Nov 6, 2012 5 min read

As I watched the fellow at the podium, I couldn’t help but ask myself, “Is it really hunting?”

The speaker was not only an excellent marksman but also a fine person with novel ideas. The subject of his talk was shooting big game at distances beyond 1,000 yards. I couldn’t help but think that something subtle was missing from the equation. To the inexperienced, it sounds like a bit of jealousy is flowing through my veins and maybe I’m not capable of shooting that far.

I really don’t think there is truth in that statement because I have shot groundhogs at long distances and have nothing but respect for those who shoot paper successfully at 1,000 yards.

To me, hunting has something to do with the relationship between predator (us) and prey (deer). As modern man advanced, technology seemed to replace hunting skills, and something is lost.

Years ago, we actually followed deer tracks through the thickets hoping for a shot. At those moments, all of our senses were being used. Our eyes watched for bits and pieces of the deer. Our ears strained for the snapping of a twig, and we even sniffed the air for the distinctive animal odor. We were, or at least attempted to be, one with our surroundings.

At times, we did take a stand at a likely crossing, but the stand was picked carefully, taking into account visibility and wind direction. The land was studied and we pinpointed crossing, trails, feeding and bedding areas.

Becoming a skilled hunter meant familiarity with the area and the animal. On the other side of the coin, the long-range shooter – note, I didn’t say hunter – uses modern technology instead of hunting skill to attain the downing of his deer.

Ego becomes an important factor in such shooting with that “I can shoot farther than you” mentality.

My question is, should this activity be called hunting or more accurately, shooting?

I do have a few questions about shooting a deer at 1,000 yards. It does take a bit of time for the bullet to travel from rifle to target. At such long distances, the deer can take one or more steps.

The result? A crippled deer. As hunters, we are taught to place a shot correctly and to get closer if necessary to make a clean, well-placed shot.

Most long-range shooters seek extreme accuracy and therefor turn to match bullets, which are designed for shooting target. They are not recommended for game. As most riflemen know, a bullets slows as it pushes its way through the atmosphere. By the time it has traveled 1,000 yards, it has lost some of its initial speed, lowering its striking energy.

Now, we have a bullet with questionable expansive qualities combined with one that has slowed a bit, which affects expansion, shot at a deer that has more time to move. Is it what we are in the field to do?

Some of the blame for the increased popularity of such shooting falls at the feet of the hunting programs shown on cable television. These programs show nothing but long-range hits and never the gut-shot deer that escaped to die later. Hunters using equipment that costs thousands of dollars make shots that border on the miraculous. Is it any wonder today’s shooters want to do the same?

One other question I must ask: Does a long-range shooter check for a hit after every shot? I learned long ago that even when a deer runs off tail held high, I have a responsibility to find its track and be sure I didn’t hit it. It’s tempting to assume a miss when the shot requires a 1,000-yard walk just to check.

I can’t avoid these questions but repeatedly find myself returning to the feeling that such activity is not really hunting. Perhaps technology will grow to the point where there the hunter doesn’t even have to go into the woods to get a buck. Some sort of set gun or robotics will do the job while the person sits at work. Is that hunting?

Whether we agree with my thinking or not, modern scopes that read the distance and can reliably be dialed in at the longer ranges are a technological improvement and represent the use of technology to overcome hunting deficiencies.

I find myself standing by a tree and watching more and more. Now and then, I get the urge to grab a short, handy rifle, take to the deer trails, and move silently through the cover. This hunting requires a quick to the shoulder rifle, keen eyes and quiet clothes. In my opinion, that is hunting.

I guess one could say improvement in scopes and rifles represent improvement in long-range shooting by themselves, and I am wrong. Maybe that is correct.

But somewhere, the line must be drawn. What is hunting and what is a little more shooting? I have often said deer hunting should never be a competitive sport or based on who downed the biggest buck. The only competition is between the hunter and himself.

George H. Block writes a Sunday Outdoors column for the Observer-Reporter.