Ethics... is taking a tough shot REALLY that bad?

[300]

I'm curious to see what peoples take on running shots, bad angle shots etc. Lets say a hunter takes one of these shots and gut shoots the animal, can't find it, but obviously the animal will soon die.
Now a pack of wolves, grizz, etc. comes upon the dead animal and eats it. Fills them up for a few days, and therefore saves another animals life because they have no need for food until they are hungry again. Soooo.. where was an animal wasted? In my eyes it was all part of the cycle? Kind of like a life for a life. What are your takes on this?

[madrona sh]

I do not like to see any animal suffer needlessly. So I avoid hail Marys at game.
In a survival situation I would not hesitate though.

[Gateholio]

One of the things that *should* be very important to all hunters is ensuring a quick death with as little pain as possible. When you take a marginal shot, you are risking that.

Wolves aren't capable of being humane, but humans are.

My goal is to feed myself and family, not feed wolves.

[BlacktailStalker]

You're right that it goes to use whether it be scavengers, birds etc which IS fortunate but the whole point of shooting at an animal and our purpose when looking for one is to do it in the most ethical (humane) way and do your best to ensure a clean kill. But shit happens, excitement and adrenaline kick in, poor judgements are made in spur of the moment situations and life goes on... and at times you do your best and think everything is perfect and errors occur which is unpreventable at times, after all we are human.

[Foxton Gundogs]

I'm curious to see what peoples take on running shots, bad angle shots etc. Lets say a hunter takes one of these shots and gut shoots the animal, can't find it, but obviously the animal will soon die.
Now a pack of wolves, grizz, etc. comes upon the dead animal and eats it. Fills them up for a few days, and therefore saves another animals life because they have no need for food until they are hungry again. Soooo.. where was an animal wasted? In my eyes it was all part of the cycle? Kind of like a life for a life. What are your takes on this?


Sorry but I find that logic/justification just a bit twisted.

[hunter1947]

My take on this is you did loose an animal with a bad shot and predators picked up on the kill you lost they would have taken another prey animal anyways ,,I see it this way all balances out at calender end for what the predators eat during a 12 month period..

[Aheny]

I have never taken this kind of shot, and don't personally believe that they are ethical. The part of hunting that I enjoy, and believe the skill is in, is not just seeing an animal, but outsmarting it and getting the good shot on it.

[takla1]

A lot depends on how good a shot you are and knowing the capabilities of your weapon.Ive held up on shooting at a fleeing buck at under 70 yrd where my son next to me shot and nailed it in the back of the head dropping it.that said he's a crack shot,very confident having shot and practiced with many guns since he was 5 yrs old.Im primarily a meat hunter so id rather eat the animal than the local cyote or wolf so i will them run if i cant make an ethical kill

[Ron.C]

For me, knowing a predator/scavanger was fed because I couldn't find my animal gives me no comfort. I have lost game before where I made a poor shot and I was pretty disapointed in myself and considered it a complete waste of an animal. But if knowing you fed a hungry pack of coyotes makes it easier for you justify to yourself, to each his own.
Like already said, sometimes things happen that are beyond your control, sometimes they are perfectly controllable. If you choose to take the hail mary shot, in my opinion you are not too worried if this is the outcome.

[Philcott]

I agree with a few above that I would rather pass on a shot that I didn't feel comfortable with. If someone is comfortable with a long or a running shot and they make clean kills, I have no concern with that but if we all started taking hail Mary shots. If we all went on the theory that a predator will just clean up the wounded animal in a day or three so let the lead fly, we would soon have more game than the population of predators could eat, they would thrive and we would need to wound more game until the point where there was no game left for us to take home ourselves.

I just don't see Hail Mary shots as ethical for most hunters.

[KodiakHntr]

Pretty sure a 'Hail Mary' shot is one where you hope you are going to hit something, somewhere, but have no real chance other than a guess, blind luck, or the fact that you sent a bullet.... I've taken a few of those in the past at coyotes and wolves, and connected on a few, and missed a few.

I've never taken a Hail Mary at a big game animal, but I have taken quite a few long range shots, quite a few hard quartering shots, and I am absolute murder on running game. That said, I've never sent a bullet at a big game animal where I wasn't 100% positive I was going to land it where I wanted it.

(Not saying I've never missed, but I've always been confident the shot was going to go where it was supposed to.....) Knowing when your trigger is going to break, and knowing where your crosshairs were when the gun went off go a long ways towards being a confident, skilled shooter.

[festerstix]

Humans have a unique ability to rationalize their poor choices. This would be one of those situations. The idea that scavengers might find and benefit from my inability to do my job does not give me the right to harvest game irresponsibly. Hunting is considered a right - but, in light of our current political climate, is actually more of a privilege. I, for one, do not want to risk that right under any circumstance; especially through poor ethical decisions that may cause animals undue suffering.

[Spy]

Humans have a unique ability to rationalize their poor choices. This would be one of those situations. The idea that scavengers might find and benefit from my inability to do my job does not give me the right to harvest game irresponsibly. Hunting is considered a right - but, in light of our current political climate, is actually more of a privilege. I, for one, do not want to risk that right under any circumstance; especially through poor ethical decisions that may cause animals undue suffering.
X2 Amen to that !

[rides bike to work]

Say a trophy buck is standing at a tree line hundred yards away only offering the Texas heart shot he won't turn broad side he's going to walk straight into the bush soon do you take the shot?

A guy on a hunting show I watched did and it dropped but I was surprised he took the shot on tv

[300]

Humans have a unique ability to rationalize their poor choices. This would be one of those situations. The idea that scavengers might find and benefit from my inability to do my job does not give me the right to harvest game irresponsibly. Hunting is considered a right - but, in light of our current political climate, is actually more of a privilege. I, for one, do not want to risk that right under any circumstance; especially through poor ethical decisions that may cause animals undue suffering.

Thank you for your opinion. :)

[300]

Say a trophy buck is standing at a tree line hundred yards away only offering the Texas heart shot he won't turn broad side he's going to walk straight into the bush soon do you take the shot?

A guy on a hunting show I watched did and it dropped but I was surprised he took the shot on tv

Depends on the gun.

[Sofa King]

I'm curious to see what peoples take on running shots, bad angle shots etc. Lets say a hunter takes one of these shots and gut shoots the animal, can't find it, but obviously the animal will soon die.
Now a pack of wolves, grizz, etc. comes upon the dead animal and eats it. Fills them up for a few days, and therefore saves another animals life because they have no need for food until they are hungry again. Soooo.. where was an animal wasted? In my eyes it was all part of the cycle? Kind of like a life for a life. What are your takes on this?


and then people use that carcass as another example that the wolves are killing everything and must be destroyed.

using the fact that other animals will gain from your mistake doesn't make it right.
i've let many great animals walk because i didn't have the shot.
there's no reason for unethical anything when hunting and fishing.
what kind of example is that setting?

[2tins]

I'm curious to see what peoples take on running shots, bad angle shots etc. Lets say a hunter takes one of these shots and gut shoots the animal, can't find it, but obviously the animal will soon die.
Now a pack of wolves, grizz, etc. comes upon the dead animal and eats it. Fills them up for a few days, and therefore saves another animals life because they have no need for food until they are hungry again. Soooo.. where was an animal wasted? In my eyes it was all part of the cycle? Kind of like a life for a life. What are your takes on this?

Did you cut your tag?

[300]

and then people use that carcass as another example that the wolves are killing everything and must be destroyed.

using the fact that other animals will gain from your mistake doesn't make it right.
i've let many great animals walk because i didn't have the shot.
there's no reason for unethical anything when hunting and fishing.
what kind of example is that setting?

Read the question carefully.. if that dead deer saves another one from being killed... there is still the same amount of carcasses assumed to be killed by wolves.
I am not trying to make an excuse, I am trying to get at the root of why it is considered wrong by many people to take a tough shot. Because if there reason for it being 'wrong' is that the animal will rot away and be wasted, it must be questioned as that animal will be eaten and used for energy. I also know that I would rather be shot and die than ripped apart by a pack of wolves, unless of course I was killed instantly by the wolves. No offense is intended.. I'm just trying to make sense of peoples reasoning.

[hawk-i]

So is wing shooting of bird game also considered unethical?
Just curious.

[steel_ram]

Twisted rational. Let the predator's decide which prey they can catch. It's a "survival of the fittest", thing. Not survival by human charity. Taking risky low percentage shots, causing undo pain and suffering is immoral. There is no defending it.

[BC_Viking]

I love and respect the animals i hunt , i always harvest them in a very humane manner.. I dont depend on wild game for food, i live near a good stores with good prices.. Others up north do because beef or chicken cost so dam much at the stores and is in short supply .. I would hunt a little different if i was subsistance or survival living.

[Piperdown]

How does making a bad shot and not finding the animal ethical. Yes the scavengers will find it but that is not what it is about. It is about ethics period, not about well if I make a shit shot and cant find it something will, can't seem to fing logic in that way of thinking!

[Philcott]

Thank you for your opinion. :)

Wasn't your first post asking for peoples opinion?

[300]

The point of ethics is that it is never a straightforward answer! Hunting is a lot of fun. So is driving cars. Cars pollute, hunting hurts animals. Do we all walk and eat vegetables? Nope. Ethics is more of a question of where to draw the line. And we all look at it differently! I'm just trying to understand where other people draw there line and why. Thanks for your input, over and out.

[325]

There are already so many uncontrolled variable and things that can go wrong hunting, that adding low-percentage shots just seems silly. I would never take a "hail mary" shot at an animal, unless I had already wounded it.

[Spy]

What about the animals that have to live with a bullet or arrow in them causing them immense pain over the period of their lives ! Because some wannabe thought it was OK to take a risky shot or he has put little practice in at the range ! Not all wounded animals get caught by predators,they live a painful life until they die ! What I cant believe 300 is that you are trying to rationalize this when what you are suggesting is wrong in so many ways !There are threads on guys shooting game with arrows & bullets still in them,its not a given that they will be caught by predators !
It's the=reads like this that the ANTIS love,so they can paint us all with the same unethical brush & I would hate to be put in the same class as you 300 if this is what you are & do!
What you are suggesting 300 is unethical and just plain wrong !
Can one of the mods please shut this thread down !Lets not give the Antis more ammo to use against us !

[chargerman69]

WOW... I can't believe it. this is wrong on so many levels, and too all who agree that it is okay to let an animal suffer in-humanly deserves 0 respect. that's all I have to say.

[Jelvis]

Karma is a beach, it will come back @ chew. The good, the bad and the ugly.
If your hunting for good tasting organic meat then it starts with the type of pursuit, well placed shot, gutting and cleaning and preparing the meat for the table.
Jel .. Summary: Take an animal that is relaxed, shoot a good steady shot in the vitals, know how to prepare the meat.

[Philcott]

Do we all walk and eat vegetables? Nope.


I for one do walk and eat vegetables. ;)

[finngun]

I have never taken this kind of shot, and don't personally believe that they are ethical. The part of hunting that I enjoy, and believe the skill is in, is not just seeing an animal, but outsmarting it and getting the good shot on it.

then you never be duck-geese- or any kind wing shooting.... hunting.... that situation you sometimes can't help hit and not be able to find the bird what's been shot..
you see you are hitting a bird,but it just fly away... shooter feels bad..nothing can been done.....is it smaller pain with smaller game?:confused:

[Gateholio]

Say a trophy buck is standing at a tree line hundred yards away only offering the Texas heart shot he won't turn broad side he's going to walk straight into the bush soon do you take the shot?

A guy on a hunting show I watched did and it dropped but I was surprised he took the shot on tv

Absolutely. One of the reasons I use premium bullets. The bullet is going to get to the vitals from any angle on that trophy buck.

[Gateholio]

Read the question carefully.. if that dead deer saves another one from being killed... there is still the same amount of carcasses assumed to be killed by wolves. .


Saves another deer from being killed? You are probably doing just the opposite when your poor shot results in a free meal for wolves.

[Caribou_lou]

WOW... I can't believe it. this is wrong on so many levels, and too all who agree that it is okay to let an animal suffer in-humanly deserves 0 respect. that's all I have to say.

Just what I was thinking as soon as I read the first post. zero respect if you think it is fine.

[Looking_4_Jerky]

On the subject of predators sweeping up hunters' "mistakes":
An animal that is shot by a hunter and dies instantly (or close) might not suffer much. But, predators probably kill quicker than most animals die of gunshot wounds from failed "hail-Mary" attempts.

Predators also tend to kill vulnerable animals - young, sick or old (yes, I am aware predators do kill some perfectly healthy animals). Hunters tend to kill the most healthy (or sometimes biggest) animals they can find. The fact that predators are best able to capture "vulnerable" prey means that their populations are limited by the availability of that vulnerable prey. Adding healthy animals to the pot increases predator survival. It does not merely mean that a cougar that would have culled a gimp deer eats a stud instead. Had that cougar not found a gimp and had to hunt a healthy animal on its own, the chances of it being unsuccessful (and hence negatively impacted) would have been greater.

On the ethics question:
Ethics are not laws, they vary from person to person. Taking tough shots can be considered unethical by some, but tough is a relative term too. A tough shot for a hunter in his first year might be 150yds having to shoot from a sitting position with elbows on knees. That hunter only gains the confidence and ability to master that shot (and tougher ones) from pushing his/her own limits - attempting a variety of those tougher shots and learning along the way. That happens over time and eventually, that same hunter is successfully shooting 250yd freehand when the situation warrants. I guess it boils down to pushing yourself, but not beyond the point that you can reasonably expect success.

Interestingly, I had a recent discussion with a hunting partner regarding my shooting comfort level decreasing in past years as I have been choosing to shoot at less animals. Whereas, in past years when I was field shooting far more often, my comfort in tough situations was unparalleled. It turns out that being more selective might work against someone trying to maintain skill and confidence. You can practice at the range, but that seldom appropriately mimicks hunters' field situations. Just my 2cents

[300]

YIKES! Well this is just the internet so as far as this goes it holds no merit ,however if it puts any of you at peace there is only one deer I may have hit without killing it, I was aiming for the back as it was the best killshot I had, however found no blood and animal was gone. Could have maybe skimmed it.
As is obvious this sight has some very strong beliefs, and I will be careful not to post any more controversial questions. Happy hunting

[300]

On the subject of predators sweeping up hunters' "mistakes":
An animal that is shot by a hunter and dies instantly (or close) might not suffer much. But, predators probably kill quicker than most animals die of gunshot wounds from failed "hail-Mary" attempts.

Predators also tend to kill vulnerable animals - young, sick or old (yes, I am aware predators do kill some perfectly healthy animals). Hunters tend to kill the most healthy (or sometimes biggest) animals they can find. The fact that predators are best able to capture "vulnerable" prey means that their populations are limited by the availability of that vulnerable prey. Adding healthy animals to the pot increases predator survival. It does not merely mean that a cougar that would have culled a gimp deer eats a stud instead. Had that cougar not found a gimp and had to hunt a healthy animal on its own, the chances of it being unsuccessful (and hence negatively impacted) would have been greater.

On the ethics question:
Ethics are not laws, they vary from person to person. Taking tough shots can be considered unethical by some, but tough is a relative term too. A tough shot for a hunter in his first year might be 150yds having to shoot from a sitting position with elbows on knees. That hunter only gains the confidence and ability to master that shot (and tougher ones) from pushing his/her own limits - attempting a variety of those tougher shots and learning along the way. That happens over time and eventually, that same hunter is successfully shooting 250yd freehand when the situation warrants. I guess it boils down to pushing yourself, but not beyond the point that you can reasonably expect success.

Interestingly, I had a recent discussion with a hunting partner regarding my shooting comfort level decreasing in past years as I have been choosing to shoot at less animals. Whereas, in past years when I was field shooting far more often, my comfort in tough situations was unparalleled. It turns out that being more selective might work against someone trying to maintain skill and confidence. You can practice at the range, but that seldom appropriately mimicks hunters' field situations. Just my 2cents

Thank you for your insight. That is exactly what I was looking for. Good point about how we tend to kill those with best genes and predators will take the weak or sick.

[Looking_4_Jerky]

300,

I would urge you to do the opposite and post the controversial stuff as that is the best opportunity to learn, understand and be forced to acknowledge others' perspectives whether we agree with them or not. Others can voice their strong opinions and you should be able to voice yours too.

You just have to be able to take the heat if it comes your way - which it will!!

[dino]

I'm curious to see what peoples take on running shots, bad angle shots etc. Lets say a hunter takes one of these shots and gut shoots the animal, can't find it, but obviously the animal will soon die.
Now a pack of wolves, grizz, etc. comes upon the dead animal and eats it. Fills them up for a few days, and therefore saves another animals life because they have no need for food until they are hungry again. Soooo.. where was an animal wasted? In my eyes it was all part of the cycle? Kind of like a life for a life. What are your takes on this?

Welcome to the site bud.:wink: Your going to be on your own here, the self rightious and ethicly correct "sorry no spell check here" are going to take what you have to say out of context and turn you into Satan. The hipocrocy runs thick here bud and more guys are going to jump on the bandwagon soon enough.
If the animal of a lifetime ran out in front of most of the ethics police here and they knew that they would never have another chance at it again, they would shoot and the ones that say they wouldnt are just plain full of crap. You ask a great question but your going to recieve hipocratic answers from the honestly bankrupt.

[325]

Welcome to the site bud.:wink: Your going to be on your own here, the self rightious and ethicly correct "sorry no spell check here" are going to take what you have to say out of context and turn you into Satan. The hipocrocy runs thick here bud and more guys are going to jump on the bandwagon soon enough.
If the animal of a lifetime ran out in front of most of the ethics police here and they knew that they would never have another chance at it again, they would shoot and the ones that say they wouldnt are just plain full of crap. You ask a great question but your going to recieve hipocratic answers from the honestly bankrupt.

There are a lot of guys who would let a trophy animal walk rather than take a low-percentage shot.

[cruiser]

says a man who's ethically bankrupt ^^^

edit: reply to dino

[pickle88]

Welcome to the site bud.:wink: Your going to be on your own here, the self rightious and ethicly correct "sorry no spell check here" are going to take what you have to say out of context and turn you into Satan. The hipocrocy runs thick here bud and more guys are going to jump on the bandwagon soon enough.
If the animal of a lifetime ran out in front of most of the ethics police here and they knew that they would never have another chance at it again, they would shoot and the ones that say they wouldnt are just plain full of crap. You ask a great question but your going to recieve hipocratic answers from the honestly bankrupt.

so ,so true ..the ethics police on here are all talk ... dont worry bud ,im with ya ..over my 35plus years hunting ive taken running shots at a few deer and moose ..as long as there broadside that is ...probably shot a third of my game on the run..
but i can say im a pretty well trained shooter .been shooting since i was 6 years old ...

i dont reccomend it if your a newbie ..and dont pull the trigger unless your good and steady and those crosshairs are where they should be ..

[frenchbar]

hail marys can be the best adrenilin rush ever..everybody should try it at least once:mrgreen: and im almost positive its happened to most ..

[Spy]

.
but i can say im a pretty well trained shooter .been shooting since i was 6 years old ...

i dont reccomend it if your a newbie ..and dont pull the trigger unless your good and steady and those crosshairs are where they should be ..[/QUOTE]
Thats the trigger right there ! Experience ! There are allot of guys, that cant hit a plate at 100 yards with a rest, but go out & start throwing lead at something 500 yards away ! What some think is a high risk shot is a walk in the park for others ! Some people are just natural shots & make high risk shots look easy !some should not be shooting at all !

[takla1]

unfinished kills{not harvested} are part of this sport called hunting{not called killing}as are "the fish that got away after being hooked " or shooting into a flock of landing geese and killing a couple but having 5 wounded fly,or that 150 yd shot at last light on that fleeing four point black-tail you been hunting for 2 months.shit happens ,deflections,miss fires any host of things can happen to turn a gimmy to a gut shot or wounded animal heading into the back country.thank god theres no laws against loseing a shot animal into the bush as we would all be guilty as charged!

[pickle88]

.
but i can say im a pretty well trained shooter .been shooting since i was 6 years old ...

i dont reccomend it if your a newbie ..and dont pull the trigger unless your good and steady and those crosshairs are where they should be ..
Thats the trigger right there ! Experience ! There are allot of guys, that cant hit a plate at 100 yards with a rest, but go out & start throwing lead at something 500 yards away ! What some think is a high risk shot is a walk in the park for others ! Some people are just natural shots & make high risk shots look easy !some should not be shooting at all ![/QUOTE]



very good point ...some guys ..and i no a few ..cant hit a target at a 100 yards ,never mind a grouping

[hunterdon]

Welcome to the site bud.:wink: Your going to be on your own here, the self rightious and ethicly correct "sorry no spell check here" are going to take what you have to say out of context and turn you into Satan. The hipocrocy runs thick here bud and more guys are going to jump on the bandwagon soon enough.
If the animal of a lifetime ran out in front of most of the ethics police here and they knew that they would never have another chance at it again, they would shoot and the ones that say they wouldnt are just plain full of crap. You ask a great question but your going to recieve hipocratic answers from the honestly bankrupt.


There are a lot of guys who would let a trophy animal walk rather than take a low-percentage shot.

Right on 325. I for one have past up on numerous low percentage shots on very large bucks over the years. Some people just have to take ANY shot they can in order to IMPRESS others should they eventually bag an animal. And, they certainly don't like to have others point out their misguided attitudes, hence the labeling of "ethics police".

[frenchbar]

unfinished kills{not harvested} are part of this sport called hunting{not called killing}as are "the fish that got away after being hooked " or shooting into a flock of landing geese and killing a couple but having 5 wounded fly,or that 150 yd shot at last light on that fleeing four point black-tail you been hunting for 2 months.shit happens ,deflections,miss fires any host of things can happen to turn a gimmy to a gut shot or wounded animal heading into the back country.thank god theres no laws against loseing a shot animal into the bush as we would all be guilty as charged!

you said it best !

[hunterdon]

One of the things that *should* be very important to all hunters is ensuring a quick death with as little pain as possible. When you take a marginal shot, you are risking that.

Wolves aren't capable of being humane, but humans are.

My goal is to feed myself and family, not feed wolves.


Humans have a unique ability to rationalize their poor choices. This would be one of those situations. The idea that scavengers might find and benefit from my inability to do my job does not give me the right to harvest game irresponsibly. Hunting is considered a right - but, in light of our current political climate, is actually more of a privilege. I, for one, do not want to risk that right under any circumstance; especially through poor ethical decisions that may cause animals undue suffering.

Well said Gates and festerstix!

In the scenario described by the op, does that shooter say to himself "Oh well". I guess I'll try shooting another one. If that scenario repeats again, does he do it all over again?
I wouldn't want that kind of hunter anywhere near where I hunt.

[steel_ram]

unfinished kills{not harvested} are part of this sport called hunting{not called killing}as are "the fish that got away after being hooked " or shooting into a flock of landing geese and killing a couple but having 5 wounded fly,or that 150 yd shot at last light on that fleeing four point black-tail you been hunting for 2 months.shit happens ,deflections,miss fires any host of things can happen to turn a gimmy to a gut shot or wounded animal heading into the back country.thank god theres no laws against loseing a shot animal into the bush as we would all be guilty as charged!

Wow! Yes bad stuff can and does happen occasionally, but inviting it by acting wrecklessly would be very criminal if it was provable. No surpise here that there's so many "lost game", reports and less hunting opportunites with attitudes like that.

[pickle88]

Wow! Yes bad stuff can and does happen occasionally, but inviting it by acting wrecklessly would be very criminal if it was provable. No surpise here that there's so many "lost game", reports and less hunting opportunites with attitudes like that.

like what dino said ....wow ...twisting the words ..

[Gateholio]

There are a lot of guys who would let a trophy animal walk rather than take a low-percentage shot.

I did that last week. If I had about 60 more seconds I'd have killed a big buck at 325 yards. As it was, he was moving out of sight, so I would have been shooting rear abdomen or at his ass. Some guys would have still taken that ass shot I suppose....

[Gateholio]

Thank you for your insight. That is exactly what I was looking for. Good point about how we tend to kill those with best genes and predators will take the weak or sick.

Most hunters are in it for the meat, so while everyone LIKES to shoot animals with good genetics, few actually do. Although 4 pt and 6pt regulations force us to kill young animals with good antler genetics.

[pickle88]

I did that last week. If I had about 60 more seconds I'd have killed a big buck at 325 yards. As it was, he was moving out of sight, so I would have been shooting rear abdomen or at his ass. Some guys would have still taken that ass shot I suppose....

i no i wouldnt ,,,never taken a texas heart shot ...

[takla1]

A 325 yrd shot is extremly long at a moving target.I target practiced lots @300 yrd with flat shooting rifles and just a slight flinch or cross wind can take your bullet two ft off windage and elevation.Thats a shot i would not take as well

[325]

Thank you for your insight. That is exactly what I was looking for. Good point about how we tend to kill those with best genes and predators will take the weak or sick.

Most hunters shoot the first legal animal they see. Trophy hunters may hold out for a bigger animal, but they are generally selecting for age, not genetics. What we see when we look at an animal is the phenotype, we cannot see the genotype, so cannot directly make any meaningful assessment of the "best genes".

It must also be remembered that females contribute 50% of the genotype (actually a bit more), and we have no selection bias whatsoever when harvesting females

[Rubicon500]

I just find it funny how so many people on here are fine with exterminating predators by any means possible , but if its a Deer, moose , sheep , elk etc its has to be the most ethical way possible ? Dont get me wrong Ill shoot every yote or wolf I come across , just playing devils advocate here. I mean shooting wolves from a helicopter would be a blast , but what makes a wolfs life so much less worthy of a deer , look at it from non hunters point of view ? Just stirring the pot a little bit here

[dino]

Right on 325. I for one have past up on numerous low percentage shots on very large bucks over the years. Some people just have to take ANY shot they can in order to IMPRESS others should they eventually bag an animal. And, they certainly don't like to have others point out their misguided attitudes, hence the labeling of "ethics police".

I think you guys need to reread my post, I never mentioned trophy I said animal of a lifetime. big difference. Hunterdon, who are you to tell others that they have poor ethics or misguided attitudes. My point is with you and other ethic police is that you will never agree on whats is acceptable or not. Do you think that all the other self rightious ethics dictators agree its ok to shoot a deer up its ass like one of our more vocal mods posted on this thread. You must be able to see the hipcrocy Im talking about here. The op asked a question and is now thinking abouting not posting anymore questions because of the members that preech their own perception of what is good ethics by attacking guys like the op yet leave Gatehouse alone. No-one on here should ever be preeching ethics. if the op or anyone else's hunting tactics are legal then their legal and if you dont like it you have three choices. Get used to it get over it or F___ off!

[dino]

325 I think your wrong bud Its genetics that selective hunters are after Not age. to me in laymen terms big antlers mean strong genetics, all those females that breed with the big guys cant be wrong.

[dino]

I just find it funny how so many people on here are fine with exterminating predators by any means possible , but if its a Deer, moose , sheep , elk etc its has to be the most ethical way possible ? Dont get me wrong Ill shoot every yote or wolf I come across , just playing devils advocate here. I mean shooting wolves from a helicopter would be a blast , but what makes a wolfs life so much less worthy of a deer , look at it from non hunters point of view ? Just stirring the pot a little bit here

Your not stirring the pot just stating the facts that others purposely overlook.

[325]

325 I think your wrong bud Its genetics that selective hunters are after Not age. to me in laymen terms big antlers mean strong genetics, all those females that breed with the big guys cant be wrong.

Actually, research in the US showed that smaller bucks breed a significant number of does (whitetail).

[dino]

i no i wouldnt ,,,never taken a texas heart shot ...

Then you havent lived yet.:mrgreen:

[Freshtracks]

Hey dino .... I'm pretty sure your highly opinionated rhetoric really serves no purpose, other than to lower your credibility. No need to let your jaded feelings, spill over into your posts.

Now to the OP ... JMHO ... you owe it to the animal you hunt to make 'ethical shot placement'. Mine consists of heart/lung/spine or head, for a quick kill. Just saying, no preeching.

btw - My son was taught this also. :wink:

[hunter1993ap]

i will take the shot that presents itself. i dont consider anything behind the lungs a shot, so no texas heart shot for me.

[KodiakHntr]

Why's that?

If I recall correctly you've stated you hunt with a 300 Ultra, no?

What about a shot facing you at 150 yards, dead square on, maybe slightly uphill, would you take that shot?

[Bc Deer Hunter]

I'm curious to see what peoples take on running shots, bad angle shots etc. Lets say a hunter takes one of these shots and gut shoots the animal, can't find it, but obviously the animal will soon die.
Now a pack of wolves, grizz, etc. comes upon the dead animal and eats it. Fills them up for a few days, and therefore saves another animals life because they have no need for food until they are hungry again. Soooo.. where was an animal wasted? In my eyes it was all part of the cycle? Kind of like a life for a life. What are your takes on this?
Broad side or slitly quatering are the only shots i will take. With a rifle all shots will be within 250 yards, and with a bow within 30 yards.
The part that makes me a bit upset is bolded.. From what i have read your unsure if it is OK to shoot a low percentage shot at a animal not giveing a hoot if it run's off and get eaten by predators?! It is not part of the 'cycle', sure that deer might be scavanged but it will not make the predator's stop killing other's.. You owe it to the animal to make a ethical shot, to make it as clean as possible, IMO if you think other you should not be hunting period..

[Foxton Gundogs]

So is wing shooting of bird game also considered unethical?
Just curious.

No rational there, apples to oranges. Theres a huge differance between a 100+ yd ify running shot with a single projectile and a 20-30 yd moving shot with multi projectile that you have practised for on the trap range.

[sakohunter]

Ethics aside it probably depends how badly you need the food, to take a "BAD" shot at deer, moose, elk etc.

Most of us on this forum aside from dietary conditions could get by without hunting for meat. That would leave us far to much time on our hands though, so it is a none starter!

I like reading about some of the pioneers in the outdoor writing fraternity and those guys tended to let lead fly at what ever they were hunting. How many times I have read about Jack O'Connor letting fly at some running animal just about to go over the hill at 280 yds with his trusty 270 win. He was all about the trophy head, the rack, the horns, the record books. What ever meat was salvageable, was eaten in camp or used by the outfitter.

Do we still live in that mentality? I would hope not.

I believe that every animal that we hunt for food, should be treated with the highest respect. Taking the best shot available to ensure a humane kill as quickly as possible. Do good shots turn into bad hits, you better believe it. It has happened to me and I felt like a sack of sh!t until I got the animal and put it down. Just thinking about my bad hit gives me that sinking feeling in my stomach to this day, and it probably always will. Hopefully!!

The hunter when he/she calms thier heart beat and breathing, knows full well if it is a good or bad shot. The choice is thiers to make and will have to live with the decision. Food for coyotes is not a good enough excuse at the camp fire.

[hunter1993ap]

Why's that?

If I recall correctly you've stated you hunt with a 300 Ultra, no?

What about a shot facing you at 150 yards, dead square on, maybe slightly uphill, would you take that shot?
ive shot a deer with a 243 in the same circumstace, right in the white patch of the throat. i dont hunt with a 300 ultra, but a 7mm. i had a solid rest and had no problems. deer went down hard.

[dino]

Hey dino .... I'm pretty sure your highly opinionated rhetoric really serves no purpose, other than to lower your credibility. No need to let your jaded feelings, spill over into your posts.

Now to the OP ... JMHO ... you owe it to the animal you hunt to make 'ethical shot placement'. Mine consists of heart/lung/spine or head, for a quick kill. Just saying, no preeching.

btw - My son was taught this also. :wink:

Hey I was your 1000th post and you wasted it on me.:-D
If I was opinionated as you say I would have a hell of alot more posts on here after six years. I cant be that jaded because there seems to be quite a few members that agree with my perception of reality. Credibility?...... I dont think making comments about the Hipocrocy of the preechers takes any credibility away at all from me. I dont ever claim to be ethicly correct because Im a realist, were all a bunch of hypocrites.I tend to tell people the way it is and not what they want to hear.

[Panic]

I'm curious to see what peoples take on running shots, bad angle shots etc. Lets say a hunter takes one of these shots and gut shoots the animal, can't find it, but obviously the animal will soon die.
Now a pack of wolves, grizz, etc. comes upon the dead animal and eats it. Fills them up for a few days, and therefore saves another animals life because they have no need for food until they are hungry again. Soooo.. where was an animal wasted? In my eyes it was all part of the cycle? Kind of like a life for a life. What are your takes on this?

Where was an animal wasted you ask?
Well, consider that animal would have, had you not been there to botch the shot, continued to live to either a natural death or until it was stalked by a four legged predator. The fact that you ruin your hunt by botching the shot AND losing your prey which then gets eaten by a scavenger is a rather sad affair and trying justify it in any way that helps to salve your conscience conscience or simply mitigate the lack thereof is plain wrong in my own opinion.

I've rushed and botched shots twice in my life...just twice. Both times when I was a young hunter just starting out, and the prey was rabbits. Little wild rabbits both times that I hit, botched and watched run wounded into burrows to die and rot un eaten and wasted. Twice that thought ate my guts, knowing I'd caused something to lay dying in pain and I truly felt guilty for the longest time. I almost quit hunting over it. Since then I NEVER take a shot unless it is clear and sure. I've watched deer bound off to their own business rather than take risky or lazy shots. Why, because it's the right thing to do.

You asked, and that's my take on it.

[Gateholio]

i no i wouldnt ,,,never taken a texas heart shot ...

I wasn't presented a Texas heart shot. That's will kill a deer no problem if you know what you are doing. I only had a broadside ass shot which should never be taken.

[pickle88]

I wasn't presented a Texas heart shot. That's will kill a deer no problem if you know what you are doing. I only had a broadside ass shot which should never be taken.

absolutly....i had the same oportunity on a moose this year ,only could see his whole ass area broadside ..the front end was behind trees .could see a bit of antler..i was only 30 yards away..i seriously thought of taking out the spine ,but i passed ..probably woulda worked but wasnt confident enough

[OutWest]

Not everyone hunts the open terrain of the Ashnola like Dino does. A place where guys like him can get 6 or 7 hail mary shots off.

Ethics...Right.

[solo]

Have never been able to practice rifle shooting at a moving target, so I wouldn't be confident taking that shot. That being said, I would not criticize anyone who did.

[KodiakHntr]

ive shot a deer with a 243 in the same circumstace, right in the white patch of the throat. i dont hunt with a 300 ultra, but a 7mm. i had a solid rest and had no problems. deer went down hard.

Fair enough. My memory isn't what it was when I was 37....

My point is, what difference does it make if you should a deer front to back with a 7mm, or back to front?

[husky30-06]

i will attempt a long shot or a running shot if i have time to set up for it......................otherwise i track for a better angle, nicer shot, thrill of the chase!!!!! i don"t like to loose an animal. i have passed up on many animals due to the fact of not wanting to wound the animal and have to track it. i so not agree with the logic either.

[hunter1993ap]

Fair enough. My memory isn't what it was when I was 37....

My point is, what difference does it make if you should a deer front to back with a 7mm, or back to front?

gotcha, just dont like the idea of the shot. at least if i shoot in the chest he's facing me. if an animal is smart enough to run straight away from me he will live to see another day,.

[The Dude]

Why would anyone take a marginal shot? Are you that desperate to kill something?

[HarryToolips]

When in doubt, DONT SHOOT! And practice with your weapon, too many hunters only practice a few shots before the season opens. Should practice all year long, and don't take a stupid shot. Especially if the animal doesn't know your there, for God sakes sneak closer and better position yourself!

[hunter1993ap]

When in doubt, DONT SHOOT! And practice with your weapon, too many hunters only practice a few shots before the season opens. Should practice all year long, and don't take a stupid shot. Especially if the animal doesn't know your there, for God sakes sneak closer and better position yourself!

great advice, practice is key. i put hundreds of rounds through my pellet gun a year, all freehand just to get time behind a gun. also lots of 223 because its cheap and a fair amount through the rifle i hunt with. i dont practice a ton with my hunting rifle because i dont want to burn the barrel out but i definately shoot it, and know where it hits at ranges way beyond what i would consider shooting at an animal.

[hunterdon]

Why would anyone take a marginal shot? Are you that desperate to kill something?

You hit the nail on the head Dude. Granted some hunters are more skillful than others at judging and taking shots at their prey, thus their scope of ethical shots is greater. While others are indeed "desperate to kill something" in order to gain bragging rights. But, of course they are quick to stand proud and proclaim other opinions void of legitimate expression.

[pickle88]

i got a great pit that has 300 ,400 ,and 500 yard gongs ...its alotta fun wacking them ..heres my daughter with open sights hitting the gong at 300 yards

theres no doubt that if u dont practice your distance shooting your not going to have a hope in hell with a clean shot on game


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=XCgZ0V04-Ic

[OutWest]

That's good stuff, Jeff. 300 yards is getting out there. Further than most guys have ever shot, including myself.

[300]

Nickroth why don't you shoot that far?

[pickle88]

That's good stuff, Jeff. 300 yards is getting out there. Further than most guys have ever shot, including myself.

i didnt get any vid ,but shes hitting the gong at 500yards with her .270 as well ...after a bit (10 shells or so) she was hitting the gong 4 outa 5 shots at 500 yards

[OutWest]

Nickroth why don't you shoot that far?

Never been in a situation where a 300+ yard shot presented itself on an animal. Not even close. Punched a bit of paper at that distance but that's it.

[300]

Never been in a situation where a 300+ yard shot presented itself on an animal. Not even close. Punched a bit of paper at that distance but that's it.

Ohh okay. I was going to say if you can punch out a 1 inch group at 100 yards shooting accurately at 300 would be a breeze.

[tomahawk]

My take on this is you did loose an animal with a bad shot and predators picked up on the kill you lost they would have taken another prey animal anyways ,,I see it this way all balances out at calender end for what the predators eat during a 12 month period..

Another take on this would be that the predators are now eating what was a healthy animal before being hit and that it wouldnt have been necessarily culled by them
if it was strong and healthy. Instead a not so healthy animal dies a natural death and is dispersed by small animals and birds rather then feeding large predators?

Straight up, i wont take an unneccessary risk like that to make an animal sick and suffer regardless of whether it feeds predators eventually or not. Shit happens but we dont need to assist it.

[dino]

Not everyone hunts the open terrain of the Ashnola like Dino does. A place where guys like him can get 6 or 7 hail mary shots off.

Ethics...Right.


:-? My ammunition is worth way to much for hail Mary shots especially when my rounds are to big for my magazine and I can only fit one in the tube. Thats the problem with self loads. I wish I had the kinda cash your mommy and daddy have, if I did I would hail mary all day long.

[westcoast meds]

its funny , at all the old turkey shoots ect.. gun club shoots, they always had a moving deer for guys to try and hit. Next thing you know guys are going to say they would never take a shot at an animal 25 yards away without having a rest first.

[Jelvis]

If a person can't hit a gong at 300 yards with a bench rest and a high power gun, then give it up.
An animal is way different, it moves, it's alive.
In the war an army shooter can hit at 1000 yards.
Jp .. More Gun

[pickle88]

If a person can't hit a gong at 300 yards with a bench rest and a high power gun, then give it up.
An animal is way different, it moves, it's alive.
In the war an army shooter can hit at 1000 yards.
Jp .. More Gun

how about open sightes and only 13 years old

[Jelvis]

Give me a high power rifle and a good peep sight with a rest, POW!

[Jelvis]

If I had a 9 POWER Telescope on a .30-06 and a rest and target shooting with hardly a wind, I would challenge any one to a shoot off at any distance.
Jel .. I have been shooting since 9 years old, and in competition with .223, made official MARKSMAN with iron sights.
pow pow pow pow .. semi auto .. I could put a part in your hair at a hundred.

[Darksith]

I only read the first 50 posts, but I didn't see anyone mention that you are causing a healthy animal with strong genetic qualities to become week and thus removing or at least lessening the positive impacts those strong genetic traits from the breeding stock/gene pool. This not only hinders the natural development of the local population for future survival, but could possible reduce your own chances of harvesting a large healthy animal in the future. So its kind of like shooting yourself in the foot by wounding an animal and giving it on a silver platter to the predators/scavengers.

As well as stated many other times, its not humane when you have the ability to make that choice, which is why we do not consider ourselves animals for the most part. Plus I can't sleep at night knowing I messed up and made a mistake which caused undo suffering to another creature.

[hunterdon]

I'm curious to see what peoples take on running shots, bad angle shots etc. Lets say a hunter takes one of these shots and gut shoots the animal, can't find it, but obviously the animal will soon die.
Now a pack of wolves, grizz, etc. comes upon the dead animal and eats it. Fills them up for a few days, and therefore saves another animals life because they have no need for food until they are hungry again. Soooo.. where was an animal wasted? In my eyes it was all part of the cycle? Kind of like a life for a life. What are your takes on this?

Your question "where was an animal wasted?" is actually not a bad question. To some here, and I'm guessing yourself included, feel that a bad shot doesn't affect deer mortality in the long term, since as one poster put it, it "all balances out at calendar end". This assumption does seem to be logical. However, wolf studies prove a very differently story. As one poster ("one of our more vocal mods") correctly pointed out, "you are probably doing just the opposite when your poor shot results in a free meal for wolves".

Wolves are opportunistic predators. For example, the great predator, the African lion, after a kill, will simply rest. He has no desire to kill until he or she gets hungry again. Wolves do not behave this way. They are truly opportunistic predators. Which means they will kill when the opportunity presents itself REGARDLESS of whether they are hungry or not, OR whether they consume the animal or not. But don't just take my word for it. Below is an excerpt from an article on wolves and hunting. The link to the entire article is also presented for your scrutiny. I highly recommend all to read the entire article if possible. It is indeed a very interesting read. I simply include the article not as an anti wolf presentation, but simply to answer your direct question "where was an animal wasted?" Hope that helps a bit.

A point which should be stressed is "wolves kill for the sake of killing," not just to survive. Many are convinced wolves kill only what they need to eat. That simply isn't true.

Remember the moose with brain worm the wolves didn't eat? In the same area, the same winter and only a couple of months later, the same Conservation Officer followed two wolves after a spring snow storm and found the wolves had killed 21 deer. Only two were partially eaten.

The snow gave the wolves the advantage. These deer were autopsied and many were found to be pregnant. The total number of deer killed in 2 days by these 2 wolves was 36.

Such incidents of surplus killing are common. For example, Canadian biologists came upon an area where a pack of wolves have killed 34 caribou calves in one area. Another example came from Alaska. In the Wrangell Mountains, a pack of five wolves came upon 20 Dall rams crossing a snow-covered plateau. All 20 rams were killed by the wolves. Only six were partially eaten by the wolves.

http://www.aws.vcn.com/wolves_and_hunting.html

[albravo2]

As a new hunter I really appreciate the original question and I think I learned something by reading all 10 pages of comments.

I shouldn't be surprised that the community is sharply divided but I am a bit disappointed by the lack of tact and diplomacy in the comment thread. Buddy didn't say he gut shot a deer then went home to get a fresh beverage, he was asking a hypothetical question.

Someone else asked why the same ethics don't apply to shooting preds and I would like to read more on that topic. Someone a while back mentioned he hip-shoots the first coyote so that he can get one or two more when they attack the wounded one but I didn't read any subsequent comments where he was chastised for his ethics.

So, is it ok to 'Hail Mary' a wolf but not a deer? Why?

[canadianyoda]

For my take you should never shoot if you do not think that the first shot will do the job. Mistakes happen, but did the animal suffer? I call my wife the one shot wonder. She will not shoot unless she can make the shot. My freezer is full of moose as she got the draw. She filled it. Knowing our limitations causes less suffering. I once saw a buck with his lower jaw hanging as someone tried for a head shot. Small target, low margin for error. Think of the suffering that the buck endured before death.

[300]

Your question "where was an animal wasted?" is actually not a bad question. To some here, and I'm guessing yourself included, feel that a bad shot doesn't affect deer mortality in the long term, since as one poster put it, it "all balances out at calendar end". This assumption does seem to be logical. However, wolf studies prove a very differently story. As one poster ("one of our more vocal mods") correctly pointed out, "you are probably doing just the opposite when your poor shot results in a free meal for wolves".

Wolves are opportunistic predators. For example, the great predator, the African lion, after a kill, will simply rest. He has no desire to kill until he or she gets hungry again. Wolves do not behave this way. They are truly opportunistic predators. Which means they will kill when the opportunity presents itself REGARDLESS of whether they are hungry or not, OR whether they consume the animal or not. But don't just take my word for it. Below is an excerpt from an article on wolves and hunting. The link to the entire article is also presented for your scrutiny. I highly recommend all to read the entire article if possible. It is indeed a very interesting read. I simply include the article not as an anti wolf presentation, but simply to answer your direct question "where was an animal wasted?" Hope that helps a bit.

A point which should be stressed is "wolves kill for the sake of killing," not just to survive. Many are convinced wolves kill only what they need to eat. That simply isn't true.

Remember the moose with brain worm the wolves didn't eat? In the same area, the same winter and only a couple of months later, the same Conservation Officer followed two wolves after a spring snow storm and found the wolves had killed 21 deer. Only two were partially eaten.

The snow gave the wolves the advantage. These deer were autopsied and many were found to be pregnant. The total number of deer killed in 2 days by these 2 wolves was 36.

Such incidents of surplus killing are common. For example, Canadian biologists came upon an area where a pack of wolves have killed 34 caribou calves in one area. Another example came from Alaska. In the Wrangell Mountains, a pack of five wolves came upon 20 Dall rams crossing a snow-covered plateau. All 20 rams were killed by the wolves. Only six were partially eaten by the wolves.

http://www.aws.vcn.com/wolves_and_hunting.html

Wow, that's unreal! I'm amazed they killed 21 deer and only ate 2. They are pure killing machines. Thanks for posting that

[Gateholio]

Lets not confuse LONG SHOTS with MARGINAL or QUESTIONABLE shots. Distance is relative. A long shot may be completely ethical or marginal or questionable (or downright inhumane) but so can many close shots, running shots etc.

[Freshtracks]

Hey I was your 1000th post and you wasted it on me.

LOL ... Wow ... 1k ... over 8 years here and I don't post count but you do and apparently by your opinion, wasted to boot? :shock:


If I was opinionated as you say I would have a hell of allot more posts on here after six years.

Now there's a statement the needs it own thread. I miss the old dana days, to name a few. I assumed that you just finally seen the light.


I cant be that jaded because there seems to be quite a few members that agree with my perception of reality.

Hmmm if you had followers, I'd have read more posts supporting ...


"The op asked a question and is now thinking about not posting anymore questions because of the members that preach their own perception? of what is good ethics by attacking guys ? like the op yet leave Gatehouse alone ?. No-one on here should ever be preaching ethics. if the op or anyone else's hunting tactics are legal then their legal and if you don't like it you have three choices. Get used to it, get over it or F___ off!

(1) Most posters stated their ethical opinions. No preaching IMO. (2) I don't feel the OP (300) was attacked. Few of his posts, thanked the input. GH ... lol ... I'm pretty sure everyone understands how Clarke voices himself here. Kind of a 'straight shooter'. Therein lies that jadedness. :frown: (3) dino, first understand ethics or opinions, preaching and posting. And no where did I read someone else post your 3 choices.


Credibility?...... I don't think making comments about the hypocrisy of the preachers takes any credibility away at all from me. I don't ever claim to be ethically correct because I'm a realist, were all a bunch of hypocrites.I tend to tell people the way it is and not what they want to hear.

^^^ ... the above shrinks your credibility ... your other 'my way' outburst do too. Surprising from a fellow hunter that really could have allot more to add to these forums. :( There's a difference between being assertive and confrontational dino ... hopefully we can see more of the former.

Just saying. :-D

[Singleshotneeded]

I don't take a shot unless I know I'm going to kill the animal quickly and cleanly, we owe that to the game.
In a shtf situation, where I NEED to kill that animal to feed my family because the supermarkets are empty,
that would be different of course. Until such a time, the kill must be quick and humane.

[Gateholio]

I think you guys need to reread my post, I never mentioned trophy I said animal of a lifetime. big difference. Hunterdon, who are you to tell others that they have poor ethics or misguided attitudes. My point is with you and other ethic police is that you will never agree on whats is acceptable or not. Do you think that all the other self rightious ethics dictators agree its ok to shoot a deer up its ass like one of our more vocal mods posted on this thread. You must be able to see the hipcrocy Im talking about here. The op asked a question and is now thinking abouting not posting anymore questions because of the members that preech their own perception of what is good ethics by attacking guys like the op yet leave Gatehouse alone. No-one on here should ever be preeching ethics. if the op or anyone else's hunting tactics are legal then their legal and if you dont like it you have three choices. Get used to it get over it or F___ off!


I guess I misse dthis first time around but this is pretty simple.

The Op is asking if it's okay to take marginal shots because the scavengers need to eat anyway. The THS does not fall into the "marginal" category unless you don't know how to do it.

I'm not sure if you are familiar with all "ethical" shots but the THS is ethical if done correctly. Although I admit it might be a tad impolite...

The THS is not really any different from a frontal shot, but the THS needs a bit more skill to reduce meat destruction. If you have the skill, the proper bullet and the horsepower to get to the vitals via the rear end, the THS is no less ethical than any broadside shot.

End to end shots work exceptionally well, especially if you tweak the neck on the way. My longest ened to end shot was made just under 400 yards. The bullet entered the chest of the buck and he collapsed. Post mortem showed that the 180gr TSX bullet went right through him and exited in the lower rear leg area. If the same shot was aimed correctly at the rump the same result would have occurred- dead dear

[dino]

LOL ... Wow ... 1k ... over 8 years here and I don't post count but you do and apparently by your opinion, wasted to boot? :shock:



Now there's a statement the needs it own thread. I miss the old dana days, to name a few. I assumed that you just finally seen the light.



Hmmm if you had followers, I'd have read more posts supporting ...



(1) Most posters stated their ethical opinions. No preaching IMO. (2) I don't feel the OP (300) was attacked. Few of his posts, thanked the input. GH ... lol ... I'm pretty sure everyone understands how Clarke voices himself here. Kind of a 'straight shooter'. Therein lies that jadedness. :frown: (3) dino, first understand ethics or opinions, preaching and posting. And no where did I read someone else post your 3 choices.



^^^ ... the above shrinks your credibility ... your other 'my way' outburst do too. Surprising from a fellow hunter that really could have allot more to add to these forums. :( There's a difference between being assertive and confrontational dino ... hopefully we can see more of the former.

Just saying. :-D

Yawn!......

[The Dude]

Dino: 3% of members agreeing with you is completely insignificant. It's a long term trend, not only this thread.
But have a Super Fantastic day! :D

Yawn.........

[dino]

I guess I misse dthis first time around but this is pretty simple.

The Op is asking if it's okay to take marginal shots because the scavengers need to eat anyway. The THS does not fall into the "marginal" category unless you don't know how to do it.

I'm not sure if you are familiar with all "ethical" shots but the THS is ethical if done correctly. Although I admit it might be a tad impolite...

The THS is not really any different from a frontal shot, but the THS needs a bit more skill to reduce meat destruction. If you have the skill, the proper bullet and the horsepower to get to the vitals via the rear end, the THS is no less ethical than any broadside shot.

End to end shots work exceptionally well, especially if you tweak the neck on the way. My longest ened to end shot was made just under 400 yards. The bullet entered the chest of the buck and he collapsed. Post mortem showed that the 180gr TSX bullet went right through him and exited in the lower rear leg area. If the same shot was aimed correctly at the rump the same result would have occurred- dead dear

I dont care if the ths is ethicly correct or not, I agree with you on it but there's the self rightious out there that dissagree and they will make condescnding remarks towards people like 300, they cant wait to preach their shit. No one posted anything about your ethics but I garrantee that if 300 posted anything about taking a ths the same hypocrits would be all over him yet leave you alone. Members attack me because Im defending the legal rights every hunter has here, I wouldnt kill anything if I were to listen to these clowns. Im sure Im breaking someones ethics rules every time I shoot an animal. Hail mary shots are something that we all have taken and most of us realize its just a waste of money so we wont do it but I dont think its fair that some need to make the comments they do, I cant even post a pic of a dead buck without some ahole making stupid comments about my ethics or fabricating up some bs that they cant back up. Its these same members that are eroding the site away. I can tell 300 is fresh to the site and what a way to welcome him.

[dino]

Dude: hypocrits always follow the band wagon, its a long term trend too

[BCBRAD]

One of the things that *should* be very important to all hunters is ensuring a quick death with as little pain as possible. When you take a marginal shot, you are risking that.

Wolves aren't capable of being humane, but humans are.

My goal is to feed myself and family, not feed wolves.

BINGO, for a lot of us hunter types that is why we spend so much time practicing shooting skills, selecting best components and tools for the task at hand, plus lots enjoy the 'math' of it all.

[300]

No one posted anything about your ethics but I garrantee that if 300 posted anything about taking a ths the same hypocrits would be all over him yet leave you alone. Members attack me because Im defending the legal rights every hunter has here, I wouldnt kill anything if I were to listen to these clowns. Im sure Im breaking someones ethics rules every time I shoot an animal[/Dino].

Thanks for being truthful and realistic about the way you hunt dino. I completely agree in that if I waited for the kind of shot these guys are talking about I would have half as many animals as I do now. And I'm not talking about 'hail marys' but shots past 300, 400, or running shots, angle shots, or squeezing off just seconds after seeing the animal because he's heading out.

[Caribou_lou]

I have alot of respect for "these guys" that wait for an animal to be in a position for a well placed shot.

One question for you 300. Would you be taking these kind of shots you talk about on a mature Grizzly bear?

[The Dude]

Dude: hypocrits always follow the band wagon, its a long term trend too

Follow the Band Wagon? Me? I think most will agree I don't do that. Never heard THAT one before, but coming from you, I'm not surprised.
You're as obtuse as you are disillusioned, so I have no problem with your insults, Peeno. Have at 'er.

("Hypocrite" BTW. ......But: have a Super Fantastic Day!)

[Gateholio]

It's funny when someone starts a thread asking for opinions and then people get upset when opinions are offered. :)

[The Dude]

Never ceases to amaze me.

[300]

Lol... this website is brutal you guys should go into politics. And no caribou lou I wouldn't. I don't have a deathwish, the only shot I would take on a grizz is blowing out both shoulders. And yes that means I think humans are above animals!!

[frenchbar]

It's funny when someone starts a thread asking for opinions and then people get upset when opinions are offered. :)

no kidding !

[dino]

Follow the Band Wagon? Me? I think most will agree I don't do that. Never heard THAT one before, but coming from you, I'm not surprised.
You're as obtuse as you are disillusioned, so I have no problem with your insults, Peeno. Have at 'er.
n
("Hypocrite" BTW. ......But: have a Super Fantastic Day!)

Your attacking my name ?LOL Come on dude you gotta have more than that. Ive heard that one too many times to even raise an eyebrow. Stop thinking like a conformist and use something new.

[Jelvis]

What happened to RENO?

[fearnodeer]

My wife waited 15 mins at 45 yards for the right shot on a bull moose, thats all i got to say about that.

[dino]

My wife waited 15 mins at 45 yards for the right shot on a bull moose, thats all i got to say about that.

It must be brutal on date night for ya. Just kidding around bud.

[Citori54]

I don't agree with taking a hail Mary shot and then justify it by saying that it is food for a predator. Following that logic, is there a limit on how many times per season that is acceptable? Taken to the extreme a person could wound and lose several in a year. As hunters we face enough opposition to our sport....this won't help.

[hunter1993ap]

I don't agree with taking a hail Mary shot and then justify it by saying that it is food for a predator. Following that logic, is there a limit on how many times per season that is acceptable? Taken to the extreme a person could wound and lose several in a year. As hunters we face enough opposition to our sport....this won't help.

it should be how many times in your life is it acceptable to wound an animal, not in one season. not many in my eyes but it does happen.

[Jelvis]

He who hesitates loses, it's like an MMA battle or a street brawl, you hesitate and wait for a chance on a perfect kick or upper cut and your done. Laying on the pavement, knocked out. First it looks you in the eye. Reading you like a book. Then it engages you.
Some avoid confrontation and some look for it. It's personality, it's knowing your ability, it's knowing all your training has honed your ability to a sharp edge. You can counter every move, over and over in movement and thought.
Quickness, accuracy, balance and faith in your performance. Every sinew and muscle in you explodes!
Until you feel this confidence surging through your body and mind by extreme adrenaline, don't even think about it. Get in shape, learn top of the line technique, get ripped and cut first then you can let one go to the mark.
.. It's a one on one battle you better be ready for or you ain't going home the same way you left.
Jel ( The Street Machine) It's a jungle out there, it makes me wonder how I keep from going under.
It's hard -- to be humble -- when your perfect in every way! When your cooky won't crumble. -- Know your role!

[Lillypuff]

Most veteran hunters have made the mistake of taking a shot they probably shouldn't have and LEARNED from the mistake. If you are a new hunter take some advice from a few people and do your best to make your shot count.

[finngun]

Jel ( The Street Machine) It's a jungle out there, it makes me wonder how I keep from going under.
It's hard -- to be humble -- when your perfect in every way! When your cooky won't crumble. -- Know your role!

jello-bello wake up yu are evening dreaming sofa potato..:mrgreen: dont watch arnold to many times.. yu and i are tooo old..just memories:mrgreen: happy memories f-g:-D

[coach]

Most veteran hunters have made the mistake of taking a shot they probably shouldn't have and LEARNED from the mistake. If you are a new hunter take some advice from a few people and do your best to make your shot count.

Excellent post! MOST of us have made a mistake or two over the years. The ethical hunter hurts inside when things go sideways and does their best to make sure it doesn't happen again. Once you pull that trigger, there's no taking it back.

[Mulehahn]

To answer the OP's question, no, marginal hail mary shots should be avoided. TO me the most obvious problem with the question is that not all animals are consumed by predators. Yes, all animals return to nature, but I have come across dead deer that had just decayed and not been eaten. In that case the animal is wasted. As for the arguments on ethical, that is up each person to decide. Some states are now outlawing trailing cams during the season, but lots of hunters use them here. Who is right, both sides are.

[Jelvis]

Every NBA player when he lets that ball go at the basket thinks that ball is going to SWISH, nothing but net, every quarterback in the pros, when he cranks his arm back and sends that pigskin on it's way, sees a perfect reception in his minds eye, every NHL hockey player when he's speeding down the right wing on a break away and let's a 100 mile an hour shot slap off his KOHO stick with a full legal curved blade imagines that puck going to the back of the net, every fast ball pitcher in the major leagues facing the last batter releases a 99 mile an hour fastball and thinks it's going past that Louisville Slugger, and every hunter who pulls the trigger on a huge muley buck with a 36 inch spread and heavy massed chocolate colored rack with long tines heading out into the buck brush and juniper bushes knows his shot will drop him in his moose sized tracks.
Jel .. Yah know whad I mean?

[dougan]

Most people on here talk the talk but I bet a good bunch are full of crap ! Just sayin. ps if your angered by my post it's probly you :)

[Phreddy]

I've found animals that have been gut shot and left to die. I can assure you, they die very hard. If you are looking for justification from me, you're barking up the wrong tree. Don't shoot and "hope" the bullet is going to hit in a certain spot, "KNOW" where the bullet will hit when you pull the trigger. It's our responsibility as ethical hunters to harvest game in the most humane way possible. If you aren't comfortable with the possible shot, don't take it. Simple.

[trapperRick]

The theory that a wounded animal would be cleaned up by predators is faulty. Predators take older/sick and the weaker animals that's how mother nature works the stong survive, a wounded animal does not fit into that group. Unless I am very sure of my shot I won't take it, on a hail mary shot you may be wounding an animal which then may suffer for days before they die, think about that (it's very cruel) As hunters I feel we have the responsibility to be as humane as possible and should have respect for the animals we hunt. Remember one of the golden rules is (Being sure of your target and beyond) hail mary shots I feel goes against this rule as you are just letting lead fly on the off chance one bullet may hit your target and the question is whats beyond all that lead your letting loose?

[brian]

Predators take older/sick and the weaker animals that's how mother nature works the strong survive, a wounded animal does not fit into that group. A predator they will attack anything they think they can effectively kill. A recent study of cougar kills found that the cats were just as likely to kill mature bucks in their prime as they were to take does or other animals. This was especially true if they were high mountain cats.

I can't believe this thread is still going. If you are okay with gut shooting an animal and having it die slowly and very painfully over a period of days... then you gotta give your head a shake. I mean who is okay with shooting one in the ham, having the wound go septic making the deer lame so he will starve to death during the winter if the infection doesn't get him? Seriously.

[howa1500]

I don't want the animal to suffer, I only take shots I know I can make. But I'd gut shoot a terrorist or Paul Bernardo and not think twice... Lol

[YAMMY-CA]

I'm curious to see what peoples take on running shots, bad angle shots etc. Lets say a hunter takes one of these shots and gut shoots the animal, can't find it, but obviously the animal will soon die.
Now a pack of wolves, grizz, etc. comes upon the dead animal and eats it. Fills them up for a few days, and therefore saves another animals life because they have no need for food until they are hungry again. Soooo.. where was an animal wasted? In my eyes it was all part of the cycle? Kind of like a life for a life. What are your takes on this?

Makes PIT LAMPING seem ethical

[Aheny]

then you never be duck-geese- or any kind wing shooting.... hunting.... that situation you sometimes can't help hit and not be able to find the bird what's been shot..
you see you are hitting a bird,but it just fly away... shooter feels bad..nothing can been done.....is it smaller pain with smaller game?:confused:

I actually primarily hunt ducks and geese now that I live in the Lower Mainland, and I have spent considerable time thinking about birds that I see get hit and then fly away. I've found that I am using larger shot than I need now, and passing on anything outside of 40m. More recently I am getting back to the smaller shot, Ive found that most of my questionable hits were in the 60-70m range.

[Phreddy]

Shooting an any critter, bird or beast, when you aren't 99% sure that it's going to drop where it's shot is unethical in my books. I've never shot at any duck or goose over 40 yards, and haven't had that problem since I started. The odd one will set it's wings and manage to get a few hundred yds away but by the time I got to it, it was dead. Had to wring the odd neck of ones that dropped straight down, but haven't heard that sickening sound of pellets hitting feathers and the bird flying on since I was a kid.

[huntwriter]

The theory that a wounded animal would be cleaned up by predators is faulty. Predators take older/sick and the weaker animals that's how mother nature works the stong survive, a wounded animal does not fit into that group.

Predators will take any animal that can't run as fast as the rest. A wounded animal fits the bill for an easy meal any day.

[srupp]

I watched a TV program on long range shooting... and that day they were after grizzly bear, mountain bears...and they found a bear..and "said they couldnt get closer than 800 yards " so they shot 3 times and harvested the grizzly .

IMO 800 yards is way too far for any grizzly bear and again IMO unethical and the shots were made to sell their long range shooting system. was upset that day and am regarding that situation today..wrong decision..

steven

[Singleshotneeded]

I wouldn't take a running shot unless it was close and broadside.
I wouldn't shoot an ungulate in the ass.
I get myself into position for a heart-lung shot to the front or side, behind the shoulder...it's called being a hunter.

[Gateholio]

I watched a TV program on long range shooting... and that day they were after grizzly bear, mountain bears...and they found a bear..and "said they couldnt get closer than 800 yards " so they shot 3 times and harvested the grizzly .

IMO 800 yards is way too far for any grizzly bear and again IMO unethical and the shots were made to sell their long range shooting system. was upset that day and am regarding that situation today..wrong decision..

steven

If it's the same show I saw, they shot a small grizzly, too. I doubt it even made 6 ft.

[GoatGuy]

I watched a TV program on long range shooting... and that day they were after grizzly bear, mountain bears...and they found a bear..and "said they couldnt get closer than 800 yards " so they shot 3 times and harvested the grizzly .

IMO 800 yards is way too far for any grizzly bear and again IMO unethical and the shots were made to sell their long range shooting system. was upset that day and am regarding that situation today..wrong decision..

steven

I met a nimrod that shot a g bear across a valley in the WK about a decade ago, long 600+ yards, gusty wind. Luckily the bear died in the only patch of open country and didn't disappear into the alders which were everywhere. I've never in my life seen someone so afraid of retrieving an animal, he watched it for hours before he went to retrieve it. He was still scared stiff after he got back out. Guarantee if that bear would have disappeared in the alders that hunter would have never ever made the effort.

Not to mention another wonderful person, wouldn't want to name names, who wounded a bear after a long shot, 2 sets of boot tracks made it about 100 yards of tracking and then gave up when the bear hit the heavy timber.

[srupp]

lol seen that repeatadly...with Tims beheamouth bear 5 yards inside that wet coast forest would not be a pleasant place to be...pretty certain that as easy as a a 9 1/2 foot grizzly weighing 900 pounds is..he would have found us faster..

yes certain shots not only are a poor choice..they are unethical..and cause unnessisary pain and suffering and can put others at risk when its a grizzly and its not found..is it dead or maybe its inability to hunt and feed may make it an opportunistic ambush predator....

actually had one guy refuse to go in after he shot the bear..was left up to me....been called numerous times to go in after wounded bears...

steven

[Ambush]

If it's the same show I saw, they shot a small grizzly, too. I doubt it even made 6 ft.

Not their fault, that's the only one they could find that was far enough away for the show.

[Gateholio]

Not their fault, that's the only one they could find that was far enough away for the show.

Goes to my point about the long range guys being more interested in making the shot than the size of the animal. I can see it with more "meat" oriented animals, but a grizzly is more of a "trophy" While I eat bear meat, I would and have turned down young grizzlies. I noticed in the show they didn't show lots of footage up close of the dead bear. :)

[TheProvider]

I can't stand too watch that show.

[srupp]

today they were shooting metal targets @ 1760 yards..=1 mile second shot hit

steven

[Walksalot]

A lot of hunters never follow the animals once the animal hits the bush because they are afraid of getting lost.

[Jack Russell]

Where is "the line"? Does the line vary with species? Dangerous game, one needs to be closer? "Vegetarian" animals get the LD treatment?

[lwing]

Local trophy Blactail hunter tells me his buddy's 7wsm drops 5" at 500 yds, then gets his son to shoot at deer , 463 yds with a 243 till he hits it, teach him young.

[300]

Local trophy Blactail hunter tells me his buddy's 7wsm drops 5" at 500 yds, then gets his son to shoot at deer , 463 yds with a 243 till he hits it, teach him young.

5" at 500 yards, that is just plain ignorance the guy has obviously never shot long range in his life. Or he tried to pull one over you haha.

[hunter1993ap]

5" at 500 yards, that is just plain ignorance the guy has obviously never shot long range in his life. Or he tried to pull one over you haha.

might be true, if he has it zeroed for a longer range than 100, like some guys do, who shoot longer ranges

[1/2 slam]

might be true, if he has it zeroed for a longer range than 100, like some guys do, who shoot longer ranges

What a load of shit....5 inches at 500...BS

[Moe.JKU]

I believe we should always take a shoot that the percentages are in our favour in a quick and painless death for the animal. I don't think that even if a an animal gets away and a wolf eats it, that makes it alright. It is a survival of the fittest, what if that animal is going to die because it cant survive by itself, that's nature and is supposed to happen and will in the future. If predators can't fend for themselves then they die, that's how nature works.

[Gateholio]

With a 200 yard zero, the 500 yard drop of a 7WSM is about 3 feet.

[Mr. Dean]

I'm curious to see what peoples take on running shots, bad angle shots etc. Lets say a hunter takes one of these shots and gut shoots the animal, can't find it, but obviously the animal will soon die.
Now a pack of wolves, grizz, etc. comes upon the dead animal and eats it. Fills them up for a few days, and therefore saves another animals life because they have no need for food until they are hungry again. Soooo.. where was an animal wasted? In my eyes it was all part of the cycle? Kind of like a life for a life. What are your takes on this?

I'm not here to feed other critters by wounding animals for them.
The scavengers get theirs by there own means and I'll get mine by taking only the shots that I know I'm going to make.

There's enough 'Murphy' in a perfect situation; why cloud it up?

[biggyun68]

I don't take running shots. I am not that good of a shot. However there are who are that good of a shot who can take running shots. But they are very few and far between.

[tinhorse]

Scavengers are just that "scavengers" looking for an easy meal. Wolves, bears and coyotes eat a lot of injured, weak, and diseased prey. Not big healthy bucks typically, (obviously some exceptions). To wound an animal and feel ok about it because predators will clean it up is terrible. The predators should be feeding on the weak and sick, leaving the strong healthy animals with good genetics to breed.

[hunter1993ap]

With a 200 yard zero, the 500 yard drop of a 7WSM is about 3 feet.
what if you had it 6 inches high at 200? or dead on at 400, not what i would consider doing, but before turrets i bet lots of guys had there rifles dialed in for a long ways. especially guys who hunt saskatchewan. bullet weight and powder all come into consideration and with the right combo you could have it zeroed for 500. not that i'm defending the guy from previous posts but its not a load of shit to do things a little different than most. on the other hand he might have his gun dialed in at 100 and what he thought was 500 was actually 250. i've heard a few guys strech the range they shoot, mainly becuase they have no clue and dont have a range finder.

[brian]

Wolves, bears and coyotes eat a lot of injured, weak, and diseased prey. Not big healthy bucks typically, (obviously some exceptions).

So how many injured weak diseased prey is out there? Nature cleans them up pretty quickly and generally leaves a pretty healthy population. I don't think most predators could bank on just finding these easy meal tickets (outside of the spring babies). They take out what they can when they can... if a big buck is caught unaware, it will be a meal unless there is something easier around to take down. Wolves and bears will take down much larger prey like elk. The only reason more big bucks aren't taken is because the way they get to be big is because they are not usually caught unaware.

[ianwuzhere]

many people will throw hail mary shots..

[Gateholio]

what if you had it 6 inches high at 200? or dead on at 400, not what i would consider doing, but before turrets i bet lots of guys had there rifles dialed in for a long ways. especially guys who hunt saskatchewan. bullet weight and powder all come into consideration and with the right combo you could have it zeroed for 500. not that i'm defending the guy from previous posts but its not a load of shit to do things a little different than most. on the other hand he might have his gun dialed in at 100 and what he thought was 500 was actually 250. i've heard a few guys strech the range they shoot, mainly becuase they have no clue and dont have a range finder.

Zero at 400 will give you a drop of about a foot at 500 yards. You will be about 5" high at 100, 8" high at 200 and 6" high at 300. These are approximates.

[GoatGuy]

Justifying a bad shot because predators will eat it is an excuse made up before the fact. Wolves will kill whether the hunting is good or not. They aren't like cats or bears which will sit on it and eat. Typically they'll eat until they're full, move on and hunt some more, and maybe revisit later.

This concept of predators only kill the weak is a fallacy. Predators kill what they can. Wolves that run down white-tail bucks, some of the most cryptic critters in North America, in August are not killing the weak. There are a whole host of factors which affect how and when prey species are killed.

Roads, seismic lines, snowmobile trails, reservoirs all make wolves far more efficient. It allows them to cover much more ground than they normally would and access places where prey species avoid them (high snowpack areas) and allows them to kill prey much easier. Wolves love reservoirs cause they can cover hundreds of kilometres of country which is right on the edge of the only winter range which is left.

Bucks, bulls and rams are usually the most vulnerable which is why they typically segregate during the winter as they're spent from the rut. As they age males become extremely vulnerable post rut and they're usually eaten. The concept that 'mature bucks' are safe is 180 from reality.

Lastly, a year of high snowfall and a thaw/freeze in the winter allows wolves to stay on top and run down prey species which are stuck post-holing.

So the concept that only the 'weak' are killed is not consistent with reality, especially when we add people and our ways of getting around.

[hunter1947]

Justifying a bad shot because predators will eat it is an excuse made up before the fact. Wolves will kill whether the hunting is good or not. They aren't like cats or bears which will sit on it and eat. Typically they'll eat until they're full, move on and hunt some more, and maybe revisit later.

This concept of predators only kill the weak is a fallacy. Predators kill what they can. Wolves that run down white-tail bucks, some of the most cryptic critters in North America, in August are not killing the weak. There are a whole host of factors which affect how and when prey species are killed.

Roads, seismic lines, snowmobile trails, reservoirs all make wolves far more efficient. It allows them to cover much more ground than they normally would and access places where prey species avoid them (high snowpack areas) and allows them to kill prey much easier. Wolves love reservoirs cause they can cover hundreds of kilometres of country which is right on the edge of the only winter range which is left.

Bucks, bulls and rams are usually the most vulnerable which is why they typically segregate during the winter as they're spent from the rut. As they age males become extremely vulnerable post rut and they're usually eaten. The concept that 'mature bucks' are safe is 180 from reality.

Lastly, a year of high snowfall and a thaw/freeze in the winter allows wolves to stay on top and run down prey species which are stuck post-holing.

So the concept that only the 'weak' are killed is not consistent with reality, especially when we add people and our ways of getting around.


X2 on your post GG very true..

[lightmag]

Two of my most valued and rewarding hunts/harvests were "tough shots" 6x6 elk, bacl of the head at 120yards and my muley this year over 180 green/gross, running straight away at 120 yards, again, back of head!

i feel these shots were perfectly acceptable! Im a good shot, NOT a sniper and could have easily missed, but my thoughts on back of head shot is you either hit it and its dead instantly, or you miss and its fine, no in between. Both animals offered no other shot as most big, smart trpophy animals dont, i wouldnt hestitate on either shot again.

that all being said, im not taking 500 Plus hail marys, and full out running shots with chnace of gut shooting or hitting limbs.. but a back of head shot when no other shot is or will be present is fine in my books.

[cariboo hunter]

Wow, did i just read that right! i came on here to see if there was anything i could learn about grizzly hunting in Bella Coola, type in grizzly on the search and this is the first thing i read. i am 36 and been hunting since i can remember and reading this i think member 300 along with a couple others are not true outdoor people with a love for the outdoors and the respect for animals. To me they seem like the guys on crocodole dundee that are driving around pit lamping and shoot kangaroos for fun. i mean wow. You have a responcibilty as a hunter to try to do the best quick and clean kill as possible taking pot shots at something and saying oh well the wolves will get him is insane.
A life for a life, that animal you are taking pot shots at is going to suffer for who knows how long!
Be a man and kill it quick and right!

This is my first post on here and it unless there are more people on here that respect and love the outdoors like i do then it will be my last. i dont want any advice or tips from some grenade hunters.

[3kills]

i have taken running shots and i have taken far shots. but i still do my part 100% of the time. have never lost an animal yet/

[GoatGuy]

Two of my most valued and rewarding hunts/harvests were "tough shots" 6x6 elk, bacl of the head at 120yards and my muley this year over 180 green/gross, running straight away at 120 yards, again, back of head!

i feel these shots were perfectly acceptable! Im a good shot, NOT a sniper and could have easily missed, but my thoughts on back of head shot is you either hit it and its dead instantly, or you miss and its fine, no in between. Both animals offered no other shot as most big, smart trpophy animals dont, i wouldnt hestitate on either shot again.

that all being said, im not taking 500 Plus hail marys, and full out running shots with chnace of gut shooting or hitting limbs.. but a back of head shot when no other shot is or will be present is fine in my books.

Guess one question a person can ask themselves: Is that a shot I would have taken on a spike or 2 pt? Seems size of the animal can also influence the shot - been there done that.

On a more personal level, 'rewarding' hunts have never been tied to trophy size or trophy animal. The work that went into it, company, time, energy all tie in to the 'story'.

[Phreddy]

Don't get your shirt in a not Cariboo Hunter. The greater majority of us thnk much like you do, but you have to remember that there are a lot of newbies on the site who havent had the benefit of mentors and so ask the questions to get the benefit of experienced hunters advice here. There are always those who work hard at being ethical and only taking the shot that they are 99.9% sure is a kill shot. If the critter doesn't drop where it's shot there's generally a long, and I mean llllloooonnnnggg trek ahead to find that aimal to put it out of its misery. There will always be those who don't care and we will never change that. The only ones that will change that is the anti's who will use their example to have hunting eliminated. Having a deer running around with an arrow stuck in its head or a critter with its bottom jaw blown away are just a few

Wow, did i just read that right! i came on here to see if there was anything i could learn about grizzly hunting in Bella Coola, type in grizzly on the search and this is the first thing i read. i am 36 and been hunting since i can remember and reading this i think member 300 along with a couple others are not true outdoor people with a love for the outdoors and the respect for animals. To me they seem like the guys on crocodole dundee that are driving around pit lamping and shoot kangaroos for fun. i mean wow. You have a responcibilty as a hunter to try to do the best quick and clean kill as possible taking pot shots at something and saying oh well the wolves will get him is insane.
A life for a life, that animal you are taking pot shots at is going to suffer for who knows how long!
Be a man and kill it quick and right!

This is my first post on here and it unless there are more people on here that respect and love the outdoors like i do then it will be my last. i dont want any advice or tips from some grenade hunters.

[cariboo hunter]

Sorry Phreddy, but my shirt is in a KNOT. This guy posted that there is only one deer he may have hit saying he has shot many others and there are a half dozen older guys that are agreeing with him saying it is not so bad. This kinda crap is what gives hunters a black eye. I could see if this was a kid who has never hunted before and needs to know but that aint the case here. The question 300 is asking is not if you can make a long bad angle shot like some puffed out chest guys say on here they can hit a squirrels eye at 300 yards, the question is it all that bad to wound a animal because it is part of the cycle. In his eyes it is not all that bad, besides accidently shooting someone it is the second worst thing you could do when hunting!

[hawk-i]

Hunting and hunting ethics are a lot of different things to a lot of different people. It depends on ones upbringing. Someone raised in a City as compared to someone raised off the paved roads on a farm or ranch are most likely going to have different views on ethics, and of what is considered ethical humane harvest of wildlife.
While I absolutely agree that a shot that has a low percentage of a quick kill shouldn't be taken, I also don't agree on only taking a shot that has a 100% guarantee of a kill, as truthfully, very few shots have this promise of assurance and not everyones ability to assess and make that shot are equal.
What would be considered a Hail Mary shot by one, could be an easy high probability shot to another. It really depends on your frame of mind, your equipment, and your ability to use that equipment.
As long as there is hunting, animals will be wounded and some will be lost, that's a fact of hunting. IMHO, there is no way to guarantee that you will not wound an animal no matter how diligent you are in selecting your shot, many things can and do happen at that last millisecond when you pull the trigger.
Again IMHO, an ethical hunter should do the best within his or her ability to mininize any such mishaps, should be proficient in the use of their equipment, should have the ability to make a follow up shot on moving game if the need arises, and should have the tenacity to absolutely make every possible effort to track and recover wounded game.
Enjoy your hunt within your personal abilities...its a great and greatly varied sport!!!

[srupp]

Wow, did i just read that right! i came on here to see if there was anything i could learn about grizzly hunting in Bella Coola, type in grizzly on the search and this is the first thing i read. i am 36 and been hunting since i can remember and reading this i think member 300 along with a couple others are not true outdoor people with a love for the outdoors and the respect for animals. To me they seem like the guys on crocodole dundee that are driving around pit lamping and shoot kangaroos for fun. i mean wow. You have a responcibilty as a hunter to try to do the best quick and clean kill as possible taking pot shots at something and saying oh well the wolves will get him is insane.
A life for a life, that animal you are taking pot shots at is going to suffer for who knows how long!
Be a man and kill it quick and right!

This is my first post on here and it unless there are more people on here that respect and love the outdoors like i do then it will be my last. i dont want any advice or tips from some grenade hunters.


WELCOME... this a GREAT site with some of the most experienced and skilled hunters in BC there is a considerable amount of knowlege on a vast array of subjects...

If you want to talk Grizzlies and or Bella Coola send me a PM and I will call you on my dime...Bella Coola has really droipped of even since Justin shot his monster coastal grizz...there are numerous better locations for coastal g bears more bears bigger bears and better hunting experience imo...already chatted with over 12 hunters in regards to this springs adventures an Leh.

This is a good site...give it a chance to shine....

cheers

Steven Rupp