Finishing shots, follow up shots.
- Thread starter BIGREDD
- Start date
I don't know why I am bothering but here goes...rollingrock said:
It is common knowledge among Bow-Hunters that there is very little pain caused by a vital hit with a razor sharp broadhead compared to a Bullet. Many times they do not even know they are hit they just walk around and then fall over. Also many Big Game animals are more likely survive a poor hit from an arrow than from a bullet strike.
I am biting down hard on my cheek to avoid the multitude of sarcastic rejoinders that spring to mind when reading your posts.
I really don't want to inflame this debate....
Seriously.
Sure I'll explain it. He made a mess out of his deer hunt and now a year later he knows more, has more experience and is not afraid to keep learning.
What do you want me to do, loathe some guy because he made a bad error in judgement a year ago? Not spending a long time looking for a wounded animal is a heck of a lot differnet the the events that startred this poll.
If every hunter who, out of ignorance, made a mistake was left unforgivien then there would be no one on this forum.
when I was 7 I wounded a sparrow in the barn with a BB gun (should of used a .177) any way it got in a spot I could'nt reach it........... So what is the statute of limitations on this sort of thing, Am I still an unethical slob hunter 30 years later?
Also in my youth I trapped alot how many minutes do you figure it takes a snowshoe hare to scream out it's life in a snare? Do you figure a raccoon is comfortable while it is chewing off a leg? Wow I am an unethical slob hunter.
What do you want me to do, loathe some guy because he made a bad error in judgement a year ago? Not spending a long time looking for a wounded animal is a heck of a lot differnet the the events that startred this poll.
If every hunter who, out of ignorance, made a mistake was left unforgivien then there would be no one on this forum.
when I was 7 I wounded a sparrow in the barn with a BB gun (should of used a .177) any way it got in a spot I could'nt reach it........... So what is the statute of limitations on this sort of thing, Am I still an unethical slob hunter 30 years later?
Also in my youth I trapped alot how many minutes do you figure it takes a snowshoe hare to scream out it's life in a snare? Do you figure a raccoon is comfortable while it is chewing off a leg? Wow I am an unethical slob hunter.
Last edited:
david doyle said:
I don't believe that a man who hunts requires anyones forgiveness but his own. But that requires that the man understands he ####ed up. If Rollingrocks exploits are an indication of a guy who is out learning from his mistakes I would suggest he simply pay attention to the VAST MAJORITY of hunters he has access too rather than continuing to shoot animals given his current attitude and undefined ethics. As for what you did in your youth, me too; I was stupid I don't do that anymore and I won't ever be proud of it.
- Location
- AB foothills
rollingrock said:
Exactly, now STFU.
Anything I can do to put an animal out of it's misery I do asap. It literally makes me sick to see game suffer. It also makes me sick to read stories of others allowing it to happen. The taxidermist can always sew up an extra hole.
We owe it to the animal to make clean kills.
We owe it to the animal to make clean kills.
- Location
- Lakes District BC
once again David comes around with his halfwited comments about trapping etc, NOW answer this almighty , if you were at the snare or the trap when the rabbit was in it or the racoon was in it would you not dispatch the animal imedietly or would you watch it suffer?
everything and its dog has been brought up to make observers and posters look like anti hunters etc here and in the original thread, NOW look at the facts , no one said squat about race/creed or color but someone ran complaining it was a issue??? no one said squat about the firearm used either at first , this was a issue on how the ending took place, thats it! now with that said 1 comment I will make and not to rolling rock himself but everyone involved, dont you think if you shot an animal at 15 yards with ANY firearm and the bullet was not a complete passthrough at that distance there would be some question of doubt in your mind of how adequite the caliber was you were using? finaly rather than have superdave calling us anti hunters when I can damwell garentee I have more kills than he ever will under my belt dont you think that maybe you could have dealt with this issue in a different way? other than waiting on a animal that was known to be downed?
everything and its dog has been brought up to make observers and posters look like anti hunters etc here and in the original thread, NOW look at the facts , no one said squat about race/creed or color but someone ran complaining it was a issue??? no one said squat about the firearm used either at first , this was a issue on how the ending took place, thats it! now with that said 1 comment I will make and not to rolling rock himself but everyone involved, dont you think if you shot an animal at 15 yards with ANY firearm and the bullet was not a complete passthrough at that distance there would be some question of doubt in your mind of how adequite the caliber was you were using? finaly rather than have superdave calling us anti hunters when I can damwell garentee I have more kills than he ever will under my belt dont you think that maybe you could have dealt with this issue in a different way? other than waiting on a animal that was known to be downed?
We all have a responsibility to kill our animals quickly and cleanly.
now there are situations that arise that may not allow for that to be the case.
If I shoot a black bear close to dark, and even though I think its a good hit, but it scampers off in the wilderness..
you can bet my ass I'm not chasing that bear until i'm sure its dead.
No sense getting killed over ethics, is there?
now there are situations that arise that may not allow for that to be the case.
If I shoot a black bear close to dark, and even though I think its a good hit, but it scampers off in the wilderness..
you can bet my ass I'm not chasing that bear until i'm sure its dead.
No sense getting killed over ethics, is there?
I pesonally think #1 is the most right answer because we should never pull the trigger when it is unsafe (I think of an acident a few years back when a guy shot his buddy while tracking a moose) but #6 is basically the same thing. I have to admit to a qualified use of #3 there are times when the animal is on thier last breath or two I won't shoot it again but I will get the knife out in the mean time and if still alive, then they get one in heart and neck. If it is anchored but not near death it gets as many as it takes as quick as possible.
Bow hunting is another story typically a double lung will die as fast as rifle shot (lots of those bang flops the animal is incapacitated while it bleeds out, so it give a false early indication of death), but following too soon with a bow can cause undue suffering. I remember back to my first bowkill deer I had a quartering towards shot but only got one lung and the liver. Had I left it it would have died withit 50 yards (the distance I kickied id up when I first tracked it) but excitment and inexperience got me and I followed up too soon within a 5 -10 max, the buck ended up going for about a mile and I ended up finishing it with a knife. A little bit more wait time and the deer would have died quicker. For me with a bow if you are not sure of a double lung (or if it did not fall in sight) 20 min or more but with a gun I follow up right away
Bow hunting is another story typically a double lung will die as fast as rifle shot (lots of those bang flops the animal is incapacitated while it bleeds out, so it give a false early indication of death), but following too soon with a bow can cause undue suffering. I remember back to my first bowkill deer I had a quartering towards shot but only got one lung and the liver. Had I left it it would have died withit 50 yards (the distance I kickied id up when I first tracked it) but excitment and inexperience got me and I followed up too soon within a 5 -10 max, the buck ended up going for about a mile and I ended up finishing it with a knife. A little bit more wait time and the deer would have died quicker. For me with a bow if you are not sure of a double lung (or if it did not fall in sight) 20 min or more but with a gun I follow up right away
"I've never done bow hunting and will probably never do it because I'm not confident that I'll put down my quarry with my arrow instantly."
Instantly is not going to happen all the time, even most of the time with a rifle.
"an arrow delivers more pain to an animal than a bullet fired by a firearm given that both hit the exact same spot, and it takes longer time for the animal to expire under that kind of pain. So where do the conscience and ethics go?"
That's not true. Arrows kill by at least 2 methods: Blunt impact as when shooting small game, which if you hit the same spot (a generous assumption) with an arrow, ought to be similar to a bullet; The destruction of critical organs, like a double lung puncture, brain shot (say at Agincourt), etc... In some cases the immediate cause of death may be blood loss, organ failure, etc...
In archery it can be as peaceful a death as you can imagine: Deer jumps as if stung by bee, does a 360 status check, goes back to browsing, becomes massively drowsy, curls up on the spot, and lolls over dead/unconscious, all inside of 10 seconds. Arrows are very efficient, they maximize the damage, while minimizing the tissue disrupted, at it's best it is very humane.
Moving on to the subject at hand... Having suffered a very painful injury during a crash, and having endured hours waiting for rescue, I still think that the main problem with pain is surviving it. The more pain you survive the greater the potential for mental trauma. If you suffer pain, but die, what's the problem. All the discussion, and hand wringing is by people who are alive, have either never suffered a serious trauma, or have suffered it and survived. Suffering and dying is a totally different issue. If you inflict a mortal wound on an animal, it's the kind of wound that kills pretty directly, it's not some nerve trauma that is uniquely distressing or painful, I am not sure you are doing the animal any favour by pressuring it and shooting it again. Maybe you feel good about it, but that is a whole other thing.
I'd love to heart the humanitarian or practical reason for finishing with a knife. O.K. Kosher maybe.
Instantly is not going to happen all the time, even most of the time with a rifle.
"an arrow delivers more pain to an animal than a bullet fired by a firearm given that both hit the exact same spot, and it takes longer time for the animal to expire under that kind of pain. So where do the conscience and ethics go?"
That's not true. Arrows kill by at least 2 methods: Blunt impact as when shooting small game, which if you hit the same spot (a generous assumption) with an arrow, ought to be similar to a bullet; The destruction of critical organs, like a double lung puncture, brain shot (say at Agincourt), etc... In some cases the immediate cause of death may be blood loss, organ failure, etc...
In archery it can be as peaceful a death as you can imagine: Deer jumps as if stung by bee, does a 360 status check, goes back to browsing, becomes massively drowsy, curls up on the spot, and lolls over dead/unconscious, all inside of 10 seconds. Arrows are very efficient, they maximize the damage, while minimizing the tissue disrupted, at it's best it is very humane.
Moving on to the subject at hand... Having suffered a very painful injury during a crash, and having endured hours waiting for rescue, I still think that the main problem with pain is surviving it. The more pain you survive the greater the potential for mental trauma. If you suffer pain, but die, what's the problem. All the discussion, and hand wringing is by people who are alive, have either never suffered a serious trauma, or have suffered it and survived. Suffering and dying is a totally different issue. If you inflict a mortal wound on an animal, it's the kind of wound that kills pretty directly, it's not some nerve trauma that is uniquely distressing or painful, I am not sure you are doing the animal any favour by pressuring it and shooting it again. Maybe you feel good about it, but that is a whole other thing.
I'd love to heart the humanitarian or practical reason for finishing with a knife. O.K. Kosher maybe.
Last edited:
Rollingrock - how you handled that situation was wrong. Own it - move on. We've all done something wrong in life - the mark of a man is how he deals with it.
David - how he handled that situation was wrong. But he has the excuse of being relatively new at it and being in a bit of a 'pressure' situation. YOU on the other hand are showing even more bad judgement by CONDONING it and saying he DIDN'T do anything wrong. You, sir, are not a hunter. A hunter might argue he made a mistake and we should allow for that. A hunter might argue that sometimes we all make bad calls, and sometimes in the thick of things it goes a little 'wrong'. A hunter MIGHT even take him aside and discus better ways to do it in the future.
But a hunter would never - and i do mean never - suggest that was the best way to deal with that situation, or even an acceptable way.
If an animal runs off - well then you might wait. You've lost the chance to end it quickly as you'd like, and that happens. Now your options are limited. Chances are your BEST way of ending it quickly is to give it time to lay down and die. And if it's a bear, there's your own safety to consider.
But the bottom line is this - We all have a responsibility to kill the animal in as an expedient manner as is practically possible given the circumstances. If all goes as planned, that's bang-flop-dead. If it doesn't go quite as planned, you take the next best option available.
Rollingrock - with regards to your use of the sks.. Yes, that gun will kill animals. It is adequate. It is, however, MARGINALLY adequate. Which means you have VERY little room for error. Your shots have to be near-perfect, and it means you will almost certanly have to pass on shots others using 'more forgiving' guns can take. A 300 winmag will shatter bone like it wasn't there with a premium bullet. An SKS with a 123 grain bullet is NOT a good 'bone breaker'. It's a heart-lung gun. And you're going to have to really be on the ball with your follow ups if it's necessary.
Rather than be offended by this thread - i suggest you should take away the following message ... If you wish to continue using the sks, AND you want to be thought of (and for it to be thought of) as a 'good hunter', then you need to focus more on working within the limits of the gun, and on making sure the basic tenants of ethical hunting are first and foremost in your mind: Namely, that a quick clean kill is what EVERY hunter aspires to - and we do everything we can to make that happen each and every time.
And that's true if you're using an sks, a 300 winmag, or a 416. It's like the lotto commercials... know your limit, play within it. Its' better to let the animal walk than make a bad shot - and if a good opportunity goes south on you, deal with it as fast as circumstances allow.
And you might consider getting just a little more experience under your belt before using a 'marginal' tool that relies so heavily on perfect judgement to use effectively and ethically. I'm sure the sks will do a good job - but it's barely enough, which means you have to make up for it with skill and judgement. Wait till you have just a little more of each, then try again. That 303 is a better choice for you, FOR NOW, imho.
David - how he handled that situation was wrong. But he has the excuse of being relatively new at it and being in a bit of a 'pressure' situation. YOU on the other hand are showing even more bad judgement by CONDONING it and saying he DIDN'T do anything wrong. You, sir, are not a hunter. A hunter might argue he made a mistake and we should allow for that. A hunter might argue that sometimes we all make bad calls, and sometimes in the thick of things it goes a little 'wrong'. A hunter MIGHT even take him aside and discus better ways to do it in the future.
But a hunter would never - and i do mean never - suggest that was the best way to deal with that situation, or even an acceptable way.
If an animal runs off - well then you might wait. You've lost the chance to end it quickly as you'd like, and that happens. Now your options are limited. Chances are your BEST way of ending it quickly is to give it time to lay down and die. And if it's a bear, there's your own safety to consider.
But the bottom line is this - We all have a responsibility to kill the animal in as an expedient manner as is practically possible given the circumstances. If all goes as planned, that's bang-flop-dead. If it doesn't go quite as planned, you take the next best option available.
Rollingrock - with regards to your use of the sks.. Yes, that gun will kill animals. It is adequate. It is, however, MARGINALLY adequate. Which means you have VERY little room for error. Your shots have to be near-perfect, and it means you will almost certanly have to pass on shots others using 'more forgiving' guns can take. A 300 winmag will shatter bone like it wasn't there with a premium bullet. An SKS with a 123 grain bullet is NOT a good 'bone breaker'. It's a heart-lung gun. And you're going to have to really be on the ball with your follow ups if it's necessary.
Rather than be offended by this thread - i suggest you should take away the following message ... If you wish to continue using the sks, AND you want to be thought of (and for it to be thought of) as a 'good hunter', then you need to focus more on working within the limits of the gun, and on making sure the basic tenants of ethical hunting are first and foremost in your mind: Namely, that a quick clean kill is what EVERY hunter aspires to - and we do everything we can to make that happen each and every time.
And that's true if you're using an sks, a 300 winmag, or a 416. It's like the lotto commercials... know your limit, play within it. Its' better to let the animal walk than make a bad shot - and if a good opportunity goes south on you, deal with it as fast as circumstances allow.
And you might consider getting just a little more experience under your belt before using a 'marginal' tool that relies so heavily on perfect judgement to use effectively and ethically. I'm sure the sks will do a good job - but it's barely enough, which means you have to make up for it with skill and judgement. Wait till you have just a little more of each, then try again. That 303 is a better choice for you, FOR NOW, imho.
rollingrock said:
If you're confident in your practices and actions you should'nt be too concerned what the INTERNET has to say but then again if you actually were confident, you would'nt need the kind of attention you seek here.
Crazy Dave gave you the best advice you are likely to get. Good luck.
I think there is no one answer to this question. Unless you are standing beside the hunter you don't know all the facts.
I remember shooting an elk behind the front shoulder and after my shot I reached down to pick up my spent casing. There was no way in hell I could have missed and if my scope was out that much there would be no use in filling the air with lead. The animal went a very short distance and expired.
Unless we are standing in the hunters shoes we can't point fingers. As long as the animal was put down in a humane manner, who cares.
Having said that remember guys, gender neutral, while we go out and hone our hunting skills and learn from our mistakes it is the animals which pay the ultimate price for those mistakes and that is with the pain and suffering they endure after we have returned home from our learning experience.
I remember shooting an elk behind the front shoulder and after my shot I reached down to pick up my spent casing. There was no way in hell I could have missed and if my scope was out that much there would be no use in filling the air with lead. The animal went a very short distance and expired.
Unless we are standing in the hunters shoes we can't point fingers. As long as the animal was put down in a humane manner, who cares.
Having said that remember guys, gender neutral, while we go out and hone our hunting skills and learn from our mistakes it is the animals which pay the ultimate price for those mistakes and that is with the pain and suffering they endure after we have returned home from our learning experience.
It is only the right thing to do is to end it as quick as possible. For me, I would wait the 10 minutes or so, if not having fall on the spot. If it was a keeper rack, (which I should have figured out that in the first place), and I walk up to it (as I did a 10 pointer and a caribou), I will not shoot it in the head. Instead I just shot it again in the chest, it ended the life pretty fast. If it was not a "keeper" then either between the lookers or in the side of grape, whichever angle presented itself first. Either way, just make it quick!
- Location
- Back in the Peace Country
#1 is the only answer that should have votes.
I don't screw around when it comes down to "killing" an animal. Last year I was hunting with a friend. We spotted a nice WT buck bedded at the base of a hill. We snuck to within 100 yards. My buddy made an excellent neck shot and all we could see was the 4 legs sticking up in the air. He was content to just wait a few minutes but I approached the deer and gave him another high in the neck. I don't like to watch a twitching/bawling animal die slowly. I am sure his initial shot did the job, it very effectively paralyzed the deer and he was bleeding profusely, but he wasn't "dead" 4 legged critters are tough and like others have stated, any animal worth hunting deserves a quick, humane death. I have never heard of anyone hunting with an SKS, let alone making a clean shot with one.
Actually the overwhelming majority think that #6 is the best answer.It applies in all hunting situations while #1 doesn't work quite as well for archery or buckshot hunters.If the game runs out of range after being hit with an arrow or buckshot,it may be perfectly safe to shoot again,but there would be not point since the arrow or buckshot couldn't possibly reach the game and help finish it.
