I guess I'm somewhat neutral on the issue. I have a problem with anyone who puts the chance at an animal above their ability. I don't know that range matters. I have shot steel out to 1500 yards and it was a blast (pun intended) but the gun I was using would not be practical in the field. If people can shoot 1000 yard and make a kill shot without question that doesn't really bother me. I remember having an old relative of mine give me a hard time because I shot with a scope. Is sitting on a rock at 1000 yards shooting an unsuspecting animal any less ethical than sitting in a tree shooting an unsuspecting animal. Neither animal has any clue they are in danger and either hunter has a chance at making a bad shot. For me being out hiking, pushing myself, experiencing views and situations that very few ever have is what hunting is about. A shot at an animal is an added bonus.
The real question I have is, as technology increases peoples ability to make quality long range shots will also increase, at what point will the ethical line be drawn? Some of you have said it has been drawn already and a 1000 yard shot is beyond the limit of ethical hunting. If that is the case then at what distance does ethics become a factor and why? Is it because you don't feel comfortable beyond that distance even though someone else may?