How many championships these guys won is a mute point, a caribou's vitals are much larger than is needed for them to hit, and the same can be said for a bunch of guys on this forum. There's a ton of guys out there that can guarantee they'll hit a caribou sized vital area every time at 70 yards, no problem.
A caribou isn't a whitetail, with the quick reaction time, so a longer shot is usually fine.
Not my cup of tea, but who am I to criticize? I hunt with guys who could make that 70 yard caribou shot easier and more often than some guys on this forum at 35 yards, so skill will largely determine "ethics".
I just wonder why they just didn't take muzzleloaders or rifles? Bowhunting to me and everyone I personally know is getting as closse as you can to the animal, that's the thrill of bowhunting. If I was going to shoot at 70 yards, why not just use a gun? You're not experiencing a careful stalk, or seeing the "white's of their eyes", so what's the point of bowhunting? Why limit yourself to 70 yards, or whatever these guys effective range is, when you could get another 70 with an inline? They're obviously not tring to experience close ragee encounters, they're trying to maximize their killing range.
Just my personal question, as I said, whatever these guys are capable of, I have no problem calling that ethical, each person needs to make their own decision, but if you're not bringing home about 90% or more of the animals you send an arrow after, you need to re-think your decision.
When everyone is shooting 400fps, and 70 yard shots are more common, you can bet the Fish&Game depts will re-think the length of archery seasons, and the number of tags alloted.




"In heaven, even the fish have antlers"