The Clean Shot : A Question Of Ethics

[Stonepointer]

Is it just me? Or am I holding another hunter too responsible for a type of shot made that did not sit well with me?

Many of us here on this site have watched hunting shows or Youtube videos, sometimes being critical of our fellow hunters engaged in canned or fenced hunts where an animal is feeding at a bait station, or commiting some kind of safety violation with their weapon and it gets passed right over by those in the show as not being any big deal. Some of these kinds of hunts introduce young people to hunting and firearm safety, so it should not always be considered a bad thing.

I am not writing this criticize that necessarily, but to point out those who are good enough accuracy-wise to put a clean shot through vitals, but revel in a shot made purposely to another part of the body that could be considered vital, namely the head shot.

Last night, I watched someone shoot a javelina with a compound bow from a blind on a Youtube video, where the hunter said he wanted to put the arrow through the javelina's eye. He justisfied this action by saying he did not want to spoil the meat. He took the shot from about 30 to 40 yards. As far as I could tell, the arrow pinned and lodged a few inches back from the eye between the ear and the eye. It took this little stink pig a long time to pass as he kicked and kicked for a long time while screaming as pigs sometimes do, receiving probably the worst migraine of his now not shortened enough life.

Watching this made my stomach sort of rise to my throat. A side shot did present itself to this bowhunter where he could have shot any of the major vitals, such as the lungs, heart, liver, or other breadbasket vitals, if that is not all of them, and this hunter was a good enough shot to place it in those areas.

I am by no means squeamish. Most of the animals, I have had to kill in my life were for various reasons, such as for food, depredation, or the not too often sad occasion to put an animal out of it's misery. This quite often involved the use of the head shot, which would have been the most merciful way of bringing an animal into it's next worldly use or passing. The first time I had to do this was with a cat when I was about 7 or 8 years old with a benjamin air rifle. It was quick and the animal did not suffer any further from a definite slow fatal injury sustained from a bakery truck. This was to happen several times again throughout my life in various fashions, but whenever I had to do this, I cannot really say I had one of those true 'Old Yeller' moments. Sure, I felt bad for the animals, and to get them out of their condition, the most humane thing to do was to dispatch and expire their life with a gun.

I am not going to criticize the head shot in itself, because of how effective it usually is when faced with emergency sitituations like an attacking animal, or that described in the paragraph above, about cats, rabbits, birds, or other animals.

Some animals I have less sympathy for than others, such as coyotes, rattlesnakes, and certain types of birds. I do not feel bad in the least, when someone has to take a shot at a snake. With coyotes, they are usually hit with a rifle so well made for the task, that there is little suffering involved for the hunted predator. I have even seen someone take a bowshot at a coyote where it took one in the head and the dog was dead in an instant; no problem with this as this coyote was too close to his home and he had safety to be concerned with.

I am not talking about the accidental shot that is too far back, or the animal spook jumps after release or trigger pull. These things happen, and that is why it important to be well versed and practiced in your weapon of choice. This is why it also, in my opinion, important to have another shot ready to put the animal down completely.

If you are a good enough shot to place a really good group on your hunted target, please choose the right weapon for the job (part of the right weapon for the job includes proper shot placement), and choose a spot on your hunted animal that will bring it the least amount of pain and suffering. It is always nice to see a shot that is well placed in the vitals, that the animal does not know what hit it, and just drops, or is in it last few moments of life running, as it should ,before it fades from loss of blood.

I love this sport, and although I had an early exposure to the matters of life and death including hunting; hunting as a formal sport and pastime, is sort of new to me.

I know to some here I may be preaching to the choir with many of the older more experienced hunters, but for the benefit of newer hunters just getting into this sport, I do not want to see it tainted by the image of what seems to be a form of sadism, by a few taking celebration in the actual act of the animal's suffering before it's passing.

I hope you all here do not think me too critical on this matter.

 

[BigSurArcher]

I agree with you. If you are that concerned about wasting meat, get a rifle tag and use that to shoot it in the head with. Or practice up with a smaller broadhead and place the arrow 4-5" behind the shoulder. There is no excuse for taking a head shot with a bow on an animal standing broadside, and I really can't think of a good excuse for a head shot if it wasn't standing broadside. If someone were going to shoot me for my meat, I would rather them waste a little bit of my rib meat then take a head shot at me with a bow.

Good thing he didn't actually hit it in the eye. That pig would have likely traveled a LONG way.

 

[dtj6ppc]

I agree with you. If you are that concerned about wasting meat, get a rifle tag and use that to shoot it in the head with. Or practice up with a smaller broadhead and place the arrow 4-5" behind the shoulder. There is no excuse for taking a head shot with a bow on an animal standing broadside, and I really can't think of a good excuse for a head shot if it wasn't standing broadside. If someone were going to shoot me for my meat, I would rather them waste a little bit of my rib meat then take a head shot at me with a bow.

Good thing he didn't actually hit it in the eye. That pig would have likely traveled a LONG way.

Tim Wells, Relentless Pursuit, head shot on 9 foot grizzly at 50 yards, minute 13 of video;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICp4S7VqR5k

 

[Stonepointer]

There is nothing wrong with either of those shots presented in the video. That is just some darn good bowshooting and the equipment for it's time was probably well suited for the hunting task chosen. The second shot was a quite a bit riskier.

The first on the black bear was a classic broadside shot and is the way it should be ideally in most every hunt with a bow. What is even more ideal in my mind is a double lung pass through. I know that most of the time this is not always the case, but I know this probably makes a hunter feel much better about the shot he taken.

The second shot on the grizzly although damn fine shooting, was done at considerable risk to both the bowhunter and to a smaller extent his hunting partners. Broadside was available to the hunter, but I know nothing of grizzly hunting or how tough the animals broadside might be to take a bow shot through when it comes to an animal this massive. If I ever go after something like this, I would consider 30'06 rifle or more.

It is always amazing to see an animal drop where it stands, after a shot is taken, and this grizzly being shot was no exception, even if it was only shot with a bow. If that arrow had grazed or missed the outcome of the video could have been very different. It is hard to think of what may have gone through the mind of this hunter when he was that close to such a large dangerous animal and so his shot was taken, it went well and he lived to tell about it with an impressive video to boot.

The video of this javelina was different. I have watched it over again, and it does not bother me as much as the first time I saw it, but still, this hunter had time and complete concealment to think about what kind of shot he was going to take.

A straight-on head shot from a charging animal does not bother me all that much, nor does a shot that is taken on a lead while the animal is running broadside if you are good at motion shots. Sometimes the release on this type of leading broadside running shot may be too early and the head shot might result into a death situation like the one described in my first post in this thread. This is not intentional though. That is why a second shot should possibly follow if it can be well placed.

This was a shot made on a javelina that was consuming from a feed pile, and it eventually turned enough to present a broadside shot while maybe quartering forward just a tiny bit. The bowhunter had time to think about the kind of shot he was going to make and was a good enough shot to place it where he wanted it. That is why it bothered me.

We owe it to the prey we hunt and kill with the quickest possible methods available to our hunting sport. This does not always mean the best technology, but the best techniques and self-training for the weapons we choose for hunting whether it be trophy, food, or hides etc.

Last year, someone presented a video here of a man who went on a guided farm hunt, and he did not shoot that well at a pig near in a deep depression below him. Many here properly criticized it, because he just kept shooting. Either his gun was either not properly sighted, or he was just a terrible shot. He kept shooting, and shooting at this wounded pig and it presented a horrible image for hunters overall. This person should have had more range time, sighted his rifle properly and checked his zero before taking the shots.

I try to make sure I have enough practice with my chosen weapon for hunting before I ever decide to draw, bead, or scope an animal. Hopefully, I will get the ideal shot and proper results that I look for as a result of this practice.

 

[Common Sense]

Couple of years ago I pulled into the driveway at the cabin to see a ground squirrel sitting on a rock about 30 or 40 yards away from the truck. I rolled the window down and stuck my single shot .22 out and shot it. Thirty years ago I would have shot it in the head; but I don't shoot too often anymore and my eyes aren't as sharp and my hands aren't as steady; so I just aimed for main body mass. The squirrel fell off the rock and was flopping around, so I took pity on it and wasted another .22 shell. Now the squirrel didn't move anymore. Several hours later as we were leaving, my grandson pointed out that way and said "What is that moving?" Sure enough, the squirrel was still alive and trying to move. My boot crushed its skull and it was finally put out of its misery.

I felt sorry for the squirrel; but I am not going to stop shooting every ground squirrel I see on my property. I will try to make a humane kill, but if I don't --- I won't lose any sleep over it. Many year ago I decided I wouldn't bow hunt anymore, because I felt I would only wound a deer if I ever did actually hit one with an arrow. But I have no problem with others using a bow if that is what they want to do.

I agree with Stonepointer about shooting an animal in the head with a bow. But if someone else doesn't agree with me, that's okay. As long as it is legal, it is their business. Tolerance is sometimes a good thing.

 

[Orygun]

A head shot with an arrow. That is never an ethical shot. There's a difference between self defense and what your describing. Any arrow sent an an animal should be sent to an area where a massive amount of catastrophic damage is most likely to happen while having the largest area available to handle small changes in arrow flight and broadhead performance. The skull ain't it. And if your talking ethics, taking a head shot like that and putting it on video to share is not ethical as it promotes unwise shooting in others. One might be able to shoot an aspirin at 50 yds while blindfolded in a hurricane, but most others can't.

 

[Stonepointer]

A head shot with an arrow. That is never an ethical shot. There's a difference between self defense and what your describing. Any arrow sent an an animal should be sent to an area where a massive amount of catastrophic damage is most likely to happen while having the largest area available to handle small changes in arrow flight and broadhead performance. The skull ain't it. And if your talking ethics, taking a head shot like that and putting it on video to share is not ethical as it promotes unwise shooting in others. One might be able to shoot an aspirin at 50 yds while blindfolded in a hurricane, but most others can't.

Your right.

I stand corrected in my second post about nothing being wrong with either the shots presented in the video. The second shot in the bear video did not disturb me as much, because the grizzly dropped where it stood.

The coyote shot described in the first post was also one where the animal dropped where it stood. This was near a house where people live and could present a danger to those who live there.

Most head shots I have taken were done with a gun and that is the way I was taught to dispatch an animal that is suffering.

 

[Stonepointer]

A head shot with an arrow. That is never an ethical shot. There's a difference between self defense and what your describing. Any arrow sent an an animal should be sent to an area where a massive amount of catastrophic damage is most likely to happen while having the largest area available to handle small changes in arrow flight and broadhead performance. The skull ain't it. And if your talking ethics, taking a head shot like that and putting it on video to share is not ethical as it promotes unwise shooting in others. One might be able to shoot an aspirin at 50 yds while blindfolded in a hurricane, but most others can't.

Your right.

I stand corrected in my second post about nothing being wrong with either the shots presented in the video. The second shot in the bear video did not disturb me as much, because the grizzly dropped where it stood.

The coyote shot described in the first post was also one where the animal dropped where it stood. This was near a house where people live and could present a danger to those who live there.

Most head shots I have taken were done with a gun and that is the way I was taught to dispatch an animal that is suffering.

 

[Deleted member 33033]

While opinions vary regarding ethics, I prefer to simply honor my own code and allow other hunters to adhere to theirs. If the act is within legal limits then who am I to tell someone else what is right or wrong. Poachers on the other hand deserve harsh judgment. Had the guy actually put his arrow thru the piggy's ear and it dropped dead, there would be no contoversy. Hunters as a whole are criticized enough without us jumping all over each other's shots IMHO. Modern society has become way too self righteous, critical and well...naggy for me. A little tolerance is a valuable thing. We gotta keep our priorities in line. Remember, to the opposition, there is no such thing as a clean kill. We gotta hang together guys.

 

[Fugaloo]

Funny, I was just watching a few minutes of Ted nugent tonight when I saw him arrow a black bear that was quartered toward him. Right afterward crazy uncle Ted proclaimed he just took the perfect shot. In the background you could hear the bear groaning, and he says "you hear that, that's a death groan!" Thing is, that was the end of the segment. He never shows the recovered bear and the audience is shown a picture of a bear he shot the previous year with the guide he was using that day. I don't personally think the bear died. The shot seemed pretty low and in the wrong spot. The whole time the bear was over the bait I was thinking "I'll bet he takes the shot before the bear presents himself" and sure enough it only took Ted about ten seconds before his patience ran out and he took that shot.

Now, as far as ethics go, I think every hunter has the right to morally judge another. Doesn't mean anything really, except to the one judging. We can't do anything but talk about it. There's no hunter to hunter citation that could be given out. If you were hunting with somebody you didn't really know and they took a flagrantly bad shot on something would you still keep your mouth shut? What if it was somebody you know well? This notion that your decisions in the field are subject to nobody's scrutiny aren't realistic. Everyday we judge others' decisions. Like the guy who takes an unsafe lane change in front of you commonly finds out how you feel about it. I think enough honks and one finger salutes might get through to some people who drive like total jerks.

If I'm with my son or nephew I feel as their teacher I am responsible for their hunting education and it is my duty to address any issues they may have with shooting within their capabilities and giving the respect needed to the animal they harvest. As a friend, or a hunting partner I am comfortable giving my opinion to anybody I've hunted with. As a player in a sport that is under attack from all directions, I feel policing our own ranks is a vital component to keeping our hunting heritage viable. If we do not distinguish ourselves from poachers, and dingbats like Ted Nugent we truly run the risk of losing our rights. I know there are a lot of unapologetic people on here that don't believe in the concept of sacrificing pride for the greater good of hunters, but when it comes time to allocate or legislate over public ground, which happens all the time, the public's feelings toward us hold their weight with those who have the final say.

To make my point, let's take this logic out further than a few TV shows. Let's say for example that at Lake Sonoma, which has a huge wild pig population, and one that does not allow firearms hunting anymore for whatever reason that may be; That there were weekly complaints about pigs running around with arrows sticking out of them. That hikers, and campers, and boat users, and anybody else using the place were seeing the effects of bad marksmanship, bad sportsmanship, bad ethics, or whatever you want to call it on a weekly basis and were reporting it to officials. The powers that be would most definitely reconsider allowing hunting, and the local papers would get a hold of it and run a story that turned public opinion against hunting (more than it already is). this in turn would put even more pressure on the authorities up there to scale back the hunting. Meanwhile, it is not illegal to take a shot at a pig you know isn't going into the vitals. It is not illegal but it hurts all of us, and the animal in question. I'm not out to injure an animal, and nobody else should be either.

About a year ago there was a story of a 900lbs black bear in the Tahoe area who had learned about refrigerators in peoples garages. One guy shot him point blank in the face with a 44mag and it grazed off of him. That's a thick skull, and if presented wrong can obviously deflect heavy loads. The guy in the video above could have been an inch or two to the center of the bear and had the same problem. If that arrow had found the center line of the bear's face it easily could have ridden up and over it's head making for a very dangerous situation. In my opinion, which again is just that...an opinion, it is wrong to take a head shot like that. These guys were successful. But Evil Kn-evil was successful too.....most of the time.

 

[Stonepointer]

I know that some people might brag that they never take a bad shot or miss at where they are aiming, and for some this might be a legitimate brag, but the unintentional badly placed shot can happen to anyone. That is not really what I had in mind to examine.

This hunter that shot the javelina to his credit was somewhat of a good bowshot because he could place his arrow very near to where he said he was going to place it.

However, he put up a video that could very easily be used as fodder by the antis to sway and justify public opinion against hunters.

There is also the fact that there is nothing any hunter does in the minds of the anti-hunters that will be acceptable to them at all.

Why provide the anti-hunters any fuel to influence the public's mind such as this javelina video?

 

[Fugaloo]

This hunter that shot the javelina to his credit was somewhat of a good bowshot because he could place his arrow very near to where he said he was going to place it.

Right, this time. The time he published it. But how many times can you consistently put an arrow in a two inch hole that doesn't stop moving. How many times can you miss before it is completely unethical. Like I said, Evil Kn-Evil had a lot of successes. He wasn't famous for crashing his bike. He was famous for jumping over things. But he DID crash. No way this guy can put that arrow in that little hole 100% of the time. People who are great shots have misses, they miss an 8 inch vital shot. It happens to the best of em.

 

[myfriendis410]

In my opinion, if someone puts a controversial action out on the internet for others to view, be prepared to take the heat for it. If the javelina hunter in question was concerned about an ethical shot he probably wouldn't have posted it to begin with. You are basically wasting your breath (or in this case, electrons).

I agree with you though.

 

[Deleted member 33033]

Anyway you slice it, the "ethics of a clean shot" is merely each individual's opinion. We are powerless to enforce change and we are not going to influence anyone by complaining about their video...I know, I've tried. It is futile. All we can do is follow our own standards and try to pass them on to those we teach. Beyond that, we are ineffectual. Hunter's as a whole tend to be more inclined to follow their own drumbeat and the development of ethics seems to go hand in hand with experience, aging and wisdom.

 

[Orygun]

I can recall a buck running around with an arrow in its head at the cabins between the Twin Lakes in Bridgeport one archery season. Odds are it was a bad miss or the shooter took one last look at the rack before releasing. End result was a bunch of pissed-off non-hunters having to watch an arrow buck going through their yard.

 

[BigSurArcher]

However, he put up a video that could very easily be used as fodder by the antis to sway and justify public opinion against hunters.

There is also the fact that there is nothing any hunter does in the minds of the anti-hunters that will be acceptable to them at all.

Why provide the anti-hunters any fuel to influence the public's mind such as this javelina video?

In my opinion, if someone puts a controversial action out on the internet for others to view, be prepared to take the heat for it. If the javelina hunter in question was concerned about an ethical shot he probably wouldn't have posted it to begin with. You are basically wasting your breath (or in this case, electrons).

I agree with you though.

I very much agree with both of these. I consider myself a pretty good bow shot, and I missed a javelina at 18 yards. After replaying the video in slo-mo, he jumped the string and ducked 6-8" causing the miss. Anything can happen, so why limit yourself with an even smaller margin for error? Some may not see it as unethical because yes, with the right head shot placement it will cause a fast dispatch. But in my opinion there is little denying that it is an irresponsible choice... and even more irresponsible to share it with the world. I think it's also irresponsible for those who see it as being wrong not to say anything and turn the other cheek. The worst that can happen is they simply don't listen, and in that case, at least you tried.

 

[myfriendis410]

It does make it worse to use a bow for a head shot. There is just way too much bone there for a high percentage kill shot. A rifle shot to the head can work, but it has caused problems for me in the past. I bounced an Accubond off a hogs head, broadside. Lost him. I shot a hog low (aiming for the eye) and hit the upper jaw. It took four more running shots to put him down (thank God). I put a coup de grace in a cow elk right between the eyes at 375 yards, but that was just a mercy stroke. So, I've done it, but not with a bow and I certainly wouldn't recommend or condone it.