That's the point. If a hunters shoots game at 500 yards and beyond he no longer is a hunter, he is an animal shooter.
Applying your own experience and ability – or lack thereof – to all other hunters and situations is illogical and usually results in a predictable outcome – illogical conclusions.
It is true that ANY hunter who shoots an animal is an "animal shooter", regardless of the range. Range alone, however, does not determine whether or not the shooter is also a "hunter".
To be a hunter means to hunt, as in getting closer, following, waiting, stalking, etc.
There are many situation in which hunters find "getting closer" impossible and must make a decision whether or not to shoot. Many factors that are beyond the control of the hunter can come into play to prevent "getting closer", including changing weather conditions, animal movement, property and game management boundaries, time (season end dates, shooting hours,etc.), the presence and actions of other hunters, features of the terrain and many others.
While I applaud the notion of getting as close as conditions reasonably allow, sometimes the situation is such that the range is still over what we would prefer. The key is preparation. Some folks shoot better at 500 yards and beyond than others do at 100. To give a pass to the latter while condemning the former, solely on the basis of the range involved, is nutso.
Hunting involves ethics and responsible behavior, and i don't see that in people who claim they can shoot at 500 yards or more and injure animals.
There are a fair number of hunters who spend long hours preparing themselves and their equipment for long shots. To such people, 500 yards is not necessarily a long range, unethical or irresponsible.
If you want examples of unethical and irresponsible behavior, I can provide far too many, all involving "hunters" at ranges under 300 yards and many at ranges of about 100 yards. Range alone does not determine whether a shot is ethical or responsible.
IMHO, what constitues unethical and irresponsible behavior is taking shots at game at ranges for which the shooter is unprepared and has no reasonable chance of making. For some "hunters" and situations that is 100 yards (and less, based on the number of misses at such ranges), for others it is well over 500.
What next? Have satelite controlled devices and shoot from the comfort of your truck 17 miles away?
Some enterprising individual attempted to set up an internet hunting site. I don't know what happened to it but the concept was that you use a robot-controlled rifle and a camera-based aiming system. In theory you could have hunted from the moon and beyond. 17 miles isn't so very far...
I believe that many people misunderstand the purpose of the Magnum concept. Magnum cartridges were designed to kill bigger animals faster, with a flater trajectory, not at some insane distance.
500 yards is hardly an "insane" distance to the prepared individual and a flat trajectory is usually not very important when hunting the really big stuff - bullet diameter, weight and energy are generally considered much more important. Heck, in Africa a .30 isn't even legal for the big stuff in many areas. I think you'll find that many people would agree that a primary reason for the magnums is indeed to extend the range compared to the non-magnum cartridges. If we were all to limit our shots to 100 yards, a .30-30 would do nicely for almost every situation. Reaching out a bit further, to say 350 yards, a ..308 or 30-06 will usually suffice. Beyond that, I'm reaching for my .300 Winnie.
The only good thing about 300 RUM is that it makes a 30-06 or a 6.5 feel like such nice calibers.
Not the "only" thing, but it does make the others seem tame in comparison.
