Shot Goat Tumbles Down Mountain. Graphic.

valcas1 said:
I Guess it depends on how you want to look at that video.

One can say that the hunters made a ethical shot and it was a clean kill. Unfortunatly the animal after its demise rolled several hundred yards down a rocky mountain. What a shame, I wish that didn't happen. It is my understanding that 300-400 yard shots are common during that kind of hunt.

The other side of that debate it that a 400 yard shot is marginal at best and should never be taken. As an ethical hunter you need to feel confident that you can harvest an animal as quickly as possible and when you execute the shot that it is probable that you will do this. I don't know by what I saw if these hunters where confident in their ability to make that shot. They all seemed a bit suprised at the outcome. Therefore from a ethical standpoint probably should not have taken the shot.

Someone compared this to taking a fish out of water and letting it die a slow death. There is no difference! What makes taking a fish and letting it suffocate ok? The fish once removed from the water should also be immediatly dispatched. It is the ethical thing to do.

Whether you agree or not the one thing that this does is help anti-hunters paint hunters as slobs. IMO.

Paul.
Click to expand...

I would say whether a 400 yard shot is ethical or marginal depends entirely on the shooter...my dad hunts mountain goats (not bad considering he is 66) and I don't think he would shoot past 250 yards...he would consider a 400 yard shot beyond his range. Although he did buy a scope this year for the first time in his life so we'll see what that does to his range! He shoots a 30.06 so he should be able to push it pretty far.

I also know shooters that would shoot a mountain goat out to five or six hundred yards...but they are specialists at long range shooting. For them it would be entirely ethical.

And, of course, I know hunters who I would not trust to make that shot at 75 yards. Some guys just never develop the skills to be a good shooter.

I do know my dad wouldn't be taking a shot at an animal that would be falling like that, though, regardless of the range. Meat would be wrecked, I think.
 
Iit's an amazing shot, and the footage doesn't disturb me, but it's not funny IF it was an unethical shooting and the animal suffered, and the meat was no good due to the fall. All it is then is a waste all around. If I was bothered by it, I'd have removed it.
 
As long as they used the goat for it's meat , it's nobody's business but theirs.
Click to expand...

What if they didn't. Does it matter?

Codes of ethics vary from hunter to hunter, let alone hunter to non hunter. Is it worse if the hunter gloats?

In the end, it doesn't matter if it's a goat, or a deer, or a dog. People kill stuff, and there's a whole spectrum of toleration for it.
 
555 said:
Is this uncommon in your area?
Click to expand...

Well, I've never heard of anyone hunting mountain goat from a vehicle myself, but I think that's more of an accessibility issue than an ethics issue. Usually a day in, day hunt, day out kind of thing for the guys I know.

But again that has more to do with the extremely rugged terrain that the people I know hunting goats are in. Could be a vertical kilometer covered per day of travel...lot of work, no roads there to make it easy!
 
"Is this uncommon in your area?"

Unfortunately, it is not that uncommon. It is illegal here.
 
shecky said:
What if they didn't. Does it matter?

Codes of ethics vary from hunter to hunter, let alone hunter to non hunter. Is it worse if the hunter gloats?

In the end, it doesn't matter if it's a goat, or a deer, or a dog. People kill stuff, and there's a whole spectrum of toleration for it.
Click to expand...


I hear ya , I think.

When I was a kid I would shoot innocent birds in my backyard with my BB gun , and I never ate them.
A bird is no less majestic than a mountain goat.
 
rebeltf said:
As long as they used the goat for it's meat , it's nobody's business but theirs.

How is yanking a trout out of the creek , letting it suffocate a slow painful death and then chopping it's head off any different..... give me a break.

I can just see some folks getting their shorts in a twist over this. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

There is no difference if you beat the trout with a rock, there are people who will never understand ethics or sportsmanship most in W&S understand both.
 
The code of ethics DOES vary from hunter to hunter.

That's why poaching laws, and other hunting laws, had to be put into effect.

Too many with no ethics ruined it for everyone.
 
Where's the footage of them dressing the bag-O-bones out?

I bet there isn't any.
Guys like that tend look around and then leave the corpse.

Shooting is easy, even '400' yards.
Hunting, including the responsability associated with it, is hard.

What a bunch of losers.
 
shecky said:
What if they didn't. Does it matter?

Codes of ethics vary from hunter to hunter, let alone hunter to non hunter. Is it worse if the hunter gloats?

In the end, it doesn't matter if it's a goat, or a deer, or a dog. People kill stuff, and there's a whole spectrum of toleration for it.
Click to expand...

There is a rather large difference between killing for the sake of satisfying a boyhood sense of 'I've got a gun; I control who lives and who dies!' and hunting. Killing and hunting are in our blood as a species, but that doesn't mean we should go around picking off anything that looks like easy prey. If a hunter doesn't plan on eating what he or she kills, there's always Hunters for the Homeless, or a related organization.
 
valcas1 said:
I Guess it depends on how you want to look at that video.

One can say that the hunters made a ethical shot and it was a clean kill. Unfortunatly the animal after its demise rolled several hundred yards down a rocky mountain. What a shame, I wish that didn't happen. It is my understanding that 300-400 yard shots are common during that kind of hunt.

The other side of that debate it that a 400 yard shot is marginal at best and should never be taken. As an ethical hunter you need to feel confident that you can harvest an animal as quickly as possible and when you execute the shot that it is probable that you will do this. I don't know by what I saw if these hunters where confident in their ability to make that shot. They all seemed a bit suprised at the outcome. Therefore from a ethical standpoint probably should not have taken the shot.

Someone compared this to taking a fish out of water and letting it die a slow death. There is no difference! What makes taking a fish and letting it suffocate ok? The fish once removed from the water should also be immediatly dispatched. It is the ethical thing to do.

Whether you agree or not the one thing that this does is help anti-hunters paint hunters as slobs. IMO.

Paul.
Click to expand...

I agree with your post; and true sportsmen never cause sufferring in the field. As for Rebel's post, if people grow up being taught properly how to dispatch the game they kill then there is no need for a trout or anything else to suffer. It's a no brainer how to dispatch a keeper fish, and when I see someone doing as you mentioned I offer to show them the proper way to dispatch the animal at hand.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top