some of the responses to this video are completely out of line:
not wearing hunter orange is poor "ethics"??? are you serious? Wearing, or not wearing, hunter orange is not a matter of hunting "ethics" The hunter orange laws are just another example of the govt putting its fingers in to "protect us from ourselves". It is a law just like motorcycle helmets, or the banning of trans-fats. What next, are we going to ban twinkies??
Not even all states require hunter orange, so is it "ethical" to not where orange in that states that do not require it, but "unethical" to not wear it in the states that require it?? Come on. I hunted in idaho this year, and did not wear it, because Idaho does not reqiuire it, I am "unethical"????
Hunter orange is a feel good law. Over half of all hunting injuries are self inflicted; only a very minute percentage of total accidents are situations where one person shoots another person because they did not see them. And, the vast majority of those are shotgun related, not with rifles. These are facts, it is not conjecture. There has been a farily dramatic drop in firearms accidents over the years, but that is because of the mandatory hunter education laws. Mandatory hunter education laws are good laws because they teach you how to be responsible so you do not hurt SOMEONE else (in addition to yourself). Laws are needed to protect people from people; laws are not needed to protect ourselves from ourselves; last time I checked, this was supposed to be the US, I do not need the govt telling me what articles of clothing I am "allowed" to wear and which ones I am not.
Is hunter orange a good idea??? Sure, and it should be taught to wear it. Should the govt be mandating what I am allowed to wear and not wear??? NO.
And connecting PETA to hunter orange?? that one I really do not get. Do you think PETA is going to get political traction because hunters are not wearing their hunter orange?? PETA gets traction because you are KILLING the animal for your own personal pleasure so you can look at horns (yes, that is right, veryfew of us, really need the meat). Obviously, the game depts in Idaho and other states that do not require hunter orange, are not too worried about the PETA connection.
I will agree that it is the law, and at the end of the day, you have to follow the law. But not wearing your hunter orange is minor infraction. For all of you law nazi's out there, my guess is that over the years you have broken plenty of minor rules, it is next to impossible. You have never went over the speed limit driving to your hunt?? I could go on and on, but I don't care how "ethical" you are, you are going to make some minor mistakes once in awhile.
Lastly, so when was taking a shot at a running deer "unethical"??? You can't be serious as to think that is unethical? I would venture a guess, that at least half the deer shot are moving to one degree or another. And, who knows why those deer were running towards the hunters, I have had deer do all kinds of wild things. The majority of those shots on those animals were farily quick, clean kills.
If you watch the video, there is one shot that, from the angle of the camera, looks like a doe could have been behind the buck, but after the video is done, you realize the shooter is quite a ways to the left of the camera, if you go back and look, you then realize that the doe, from that angle, was not behind th buck.
From the sounds of it,from your definition, it is only ethical to shoot a deer when it is standing still, is all by itself, and when you can kill it with one shot??? Deer hunting is messy.....sometimes you miss, sometimes you wound them, and it takes a few more shots......I think the main problem here is that you had one animal that was taken a little messy, and that makes people's stomachs turn a little, and makes you confront the brutality of hunting. It is not always, clean, one kill shots, from 150 yds. When you shoot a deer like that, the actual fact of killing the animal is somewhat removed and makes you feel less guilty.
That buck was well within what would be regarded as appropriate range for shooting at an animal that is on the move. He took his time, missed a couple of times, hit it once, and finished it off quickly after that. That scene is played out hundreds and hundreds of times throughout the west, and i would have hard time believing that the MT dept of game would find that unethical.