Well, theoretically, but I've never thought it wise to sight in high-powered rifles at short range.
First, a tiny variance at 25 yards is QUADRUPLED at 100 and 10 TIMES worse at 250 yards. Errors are MUCH easier to see as distance increases. Getting on paper at 25 is one thing. "Sighting in" is another. Every gun I own will shoot one ragged hole at 25 yards.... it tells me nothing.
Second, it would be irresponsible to sight in a firearm at 25 yards and then try to shoot an animal at 100 yards or farther, for the reasons I stated above. So, even if you sight at 25, you're going to have to shoot at 100 anyway and almost certainly make adjustments, so why not just sight in at 100?
Third, you simply aren't likely to hit what you're shooting at, at longer ranges, unless you've actually put bullets there before. It's downright unethical to shoot at animals without verifying sights at the given distance, and just plain frustrating trying to hit paper. In other words, even if you sight for 25 and then try to hit paper at 200, you're going to have to make changes, so you might as well sight the gun at whatever practical range you have available.... because you're going to end up doing it anyway.