 RUM (using 200 gr. bullets of course!)??

I'm to the point in my own hunting career where filling a tag is no longer a priority. I've taken enough big game animals with a scoped rifle that I don't really care if I kill another one, but I still love to hunt and I still enjoy a good elk or deer steak. So for the last few years I've left my scoped rifles in the safe and only hunted with open sights in traditional calibers like .45/70 or .30-30. Does this make me morally deficient??

I can respect the shooter who can make a clean 800 yard kill shot on an elk, but it's not for me. I'm not trying to dictate morals here, I would just rather forego the technology that makes 800 yard shots possible and stick within the limits that more traditional rifles and calibers offer, even if that means I eat a tag or two.

Where does everybody else draw the line between technology and ethics??


----------



## Dunkem (May 8, 2012)

Good post Kevin. My pa always hunted with a 30-30 open sights, dont ever remember him ever wounding and losing a animal. I think long range shots are good for those who have that ability. I have not hunted for a few years, but if I did I would use a scope, but would be shooting in the range of my ability, which is not 800 yards:shock:


----------



## 2full (Apr 8, 2010)

To me the challenge is to see how close you can get.
Not how far away you can get. 

But, to each their own.....


----------



## colorcountrygunner (Oct 6, 2009)

I hate long range "hunting." Notice how I put the word hunting in quotations? As if to say I don't really consider it hunting? Am I making my point? Yeah. 800 yard shots on game animals can suck a fart.


----------



## sawsman (Sep 13, 2007)

There is nothing really "fair" to any target animal. After all, they're not hunting us - we are hunting them. But we already know this..



2full said:


> To me the challenge is to see how close you can get.
> Not how far away you can get.
> 
> But, to each their own.....


I pretty much agree with this.

Never really been a fan of the long range stuff personally.

.


----------



## Karl (Aug 14, 2016)

Kevin D said:


> This thread is a spin off of the 200 gr/overkill/underkill discussion.
> 
> Does one have to make use of the latest technology to be an ethical hunter?? Where do you personally draw the line??
> 
> ...


Great thread topic. And also very relevant everywhere in the USA.

I'll develop my syllogism and cover all my bases point by point and then will conclude with what I believe regarding this topic and its relevant issues.

First, in Native American philosophy, the fundamental overruling principal is that "no man can tell another what to do." Everyone has to decide for themselves how to govern themselves and their own. So my views are my own based on my own observations and conclusions about hunting. Of all the various philosophical systems, the Native Americans got it most right in terms of what is the most important ethical consideration in all matters.

Having said that, I will next follow your own organization and reply to each of your points in order.

"Does one have to make use of the latest technology to be an ethical hunter?? Where do you personally draw the line??"

Regarding this issue, I don't have a problem with primitive hunting weapons. Archery and muzzleloaders are primitive and most if not all states give these two methods special early seasons. I bow-hunt and I love archery. There is something primordial about bringing home food with your bow and arrows. I have brought home venison, rabbit, and grouse this way.

The ethical issue with these two primitive systems is to be sure you have the necessary skill and that you get close enough for a clean humane kill on the animal. I practice with my bow and arrows from early springtime until the day before bow-hunting season. As the season gets closer I practice 3 times per day, early morning, lunch break, and evenings after work.

The same can be said for any hunting system. While it troubles me when people speak of hunting with assault weapons or handguns, it seems fine to me to hunt with archery or muzzleloaders.

For the benefit of definition, an assault weapon is any gun designed with antipersonnel purposes in mind rather than big game hunting. You would not chase an elephant or a rhino with a 5.56x45 or with a 7.62x39 lest the beast kill you first. The same respect should be shown all the other game animals, in my opinion. Same is true of handguns. And as R.Lee Ermy said, a handgun is a gun that you can hold in one hand. This word is shorthand for a pistol or a revolver. Just covering my bases here.

I bow hunt however not because I love archery, I do it because the states make archery season earlier than rifle season, and so in order to get out there and scout, and also to have a chance at a bow kill, I hunt with my archery gear. But for that I would be using my scoped bolt action rifle instead.

"Grand dad with his .30-30 would never have considered an 800 yard cross canyon shot at an elk, yet to a competent shooter with a 300 RUM and the proper optics this is a very makeable shot. At what point does technology give too much of an advantage to the hunter that it is no longer fair (ethical) to the target animal?? Is a 150 yard shot with a .30-30 more or less ethical than a 800 yard shot with .300 RUM (using 200 gr. bullets of course!)??"

I know a lot of people love to hunt with their 30-30's. I have friends who do too. If you can get close enough with a 30-30 then using this system on big game is fine with most animals. You would be a fool to try this against an elephant or a rhino. And where you draw the line between these and the lowly Southern whitetail, it all depends on how close you can get.

My longest shot on a buck with my 300 RUM is 425 yards. I hit him in the lower back while he was slowly climbing a hill and the bullet went through his spine and crippled his legs. I had to finish him up close as he was sitting on the ground. It was not an ethical shot. I was not going to take this shot in the first place but after my buddies emptied their guns at him, then urged me with extreme prejudice to take the shot. So I put down my bino's and unslung my rifle. I only needed one shot, unlike them.

I would normally not take a shot with any system longer than 350 yards. As a bow-hunter I am used to stalking up close to within 25 yards if need be.

"... So for the last few years I've left my scoped rifles in the safe and only hunted with open sights in traditional calibers like .45/70 or .30-30. Does this make me morally deficient??"

My own eyes are not good enough any more for any shot past 50 yards with iron sights. So I only rely on iron sights with my 45ACP and my 5.56x45 Ruger Mini for self defense purposes, not for big game.

"Where does everybody else draw the line between technology and ethics?"

My fundamental principle for judging what is ethical for hunting game turns upon what can deliver a fast clean kill within the limits of the state regulations.

If it is archery season, then you have no choice but to hunt with archery or else not to hunt. An archery shot does not deliver a fast kill -- the animal bleeds to death over the course of about an hour. And if you do not sit down and wait for about half an hour at least before you start to track it, then you can lose it by spooking it off even further.

But I have chosen to hunt during archery season so I do. If I had a choice during this early season I would bring my rifle instead however. Each of my broadheads is razor sharp and has never been used. Thus the animal does not feel any pain as the arrow passes through it.

The issue for a muzzle loader is getting close enough for the shot to be lethal, and also being able to take the recoil of a black powder weapon. I do not hunt with or own any muzzle loaders. I would rather hunt with archery than with a black powder gun.

A gun is any firearm. The word comes from the Gothic name of some early catapult named Gunnilda. The gun-part has stuck. Warriors have since ancient times have always named their guns with a girl's name.

While it bothers me a lot when I see people hunting deer with their AR-15's, AR-10's, and AK-47's, it does not bother me when they hunt with their 30-30's as long as they get close enough like a bow-hunter to make an effective shot.

Iron sights versus a scope is merely a personal preference, and also depends on your vision. I can still hunt small game with iron sights, since small game shots are normally around only 25 yards. I am good for iron sights out to 50 yards.

I have never hunted big game with iron sights. In my family that would have been unthinkable. We all hunt with scoped bolt action rifles. My cousin was the best shot of us all, and still is even at 72 years old. When our extended family of aunts and uncles and cousins used to get together for Thanksgiving, my cousin used to provide the venison, wild turkey, rabbits, and squirrels on that table.

I hunt for meat. I am not interested in trophy racks. I would never kill anything that I would not eat. Thus lion hunting is out of the question for me, but I am glad that someone else is depredation-shooting the lions. Lions eat a lot of deer, and so their numbers need to be kept to a reasonable minimum as well.

My highest priority is to bring home venison. I prefer 2 or 3 year old's from 2x2 to 3x3. It does not need to be a 4x4 or 5x5 to interest me. In fact the bigger they are, the more hiking I am going to need to do after I have to quarter the carcass and take it out in 4 trips versus just 2.

I believe I have now covered everything that was mentioned in the O/P.

Like I said to start with, no man can tell another what to do, however.


----------



## colorcountrygunner (Oct 6, 2009)

Thank you for weighing in, Karl. You were succinct and insightful as usual.


----------



## Dunkem (May 8, 2012)

I hunt for meat. I am not interested in trophy racks. I would never kill anything that I would not eat. Thus lion hunting is out of the question for me, but I am glad that someone else is depredation-shooting the lions. Lions eat a lot of deer, and so their numbers need to be kept to a reasonable minimum as well."Quote Karl"

Karl I have processed 7 mountain lions for eating, I think Goob even has a recipe or 2 in that section.


----------



## Karl (Aug 14, 2016)

Dunkem said:


> I hunt for meat. I am not interested in trophy racks. I would never kill anything that I would not eat. Thus lion hunting is out of the question for me, but I am glad that someone else is depredation-shooting the lions. Lions eat a lot of deer, and so their numbers need to be kept to a reasonable minimum as well."Quote Karl"
> 
> Karl I have processed 7 mountain lions for eating, I think Goob even has a recipe or 2 in that section.


Yuk!

That is nasty!

No thanks.

But thank you for clarifying that point.

I know there are cultures that eat dogs and/or cats but I did not have any idea that some of the local mountaineers were cat eaters.

To each his own.

Alligators taste just like chicken, on the other hand. I have no problem with 'gator meat.


----------



## OriginalOscar (Sep 5, 2016)

colorcountrygunner said:


> I hate long range "hunting." Notice how I put the word hunting in quotations? As if to say I don't really consider it hunting? Am I making my point? Yeah. 800 yard shots on game animals can suck a fart.


Agreed. Did you see Afflication and Bro Ryan Lochte are now official sponsors for Long Range. It's a mindset


----------



## Karl (Aug 14, 2016)

The origin of extreme long range shooting in the USA evolved in the hills and rice patties of Southeast Asia and was authored by James Land and Carlos Hath**** together. Their quarry was VC snipers. For that type of quarry such long range shooting is feasible and plausible for highly trained shooters. On big game animals it seems completely inappropriate to me. The ethical conflict of wounding versus cleanly killing game animals rules out ultra long shots like this.

However if you wound an enemy combatant it still takes him/her out of the fight. So an antipersonnel wounding is a completely successful shot, unlike with big game hunting.

Q.E.D.


----------



## kailey29us (May 26, 2011)

2full said:


> To me the challenge is to see how close you can get.
> Not how far away you can get.
> 
> But, to each their own.....


+1 
This is why I love bow hunting, got a traditional bow a few years ago, I have yet to kill anything with it but its a blast to try to get as close as possible. I still hunt mainly with my compound bow. I took my daughter with me for a couple of days on this years bow hunt. She was really frustrated at first when we would get busted and not get within 75 yards. When we finally got within 20 yards of a couple of smalls bucks I could see the excitement in her eyes at being that close to a wild deer. I like long range shooting, at steel not animals.....just not for me.


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

I've watched critters die between 15 yards and 1760 yards and have been amazed at the skill required for both.
It is an argument nobody is going to win and I doubt anyone is going to change anyones mind. How about doing what you think is right and let everyone else determine their own "ethics".
The genie is out of the bottle.


----------



## Clarq (Jul 21, 2011)

My philosophy is this: I try to show respect to my quarry by only taking shots that present an excellent chance at a clean and humane kill. I can follow this philosophy and use any technology I want, from the latest and greatest long-range rifle to a recurve bow. 

I don't feel obligated to go out and get the best weapons, optics, etc. (1) because I can't afford them and (2) because I don't think that's necessary to show respect for my quarry.

I borrowed my dad's old 1970's 30-06 with a 3x scope for this year's elk hunt, and planned on getting within at least 300 yards of an elk before taking a shot. I feel that is a safe range for that weapon and with my shooting capabilities. One of my former neighbors got a spike at 650 yards this year. He has a very powerful gun, the best optics and rangefinders, and practices a lot. 650 yards really is a reasonable range for his weapon and his abilities. I don't view either of our approaches to hunting as wrong, as long as we know our limits and stick to them.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Karl said:


> The origin of extreme long range shooting in the USA evolved in the hills and rice patties of Southeast Asia and was authored by James Land and Carlos Hath**** together. Their quarry was VC snipers. For that type of quarry such long range shooting is feasible and plausible for highly trained shooters. On big game animals it seems completely inappropriate to me. The ethical conflict of wounding versus cleanly killing game animals rules out ultra long shots like this.
> 
> However if you wound an enemy combatant it still takes him/her out of the fight. So an antipersonnel wounding is a completely successful shot, unlike with big game hunting.
> 
> Q.E.D.


Too bad Karl has me on ignore because thats his latest of several asinine comments. Really? Long range shooting got it start in Asia? LMAO...

http://home.earthlink.net/~sharpsshtr/CritterPhotos/SandyHook/SandyHook.html



> The _Report of the Secretary of War, *1880*, Volume III_, under the chapter titled, "_Extreme Ranges of Military Small Arms_" had this to say:
> 
> "_The firing was done by Mr. R.T Hare of Springfield Armory who has the enviable distinction, so far as is known, of being the only person in the world who has hit the 'Bull's-Eye' six feet in diameter at 2,500 yards with three different rifles, and who has ever fired at and hit so small a target as that described in this report at *3,200 yards*. _




-DallanC


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Back to the OP, the more effective we make our weaponry, the more successful we become, and the less tags that can be offered due to higher harvest rates. I use the tech allowed to make me better within my own limits. 50 yards with a bow, 150'ish yards with muzzleloader, 450'ish yards with centerfire.


-DallanC


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

Ethics, simply put, is what is right or wrong. It would be wrong to take a 532 yd shot without knowing how to aim by not using a range finder and not practicing. It would be right to do so by using technology and practice.

A close shot can be messed up just as easy as a far shot. Seen it done before. As for the Native American culture, the best hunter always had meat in his lodge and used the best tools to obtain it from running them off a cliff to the atlatl to the horse and lance to the rifle.

Ethics discussions belong in a university philosophy course or theological discussion.


----------



## Karl (Aug 14, 2016)

Philosophy is everything. Without philosophy you are nothing but another parasite on this Earth.

Ethics is a major branch of applied philosophy.

Ethics is about what you should do as opposed to what you are tempted to do or else what you did.

Should the U.S. Cavalry have herded and/or exterminated the Native American Peoples just because the U.S. Presidents ordered it? No, that was not ethical. But they did.

Should we allow our allies the Turks to exterminate the Kurds? No we should not. That would not be ethical.

Same issue with choosing your hunting equipment and taking your shot on the unsuspecting game animal.

The animal is going to die someday anyway. If you give him a clean painless kill and he becomes your meat for yourself and your family then the animal's life has proved useful. That is what I believe the Great God Of The Heavens intended.

But you owe the animal a clean fast painless kill, if you want to be ethical about it, philosophically speaking.


----------



## Dunkem (May 8, 2012)

Well this parasite is going to bed, Good night.


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

I think you missed my point Karl.

I agree with Mr. Dunkem.


----------



## Loke (Sep 7, 2007)

Karl, you are mistaken on many points. Your claim that "anti-personel assault weapons" are unsuited sporting purposes. Every sporting rifle has its roots in military arms. As does your archery equipment.
Have you ever cut yourself with a razor blade? Hurts like hell. I'll theorize that the animal feels something similar when struck with a broad head.
AK47s are used to poach elephants and rhinos every day. They are chambered in the 7.62x39. A ballistic equivalent of the 30/30.
I have, and continue to hunt with my Ruger Super Blackhawk Hunter. It is a handgun. It kills deer just as quickly (more so with proper bullet placement) than your 300 RUM. 
Ethical hunting is doing so within your ability to cleanly harvest game. 
Long range shooting has been popular since firearms were invented. Have you never heard of Camp Perry? Or the matches at Creedmore? The Wimbledon Cup, or the Elcho Shield? The 30/06 was favored for the 1000 yard matches. With iron sights.


----------



## KineKilla (Jan 28, 2011)

I hunt within MY limits, and take shots that match.

If I knew I could take down an animal with a 900yd. cross canyon shot, I likely would. If you can make those shots, more power to you.

I do enjoy finding them and formulating a plan to get close enough for my shooting skill to apply, for me that's part of the fun.

I'd wager that more animals are wounded and lost each season by hunters lobbing shots into a group of animals or at animals on the run than those wounded by errant long range shots.

Just this year we heard a volley of 9 quick shots followed up by another 7 shots, only saw two dead animals come out of the "war zone".


----------



## willfish4food (Jul 14, 2009)

Everything's a fight for some people... Keep yelling Karl someone will listen, and I pity that person.

I buy the best equipment I can justify, which is just above the bargain shelf. :sad: I use that equipment to hunt at ranges that I can confidently hunt. My first year I passed on a 250 yard shot even though I had a steady rest. I felt unpracticed and lacked confidence at that angle and range. I probably wouldn't pass with the skills I've acquired since then. One day I will bow hunt. One day I will ML hunt. Right now, I only have scoped rifles; and I try to keep my 6mm to less than 300, my 300WM to less than 400 because that's my limit of confidence. I don't however begrudge anyone who has more skill than me and want's to hunt at longer ranges. LR has a different set of challenges, and requires a different set of skills.


----------



## Karl (Aug 14, 2016)

I have no idea why people pretend that anti personnel guns are appropriate for hunting big game animals.

I am guessing it is because they want to be able to say these guns are also hunting guns.

And the reason they want to say it is because of people like Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi and Diane Feinstein who want to interfere with other people's gun rights.

Every gun and every cartridge is designed with a certain target in mind for it.

It makes more sense to choose a gun designed for a given animal (or human) than to use one designed for something else.

I don't believe anyone is correct or incorrect for doing whatever they do or believing whatever they believe.

I just seems self evident that there are more appropriate or less appropriate choices in either case.

If you want to kill elephants then get an elephant gun.

If you want to kill rabbits then get a rabbit gun.

Similarly for everything in between.

The clue as to what a given gun is good for will lie in what that firearm was originally designed for.

For example, 30-30's were designed for killing Indians.

M-14's were designed for killing Koreans.

M-16's were designed for killing Vietnamese.

AK-47's were designed for killing Americans and Eastern Europeans.

As I said earlier in this hunting ethics thread, no man can tell another what to do.

But some choices are more appropriate than others.

Q.E.D.


----------



## Karl (Aug 14, 2016)

High Desert Elk said:


> I think you missed my point Karl.
> 
> I agree with Mr. Dunkem.


About eating lions?


----------



## Dunkem (May 8, 2012)

I really don't----oh nevermind.


----------



## Karl (Aug 14, 2016)

Dunkem said:


> I really don't----oh nevermind.


I trust that you don't eat lions, D, don't worry.

I don't eat them either.


----------



## willfish4food (Jul 14, 2009)

Karl said:


> M-14's were designed for killing Koreans.
> 
> M-16's were designed for killing Vietnamese.
> 
> ...


So these rifles are only really effective at killing these specific groups of people. Good to know. Someone should really inform the DoD ASAP so they can get on getting contractors to design weapons suited to kill other groups of people. It pains me to see our military using weapons only really suited for killing groups of people we're not even fighting right now.

Apparently, even though you can shoot a rifle accurately at a human, you'll not be able to shoot it accurately at a deer. Because... Karl said so.


----------



## Karl (Aug 14, 2016)

The ethical debate about what should we eat and what should we not eat is complex.

It depends on how you want to approach the subject -- whether from science, religion, or philosophy -- as to what the rules are.

Scientifically, cannibalism is clearly dangerous for certain health reasons. You can do it for a little while but if you do it for a long time it will make you sick and cause your death eventually. So scientifically, cannibalism is not a good idea.

Philosophically speaking, people should treat each other as equals and therefore should not prey upon each other for any reason including consumption. So philosophically speaking, cannibalism is also not good.

As far as religion goes, most religions prohibit cannibalism. Many religions prohibit meat eating of any kind. Some religions prohibit certain meats for consumption. Religiously speaking the question of what to eat becomes the most complex.

My own observation is that the higher animals all have behaviors and feelings just the same as humans do and they are extremely bright as well. This would apply to whales, dolphins, elephants, horses, bears, big cats, small cats, wolves, and dogs.

So similar to all the rules for cannibalism, I would not personally eat any of these smart animals.

Anything else is fair game as long as you give it a quick painless death and you don't waste any of the meat.

My dad was Midwestern, as is my cousin, and their Midwestern values included not wasting meat, and not killing anything that you did not plan to eat.

Depredation is a different matter, more closely associated with self defense, although it is the defense of your farm and ranch animals. If coyotes and lions are killing them, you have a self evident right to kill them first. But if you are not a farmer or rancher you have no good reason to.

These are just philosophical ethical questions and thoughts. Anybody can probably argue either way on any of these issues and points.

The only question is can you live with yourself after you do it, whatever it is that you do?

And there is also a strong chance as well (the 5 philosophical proofs of God) that Someone is also watching you from Above, and therefore you would need ultimately to answer to Him or Her or It or Them, at some point.


----------



## Dunkem (May 8, 2012)

No, I have eaten mountain lion, you just left me speechless for a second.


----------



## willfish4food (Jul 14, 2009)

I wish Karl hadn't ignored me. I want to hunt rabbits and squirrels with my 10/22, but I don't know what it was designed to hunt. I wish I could ask him. Maybe it was only designed to punch paper and knock over targets and all the rabbits that have fallen to it thus far were just lucky occurrences. I guess I'll have to do some research and find out what's designed for what so I can get the correct weapon matching each quarry I want to hunt.


----------



## Dunkem (May 8, 2012)

willfish4food said:


> I wish Karl hadn't ignored me. I want to hunt rabbits and squirrels with my 10/22, but I don't know what it was designed to hunt. I wish I could ask him. Maybe it was only designed to punch paper and knock over targets and all the rabbits that have fallen to it thus far were just lucky occurrences. I guess I'll have to do some research and find out what's designed for what so I can get the correct weapon matching each quarry I want to hunt.


 10-22 was designed for shooting Mountain Dew cans (Diet only).


----------



## willfish4food (Jul 14, 2009)

Dunkem said:


> 10-22 was designed for shooting Mountain Dew cans (Diet only).


Good to know. I drink Dr.P and Pepsi. Guess I better go find a gun better suited for those. Just to be clear though, is that anecdotal experience, or have you read the literature? I want to make sure I'm getting good information.


----------



## Karl (Aug 14, 2016)

Dunkem said:


> No, I have eaten mountain lion, you just left me speechless for a second.


How did it taste?

Like chicken?

Alligators taste like chicken. So do rattlesnakes. I can tell you that much.


----------



## Karl (Aug 14, 2016)

Dunkem said:


> 10-22 was designed for shooting Mountain Dew cans (Diet only).


Absolutely fantastic for rabbits too though. I can tell you that much.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

Well, this took a dark twist. Cannibalism?


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

Humans are fallible. Function/purpose is defined by a human inventor. QED, Original function/purpose is fallible.

See play doh, viagra, listerne, brandy, IPA, bubble wrap. Plenty functional, often better, with their new usage. (Edit. Forgot the Mt Dew cans above).


----------



## Brookie (Oct 26, 2008)

I passed a long shot at a spike yesterday because it was bedded and I thought I could get closer. Lets just say the wind changed and I never saw the spike again. I have taken shots that long and connected but also not connected. I guess you have to decided and live with your decision. Do I wish i would of tried the shot Maybe, but I think it was better to try and get a clear shot that would of been lethal for sure.


----------



## Karl (Aug 14, 2016)

A couple of years ago I had a 42 yard shot at a legal spiked buck (the tiny forks were long enough) however I was hunting with my recurve bow and this one is only guaranteed to 35 yards. Everything longer than this is if-fy with the recurve. So I passed on taking the shot as well.

I never regretted it. The risk of wounding the animal but not killing it was not worth the agony of doing so.

It would be hard to live with myself knowing I had shot something and not killed it.

I don't want there to be a first time.

My conscience is still clear. I had good teachers -- my cousin and my dad.


----------



## WillowCreekMan (Dec 17, 2014)

Mind if I chime in on this one?

I have been hunting for 30 years with nothing more than a 30-30 lever action open site. I never try long shots that I know I might miss or wound an animal. I have taken plenty of deer at ranges between 25 and 200 yards with this rifle. I love that 30-30 Marlin more than any car I have ever owned


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

Karl said:


> About eating lions?


Actually, [mountain] lion is some very excellent table fare. The reason ethics belongs in the classroom or theology is because that is where people actually "care" about it. As you said, no man can tell another what to do. I think I even heard 'Stone Calf' say the same thing to 'Dances With Wolves' on the big screen.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

-O\\__-


----------



## willfish4food (Jul 14, 2009)

RandomElk16 said:


> -O\\__-


Not to be confrontational or anything, but I think that emoji was appropriate two or three derailed threads ago. Now I think we need one where the little yellow guy digs up and beats the chalky bones of that horse.


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

Dunkem said:


> ..............................
> 
> Karl I have processed 7 mountain lions for eating, I think Goob even has a recipe or 2 in that section.


Yes, and one of my recipes made a wildlife cooking magazine!

Mountain Lions are excellent table fare.

.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

I've heard its good... also heard it tastes a little like pork?


-DallanC


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

This is my favorite thread.

.


----------



## Karl (Aug 14, 2016)

wyogoob said:


> Yes, and one of my recipes made a wildlife cooking magazine!
> 
> Mountain Lions are excellent table fare.
> 
> .


So what do they taste like?

And what do you need to add to them to cover it?

In Mexico they use a spicy chorizo sauce over goat.


----------



## Karl (Aug 14, 2016)

High Desert Elk said:


> Actually, [mountain] lion is some very excellent table fare. The reason ethics belongs in the classroom or theology is because that is where people actually "care" about it. As you said, no man can tell another what to do. I think I even heard 'Stone Calf' say the same thing to 'Dances With Wolves' on the big screen.


Yes that is a very fundamental principle in Native American philosophy, and the writers of that movie even worked it into the script.

The Native Americans of North America were the most free peoples on the Earth during their heyday. Meso and Latin American natives were enslaved by their kings and aristocracies, however the North Americans were more free than even the ancient Athenian Greeks had been.

When the British colonists got to America and observed the Natives, freedom was again learned by the colonists.

The colonists cherished this new found freedom and grew to hate their own British king. Then they looked to ancient Athens to frame a new government.

I like Native American philosophy because it seems appropriate for this Land which invented it.

Regarding philosophy in general, one of the flaws of American education is that they do not teach philosophy at all, they only brainwash the children.

If they taught philosophy then they could not brainwash them.

You are probably right -- that nobody much cares.

It is unfortunate.

We have therefore learned nothing from the Native Americans whose land we now live on.


----------



## kdog (May 4, 2015)

I have to disagree with Karl on the archery kill time. my last three deer down and the 3 animals taken in Africa last year were all dead within minutes. I do not use giant broad heads, just the standard cut on contact 1 and 1/4 inch cut heads. You put the arrow were it goes and the animal goes down fast and clean. My longest tracking job on any of these animals was 60 yards and that was a big wildebeest. 

Yes it is good to wait 30 minutes to start tracking just in case but a good shot takes the animal down fast.


----------



## Karl (Aug 14, 2016)

kdog said:


> I have to disagree with Karl on the archery kill time. my last three deer down and the 3 animals taken in Africa last year were all dead within minutes. I do not use giant broad heads, just the standard cut on contact 1 and 1/4 inch cut heads. You put the arrow were it goes and the animal goes down fast and clean. My longest tracking job on any of these animals was 60 yards and that was a big wildebeest.
> 
> Yes it is good to wait 30 minutes to start tracking just in case but a good shot takes the animal down fast.


Then you are a better shot than I am.

I usually get lung shots.

If you can manage a heart shot then the kill will be almost instantaneous.

I salute you.


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

I occasionally stumble into a heart and double lung shot, but not very often.

Karl, you bring up some interesting points about "Native Americans". I was raised within 1/2 mile of the Navajo Res and graduated with a class of approx 30% "Caucasian" and 70% "Native American" and never heard of these philosophies of natural freedom.

I do know that natural freedoms were cherised as far back as England's Magna Carta, then also in Europe and the Colonies between the Mercantilists and Physiocrats. Most of this was also spawned by the writings of John Locke, who never met a Native American before he wrote what he did.

Just my thoughts, that's all. Figure if you're going to hijack a thread, do it right!


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

I'm with kdog. I've watched arrow shot deer die within seconds. Hemorrhagic shock is very quick.

⫸<{{{{{⦇°>


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

Karl said:


> So what do they taste like?
> Like someone already said, pork.
> 
> And what do you need to add to them to cover it?
> ...


see red


----------



## Karl (Aug 14, 2016)

The Native Americans considered bears and coyotes sacred because they were both so human like.

For me, the most sacred thing is the power to kill.

As I learned at Quantico, there is nothing on this Earth that I cannot kill.

But the question is -- why would I ??

The answer is ethical and philosophical.

I kill only that which I must eat, or which threatens my Nation, or my family, or myself.

And therefore absent a good cause, I would not kill another human, or dog, or cat, or coyote, or big cat, or wolf, or bear, or horse, or elephant, or dolphin, or whale.


----------



## Karl (Aug 14, 2016)

Fishrmn said:


> I'm with kdog. I've watched arrow shot deer die within seconds. Hemorrhagic shock is very quick.
> 
> ⫸<{{{{{⦇°>


None of my buck deer shot with an arrow has died immediately. They all ran, and bled, and died in the process.

None of them has gotten away either though.

None of them died for nothing.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

I'll use whatever means I can to kill the buck/bull I'm after.
As long that it's within my budget and legal.

The main purpose I hunt with a gun is to kill something, that will fill the freezer or frying pan.
Otherwise, I'd use a camera to stalk my prey.


----------



## TommyGun (Aug 16, 2016)

Karl said:


> The Native Americans considered bears and coyotes sacred because they were both so human like.
> 
> For me, the most sacred thing is the power to kill.
> 
> ...


Indians were pagan until Catholic missionaries taught them monotheism.

We don't pray to animals. We pray to God.


----------



## TommyGun (Aug 16, 2016)

I'm not sure that an 800 yard shot on any animal is doable. If it's not doable, it's not ethical. Conditions would have to be 100% perfect for me to take a 400 yard shot. I'm talking solid rest, no wind, no other animals in front of behind the animal I want to kill, nothing in the path of my bullet, and there is no way to close distance.

I'd rather shoot at a hundred yards than farther.

At Rocky Mountain altitude, a 250 yard shot might not be doable if one is experiencing labored breathing. I had to wait a minute to catch my breath to make a 130 yard shot on a bull elk. We hunted that dude for about 2 & a half hours. When we finally got a shot at him, I was exhausted. I had to assure a solid rest, my breathing normalized, and a clear shot before I put a 160 grain 7MM Rem Mag Partition through his heart. He was dead on his hooves. 

It's not about distance. It's about a quick, humane kill. 

I've blown a shot at a buck. I gut shot him. It was 100% my fault. He dropped immediately. He tried to get up but couldn't. I had to walk up to him for a finishing shot. His looking up at me while trying to live has screwed with me for 20 years. In my mind's eye, I can still see his eyes looking up at me. I'd rather completely miss a deer that go through that again. 

I'm 100% good walking up on dead game. I'm 100% not good with wounding game. That's why I'm 100% committed to accuracy than big, bad cartridges. I'd rather put a .270 Win bullet trough a big game animal's heart and/or lungs than shoot big game with a massive magnum. A massive magnum will not kill big game deader than a .270 Win that destroys big game hearts.


----------



## 2full (Apr 8, 2010)

There was a thread a little while back that talked about eating mountain lion.........
Also turned into an interesting thread :mrgreen:


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

TommyGun said:


> Indians were pagan until Catholic missionaries taught them monotheism.
> 
> We don't pray to animals. We pray to God.


Well I'm not so sure about that. I've fallen off of most every horse I ever got on. So when I get on a horse I pray to it.

.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

wyogoob said:


> see red


This is my favorite color... in this thread.

-DallanC


----------



## TommyGun (Aug 16, 2016)

wyogoob said:


> Well I'm not so sure about that. I've fallen off of most every horse I ever got on. So when I get on a horse I pray to it.
> 
> .


I do appreciate a great sense of humor.


----------



## TommyGun (Aug 16, 2016)

2full said:


> There was a thread a little while back that talked about eating mountain lion.........
> Also turned into an interesting thread :mrgreen:


That's a whole lot better than the other way around ;-)


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

Kevin D said:


> .........................................
> 
> I'm to the point in my own hunting career where filling a tag is no longer a priority. As soon as I fill my sheep tag I'll be there too. I've taken enough big game animals with a scoped rifle that I don't really care if I kill another one, but I still love to hunt and I still enjoy a good elk or deer steak. Yes and I love to eat Bighorn Sheep. So for the last few years I've left my scoped rifles in the safe and only hunted with open sights in traditional calibers like .45/70 or .30-30. Does this make me morally deficient?? As long as those guns have some good-lookin walnut stocks, no.
> 
> ...


see red

For the rifle elk hunt this year I've chosen a blend of old and new; a relic 1930s Remington Model 141 rifle with the "latest and greatest" Superperformance powder and Leverevolution projectiles.


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

TommyGun said:


> I do appreciate a great sense of humor.


Uh....I wasn't tryin' to be funny.

.


----------



## TommyGun (Aug 16, 2016)

wyogoob,

That's a hunting gun, with heavy emphasis on hunting.

What caliber is it? .35 Rem?

I hope you kill a huge bull with it.


----------



## Idratherbehunting (Jul 17, 2013)

The best way I've heard the appeopriate distance for a shot to be ethical is: If you can take the shot, and not be surprised if that animal tips over (or dies quickly afterwards), but instead be shocked if it doesn't, then you are at an appropriate distance. 

As far as all the other technologies, bearing familiar with your equipment and being realistic with its limitations is what matters most.


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

TommyGun said:


> wyogoob,
> 
> That's a hunting gun, with heavy emphasis on hunting.
> 
> ...


Yes, 35 Remington.

thanks

.


----------



## Karl (Aug 14, 2016)

wyogoob said:


> Yes, 35 Remington.
> 
> thanks
> 
> .


I have had hunting buddies that have used this and they love it.

Whopper of a load. Heavy bullets too.


----------



## Karl (Aug 14, 2016)

TommyGun said:


> That's a whole lot better than the other way around ;-)


Puma's have attacked men, women, and children throughout the ages.

Attacks on men are the rarest, but if they get on your back they don't let go of your neck. Your only defense is a long sharp knife so you can stab them in the neck and bleed them until they lose consciousness from loss of blood before you do.

Attacks on female joggers are somewhat common. Women have not survived these attacks.

Attacks on children are the most common -- they grab the kid and run off with it. So if you are in Puma country keep your kids close to you.

I feel safest from puma's when I am wearing my frame backpack. It protects my neck and prevents the cat from grabbing hold.

During archery season I always have my hatchet with me, and during rifle season my 45ACP. In either case I never go anywhere without a knife either. My dad taught me the knife rule when I was 6 years old.

I have seen several big cats over the decades. Normally they were running away from me.

But once in the Coastal Range I was 1 1/2 days into a preseason backpack scouting trip and in the middle of the trail I found a huge fresh dung pile with deer hair in it. There were also paw prints -- big ones. I looked around with my bino's in all directions but did not see anything. The cat was probably watching me though.

When a cat makes a huge dung pile in the middle of a trail like that it is saying "no trespassing."

Backpacker beware.


----------



## Karl (Aug 14, 2016)

TommyGun said:


> Indians were pagan until Catholic missionaries taught them monotheism.
> 
> We don't pray to animals. We pray to God.


Don't get me started on organized religion.


----------



## Kevin D (Sep 15, 2007)

Chasing lions and bear with hounds has been a passion of mine for over 30 years. The number of lions I've been up close and personal with will number into the hundreds, so I consider myself a bit of an expert on the critters. So to clear up a couple of mistruths:



Karl said:


> Attacks on men are the rarest, but if they get on your back they don't let go of your neck. Your only defense is a long sharp knife so you can stab them in the neck and bleed them until they lose consciousness from loss of blood before you do.


I'm guessing I'm the only one on the forum that has witnessed first hand a cougar attack on a human. Years ago I watched a buddy prodding a female lion perched on a ledge with a stick when it leaped on him and took him down. It stood on him for a couple seconds flexing her claws before she took off, but it didn't go for the neck.

I've also had lions grab my dogs and pull them in where the hound was defenseless, but after a couple of munches the lions have always let go. I've never had a dog killed or even seriously injured by a cougar.



Karl said:


> But once in the Coastal Range I was 1 1/2 days into a preseason backpack scouting trip and in the middle of the trail I found a huge fresh dung pile with deer hair in it. There were also paw prints -- big ones. I looked around with my bino's in all directions but did not see anything. The cat was probably watching me though.
> 
> *When a cat makes a huge dung pile in the middle of a trail like that it is saying "no trespassing."
> 
> *


If you were familiar with cougar behavior, you'd know that lions cover their scat much like housecats. If you found a fresh pile scat in the trail full of deer hair, it was unlikely a lion. Male cougars mark their territory by spraying and scratching, not by feces. Leaving feces markers is more of a canine trait.



Karl said:


> I have seen several big cats over the decades. Normally they were running away from me.


As it always has been with me. I divide my own lion sightings (not counting the ones with dogs of course) into two categories, those that were running away when I seen them, and those that were running away when they seen me.

I enjoy reading your posts Karl, you offer good insight. But once in a while you post something that makes me go "No, No, that ain't right!!"


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

Karl said:


> Don't get me started on organized religion.


And enter the theology part of the ethics discussion...


----------



## Dunkem (May 8, 2012)

Karl said:


> Don't get me started on organized religion.


 No no:O//::RULES:


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

Those statements on cougars dont hold up to data (very similar to the myths of bear attacks on menstruating women). According to Wikipedia, more than 2x as many men have died from cougar attacks in the US, since the 70s, then women. There have been a totalof 8 attacks on men in California while only 7 on women (since 1986). Only 30% of those were on kids and none of those were fatal.

Most of the comonly accepted rumors about predators just dont hold up to data or science. These particular myths are disturbing as i hear more women claim them as reasons for avoiding the outdoors than men. Reminds me of the legends of bald eagles swooping off with kids that were so prevalent up through the 90s. Not sure were they come from but their only benefit is to instill irrational fear.

Cant correct all of the misinformation coming from Karl but felt compelled to on this one since it has directly impacted people i know.


----------



## Karl (Aug 14, 2016)

Kevin D said:


> Chasing lions and bear with hounds has been a passion of mine for over 30 years. The number of lions I've been up close and personal with will number into the hundreds, so I consider myself a bit of an expert on the critters. So to clear up a couple of mistruths:
> 
> I'm guessing I'm the only one on the forum that has witnessed first hand a cougar attack on a human. Years ago I watched a buddy prodding a female lion perched on a ledge with a stick when it leaped on him and took him down. It stood on him for a couple seconds flexing her claws before she took off, but it didn't go for the neck.
> 
> ...


Thanks, Kev. I will defer to you on lions. I am no expert. I have only seen a few and luckily for me they have all been running away at the time. I am sure more lions have seen me than I have seen them.

All cats whether big or small seem to be really smart and generally shy. The big ones like to chase deer not people. They will fight if cornered but deer chasing is their main occupation.

That's lucky for humans, for all but the unlucky humans who have been pounced upon by them.

In a very populous nameless state where I used to live and hunt, they have regularly grabbed mountain bikers, joggers, and children though. Probably because they have already eaten all the deer there as well.

Utah hunts lions and that probably keeps their numbers in check nicely.

A very populous nameless state has a legislature where everyone smokes dope. It has clouded their minds, and so they passed a mountain lion protection act -- now the lions are taking over there. Hence more lion-people encounters there.


----------



## kdog (May 4, 2015)

Karl said:


> Then you are a better shot than I am.
> 
> I usually get lung shots.
> 
> ...


Some where heart shots but the majority where double lungs, two of them hardly even reacted to the shot/ did not know they were hit (this is what I love the cut on contact heads).

Double lung is also very fast, still within minutes.


----------



## MuscleWhitefish (Jan 13, 2015)

I think they should just ban the turrets on the scopes. 

Too many people site in at 100 and think they can just turn the turrets and be effective.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

MuscleWhitefish said:


> I think they should just ban the turrets on the scopes.
> 
> Too many people site in at 100 and think they can just turn the turrets and be effective.


Yea, darn that technology that just lets you turn a knob to hit a farther target.










-DallanC


----------

