Ethics

[shoot-n-lead]

Ethics: rules of behavior based on ideas about what is morally good and bad

Have we lost sight of ethics as it pertains to humane (high percentage quick kill) shots that we take on game animals?

Seems like this may be taking the same road as ethics in all other aspects of our lives.

I, for one, have passed on MANY shots because there was not the opportunity to put the shot in the VITALS of a deer. I have never considered the gut, to be the vital area of a deer. Also, I have never regretted letting an animal walk, due to this practice.

[gideons301]

I also worry about ethical questions, like, Am I sure of a backstop. I have passed on many shots that were skylined or in line with a road and no dirt bank to stop a projectile. I have seen numerous other hunters take shots that I would have passed on or at least waited to see if the animal moved to a better spot.

[Prodigal Son]

I see some have started their own thread about my shot! The PC police have got on this forum too! I have passed many shots if I thought I would wound a deer! Taking a shot you might not take is not unethical, how many ethnical shot do some take and their marksmanship sucks so bad that's unethical! I fortunately can came make a shot most won't take! I shot my deer right where I wanted and died within 10 yards! How many deer with a good heart shot run a hundred yards? Hunter as a group are small having people knit picking someone's shot devide us up, small groups are easy to conquer! Go be PC somewhere else! I know this post was about me Shootin-Lead! If you had any ethics you would have called me by name! Not only are you a self righteous, but spineless as well! I left 24hourcampfire of people like you! Get a life, stop judging people take a look at yourself, oh you already did your Jesus Christ!

[Ballistics in Scotland]

Ethics, like honour and principle, is a word most often used by those in whom it is deficient. But as regards wounding an animal or risking shooting someone, it is justified.

I encountered a different sort a few years back. We have a year-round season for our roe deer, the does kicking when the six-month season for bucks expires. This was in the rut, in a long-abandoned and overgrown railway cutting, boggy on the former roadbed, in the last minutes of daylight. A deer ran from me, hidden by undergrowth, but I didn't hear it touch the wire fence at the top of the cutting. So I stood off-balance for several minutes in a puddle. Then it came down the slope, still hidden, until it appeared and stood broadside-on eight yards away, framed by low trees in that beautiful red light.

The trouble was, its head was obscured by a branch, and I couldn't see whether it had the antlers that made it lawful. In fact I'd been told no does with fawns had been seen, if I had been hunting on my friend's land he'd have regarded it as a harmless technicality. But the land belonged to a friend of a friend he had only just taken me to visit, and I didn't know how the latter might have felt.

I stood there for what must have been a full minute. I had no dog, and the light to find him by was fast disappearing. Then I snapped my fingers very gently, which will sometimes make them move slowly. So it did, but his antlers stayed obscured, as neatly as ever a stage magician did his hands. Only once under cover he gave a bark I was pretty sure was male. But I was able to say "Administratively speaking, you lost." I still count it the best stalk I ever had.

[44man]

Very important. Super good post. No animal should suffer or a shot towards a man because of greed.
Seen it with stocked pheasants that were sluiced on the ground and shots taken towards other hunters. My friend was sprayed with shot.

[runfiverun]

with a heavy cast boolit a going away shot through the liver and into the lungs is a humane ethical shot.
heck with a good jacketed bullet a shot driven forward through the ribs and into the chest cavity is a clean killing shot and has a higher percentage of stopping an animal than a low chest cavity shot from the side.

what about shooting straight down on something or straight on?
I have heard not to take either of those shots because of the high likeliness of hitting bone.

if you don't want to shoot something or ain't sure it's a legal animal then don't shoot it.
if you don't know your equipment well enough to know the projectile will make it to a vital area of an animal then don't shoot it.

[shoot-n-lead]

with a heavy cast boolit a going away shot through the liver and into the lungs is a humane ethical shot.
heck with a good jacketed bullet a shot driven forward through the ribs and into the chest cavity is a clean killing shot and has a higher percentage of stopping an animal than a low chest cavity shot from the side.

what about shooting straight down on something or straight on?
I have heard not to take either of those shots because of the high likeliness of hitting bone.

if you don't want to shoot something or ain't sure it's a legal animal then don't shoot it.
if you don't know your equipment well enough to know the projectile will make it to a vital area of an animal then don't shoot it.

We will just have to disagree on this...there are plenty of folks that have cast more bullets than me...but few on this forum have witnessed more dead deer than I have. I have lived in this deer rich south all of my life with high bag limits for decades (current bag limit is 12 per season) and have seen a TON of deer shot and killed by a lot of very good outdoorsmen...these gut shots are not nearly always quick and humane kills. I guess ethical shots have become like everything else...it is whatever the shooter wants to do.

Y'all can defend this practice all you want...but these shots will NEVER be as predictable as shots directly in vital's area...and that is irrefutable. I have seen the evidence...over a long period of time and I will unapologetically take the position that repeatedly taking these shots is a mark of a poor sportsman.

[Ballistics in Scotland]

Very important. Super good post. No animal should suffer or a shot towards a man because of greed.
Seen it with stocked pheasants that were sluiced on the ground and shots taken towards other hunters. My friend was sprayed with shot.

In the UK, in driven shoots, the woodcock has the reputation of being the killer. It usually comes low and quiet near the end of the drive, and there are so few that everybody wants to be the one who shot the woodcock. In the bizarre ethics of such circles (though ethics with a very low accident rate), peppering a beater was much worse than peppering a fellow aristocrat. I know of an ancient gamekeeper who was asked to what he attributed his long life, and he said "To the fact that man and boy, I threw myself to the ground every time the cry of "Woodcock!" went up."

[FergusonTO35]

I'm very happy that I've only lost one deer, it was a big doe about 10 years ago. I put a .30 WCF in her boiler room at 50 yards broadside with my Winchester 94. I did find alot of blood and searched until it was too dark to see, then came back the next day and looked some more. In my opinion it was a solid hit but she managed to get off the property before expiring.

[Der Gebirgsjager]

That's funny BIS! Reminds me of the Dick Cheney incident!

In my experience a gut shot is never a good shot. It's not instantly fatal, and many wounded animals get away to die a slow death. Not at all ethical.

When I had a shop, deer hunters used to come in with their stories. Some claimed to have routinely shot deer at 500+ yards. Some of them were easily identified as liars because the crosshairs in their scopes were thick, so that at 500 yds. the animal would be completely covered by the crosshairs both vertically and horizontally. Hard to call shot placement under those circumstances, and therefore ethically a bad choice to shoot.

[ChristopherO]

Let's see, a heavy cast boolet driven through the pounch into the liver and lung on a quartering away shot is not ethical. Turn this around; driving a heavy cast boolit through the lungs, into the liver and through the pounch is ethical on a hard quartering to shot is ethical. On both shots deer have dropped quickly. On both types of shots deer have run away unrecovered.
It appears the only deer we are allowed to ethically shoot are those that are perfectly framed broadside offering up their lungs and heart as an offering to the gods of the field. Oh, wait, there have been deer shot in this manner by perfectly reasonable bullets & boolits that have not been recovered, as well.
We may as well just quit hunting all together, hold hands and sing Greenpeace songs as we look down our noses at those who continue in this reprobate activity.

[tdoyka]

my own hunting ethics include not taking a shot at a running deer, not taking a shot if the deer is facing me or its ******* is facing me. i always try to break a shoulder, be it an entry or an exit wound. i don't do a "head shot". i don't do a neck shot. i don't even try to take out a deer's femoral artery. i take the best shot i can.

these are not for everybody(like the do/don't neck shot). but i do , so naaaaaaa!!!![smilie=l:

[Der Gebirgsjager]

When a deer is running, at a reasonable range, take the shot. But a broadside gut shot is not ethical. Head, neck, frontal shots don't bother me at all.
Shoot one directly from the rear and I'm sure after you clean all the intestinal contents out of the body cavity it will be your last time. If your primary goal is just to shoot an animal then you place that desire above recovery. An ethical hunter takes only those shots with a high chance of recovery because the goal of meat or the trophy is the motivation. If it's just target practice that can be accomplished at the rifle range.

[Friends call me Pac]

1 shot. Vitals hit. Dead deer. No tracking. I don't see the problem.

[Der Gebirgsjager]

And that, Pac, is the ethical, ideal outcome. A clean, instantaneous kill, and recovery of the animal.

[Smoke4320]

Nothing in this world is 100% well except for your death, taxes and politicians/salesmen lie

[jhalcott]

Range to animalhasa lot to do with my shooting. I have shot moving deer at various angles. Caliber and bullet weight also get figured in. The ethics that bug me most are those scumbags that will take MY deer as if they shot it.

[aspangler]

Aldo Leopold also known as the father of conservation said "Ethic is doing the right thing when the wrong thing is legal even when no one else is around."
I for one won't take dangerous (skylined, no backstop, etc.) or the doe with fawn or fawns. That is my choice. You may or may not agree and that is your choice. We still live in a free country. (Thank God) JMHO

[Premod70]

A deer shot in the vitals is good for at least a hundred yards before it's blood pressure flatlines. An old hunter put me straight years ago, shoot them in the shoulder, they can't run and usually die from the bone fragments severing arteries. Those that don't a second shot to the heart finishes them off.

[white eagle]

my ethics or in this case choice of shot on game
is my choice that I personally have to live with
the results of that choice
its not for me to say that another person's choice
to shoot or not is wrong or rite
they in turn have to live with their choice

[runfiverun]

if y'all want that perfect ethical broadside standing still with 10 trees behind it shot, your probably best served not hunting public land out west.
even the does don't stand around looking at you unless they are in someone's backyard eating their lawn and you turn a light on them.
just the act of raising your rifle or your bow will get them moving.

[dk17hmr]

The thing about ethics is everyone has a different version they hold themselves to.

We eat pretty good at my house because of shots that some would consider unethical.

[OnHoPr]

Christophero, Smoke4320, and R5R have made the very good points of this thread.

The spectrum is so wide of hunter, beast, and weaponry along with personal idiosyncrasies in hunting tactics that ethics are very hard to determine across the board. Look at the different states. WI doesn't allow buckshot or 410s, where MI does. You go tellin dog runners in the south that they can't use buckshot and gov officials and politicians will loose their jobs. Some states have restrictions on caliber with mzzldrs. Some states have restrictions on shotgun use as well as centerfire rifle and pistola use. So, even the state lobbyist, DNRs, and politicians can't come to a agreement on what weaponry to shoot big game with. But, I know a lot of deer have been put in the freezer with 22s. What does that mean if you are just going to sit on your feed pile or food plot in your box blind and shoot a perfectly broadside standing deer at less than 50 yds in the head with a 22 that can shoot a squirrels head at that range seems ethical, does it not. I suppose so if that is your hunting style.

With r5rs comment about knowing your equipment needs a little leeway as to the experience in progress of knowing your equipment. But, that it should be deliberated on with concern in the development and progress of experience.

Besides all the hoopla of keyboard warriors.

I have lost a few deer in my life time. The first was my first ever deer I shot at age 19 with a scoped 357 mag BH with 15.5 gr of 2400 underneath a Sierra 150 HC at less than 30 ft standing broadside with a two hand hold between both knees cross hairs in the VVVVVV. The deer dropped and got up and took off like a bat out of he[[. No blood just a bit of hair and torn up leaves and turf for a hundred yds. It was my first so the grid search was quite extensive for 3/4 mile section in which she took off in with very sparse ground brush.

I shot a buck at 14 yds with a Darton 70# compound and a big ole hand sharpened Darton 3 blade where I watched the chartreuse feathers and fluorescent orange nock disappear right into the VVVVVV almost broadside with a touch angling away. I searched, even with a coworker, for two days for over a half mile with no recovery after I heard it hit the ground about 60 yds away where there was a decent size puddle of blood on the ground.

The last deer I shot was with a rifle that still bewilders me with an idiosyncrasy that shoots left every once in a while from the bench or the field even though it is fairly accurate most of the time. The loaded down 300 WM hit the buck back in the guts on a shy of 50 yd shot angling on a 45 degree angle. The deer took off in a fast walk like I missed. I grabbed another shell out of my pocket and reloaded and put the crosshairs on it, but the angle it was on if I had to shoot for the boiler room I would have had to go through the center of the ham and said nope, so the crosshairs went to the opposite lower leg femur artery and shot and the deer kept with its fast walk pace at about 65 yds. I said to myself what the heck I missed twice, I must of bumped my scope. Well I seen the deer stumble a bit about another 50 yds further. So, I had smoke and cup of tea then I took a walk to the shots and seen nothing of either hit. I went to where I seen the deer stumble and walked a few more yards and there it was dead laying on its belly vertical. Neither shot was a pass through, even the 6 or 8" of lower inside ham on the femur artery shot. The gut shot wasn't a pass through either. So, what was the 3000 ft lbs plus energy per shot the killer in this case just from shock or massive energy dump. There was no heart or liver damage to speak of, but the lungs or chest cavity looked unconventionally weird, real frothy inside. There was no blood from the femur artery shot either. No blood from shots to drop. So, what was it, just dead deer walking fast?

So, two perfect broadside VVVV boiler room shots that deer went over a 1/2 mile one with 357 and one with a hand sharpened big three blade, then a gut shot that barely made 75 yds. What are the bewildering ethics answers to those scenarios?

[shoot-n-lead]

The thing about ethics is everyone has a different version they hold themselves to.

We eat pretty good at my house because of shots that some would consider unethical.

Buzzard probably do, too.

[MT Gianni]

Elmer Keith wrote about the usefulness of a hip shot on an elk in timber. Not a paunch shot to penetrate the vitals but putting one in the hip/spine to put a bull down on the ground within 25-35 yards. You can then quickly approach and put one in the earhole. Few things put an animal on the ground incapacitated as fast, and you are there inside of the time they would bleed out from a lung shot. Frequently that would be the only time you would see such elk and then only a piece might be in the clear, It is the archers equivalent of a ham shot to the femoral artery that causes a rapid blood loss. I have made that shot twice and know it works but I only looked at it as a 5th or 6th option.

[dk17hmr]

Buzzard probably do, too.

Im sure they do, gut piles and what's left on the carcasses after I take my meat probably tastes pretty good to them.

[Sweetpea]

This thread is as useful as debating how far is an ethical shot.

The shot being questioned here, seems to me to be just fine, as he had the energy to push through.

But my buck this year was shot at a mere 333 laser measured yards, and I know that some here will be sure to call me unethical, or just a shooter.

Hunting is a bit different here in the west.

[runfiverun]

got me by 13 yards from last years buck there Brandon. :lol:

[Sweetpea]

Lamar, you know as well as I do, we don't go looking to shoot long range.

BUT

Out here, you'd better be ready to, or be willing to eat your tag.

Seeing as my last buck tag was in 2013, I wish we had limits like back east, but I'm glad we have public land to use!

[Texas by God]

Nothing in this world is 100% well except for your death, taxes and politicians/salesmen lie
AND opinions are like anuses- everybody's got one!

[dk17hmr]

This thread is as useful as debating how far is an ethical shot.
........
I know that some here will be sure to call me unethical, or just a shooter.

Hunting is a bit different here in the west.

I killed five big game animals this fall, three antelope, a deer, and a bull elk. All five of those animals could be construed as unethical, based on distance, shot angle, shot placement, caliber of the rifle, bullet weight, ect.

Out of those five only one "required" a follow up shot and it was a doe antelope I shot at 257 yards with a 62gr Barnes ttsx at 3575fps from my 22-250. The first shot was by all means a perfect broadside shot that blew up her heart, the second shot was through the shoulders to anchor her. She was standing in exactly the same spot for both shots she just didn't know she was suppose to fall over from the first hit.

Ethics conversation are pretty much useless online, they are different where you live and how you hunt. Being safe and responsible are about the only thing worth talking about.

[rodwha]

While I'd never want to shoot through the guts because of the mess I'm puzzled at how this makes it unethical when there's no chance the guts will keep the bullet from continuing on to the vitals.

[Hamish]

Buzzard probably do, too.

Oh, I see what you did there. By slyly making a reference to buzzards you're suggesting that he maims and loses more game than he kills without actually saying so.

How clever.

By starting all this bovine manure you've impugned and degraded both men's hunting experience and slimed Prodigals sharing his efforts and good fortune with this board.

There are ways to discuss these things but the OP ain't it.

[runfiverun]

I hate shooting anything over 100yds in the field but when there ain't nothing between you and the deer except some ankle high grass and a 100' draw you better be able to make the shot.
or go hunt elsewhere.
unfortunately elsewhere is not being able to see more than 40yds and you better be able to thread a bullet through some small openings.
I guess that's why I generally take 2 rifles.

[tdoyka]

This thread is as useful as debating how far is an ethical shot.

The shot being questioned here, seems to me to be just fine, as he had the energy to push through.

But my buck this year was shot at a mere 333 laser measured yards, and I know that some here will be sure to call me unethical, or just a shooter.

Hunting is a bit different here in the west.


before laser range finders came in, i shot a doe about 365+/- yards. there's a couple that have been 300+, several from 100-300 yards, more than several at 50-100 yards and a whole lot at under 50 yards. (several from me means 3-4 deer)

now a days, its around 150 yards for cast boolits and 300 yards for condom bullets. last year during rifle season, i had to pass on a decent 6pt because it was over 150 yards(187 yards to be exact). i was using my 444 marlin in tc encore with a 23" MGM barrel with 275gr ranch dogs, it was roughly 2000fps. could i have shot it? yes, but it was over 150 yards, which i stated. would i have shot it with my 6.5 creedmoor with 120gr nosler bt? yes i would.

i guess its just an ethical thing. i know i can go to the 200 yard mark with cast boolits(tried it, done it, next!) but i choose 150 yards. why? i don't know, its what i chose. for you, it could be 200 yards or 300 yards or 400 yards..... or 50 yards(i chose 50 yd because i use a ruger sbh in 44 mag).

its your choice what is ethical and what isn't. dk17hmr says he like to use his 22-250 for deer. more power to him. although PA lets you use any .22 centerfire on deer, i don't. i think it should be 6.5mm/.264" and up. i've shot them before using a 243, some dropped right there, some took off running(i've found those deer, very little blood). i know that there are guys/girls that think that 22/243 is the best thing since sliced bread. they're little 8 yo girl using a 223 put down a deer like lightening. good for them(seriously, good for them). i just feel that a 6.5/.264" on up is a much better way to go. both of my sons grew up on a 7-08, now the oldest uses a 7x57 while the youngest still uses a 7-08. i like to use a 6.5 cm, 30-40 krag, 444 marlin and a 44 mag. every once in a while i'll take my ruger #1 in 270 out with me.

also where do you start while using cast boolits on big game? 6.5 or 270 or 7mm or 308 or....
mine is the .308" boolits


its your choice to use whatever ethics is right for you.

[theleo]

Hmmm... ethics. It's simple for me, know you're equipment, know your capabilities, know your limitations and only take shots that you know you'll recover an animal 90%+ of the time. If someone takes shots I would pass on but consistently recovers game, who am I to question that persons ethics?

[Blackwater]

Shoot'n, you make a fine post, and pose a worthy question. Unfortunately, most will answer it in a willful way. However, as some have noted, hunting methods vary, usually by necessity, and different locales CAN and DO call for very different methods. Here in the south, it's VERY difficult to stalk, with all the rice crispy type leaves on the ground. I did, for 3 years, do a good bit of stalking in pursuit of one outsized deer that I hunted to the exclusion of all others. I never got that deer, but saw patches of his hide through small openings in the brush twice. Both were at less than 25 yds. as he slipped out the "back way." I wouldn't trade those experiences for anything. I let many, many deer walk, including some very nice racks, but there are 3 types of deer hunting - Meat, bucks and trophy bucks - and none of the 3 types of hunting is the same. Now, being not as able as I once was, and having missed my opportunity for "fame and fortune" in not getting that one outsized deer, I'm just a meat hunter. And baiting with corn or what have you is now legal here too, and we have a 12 deer limit! So that's quite a different type of "hunting" than I grew up being used to. And it's really a lot less fun, but few seem to see it that way. They seem to feel "entitled" to get a deer.

And the biggest problem in ethics today, IMO, is the simple fact that so many, many don't see any reason or necessity to really learn HOW to hunt or even shoot! Some miss a deer with their .243, and go out and buy a .300 mag. that scares the bejabbers out of them, and now, they can't hit a #2 washtub at 25 yds., yet think they're justified in shooting at a deer at 400 because "it shoots flat to half a mile!!!!" And you CANNOT tell these yahoos a thing. I have learned to keep silent in the gun shops. Don't want to cost them customers. But it's really, really hard to hear some of the stuff that folks think they're "bragging" about in there! It's hard to hold my piece sometimes, but I'm getting a little better at it.

Some folks seem to enjoy showing off their ignorance! But I guess those kinds have always been with us. It's just so sad to see anyone in this once great "nation of riflemen" become so ignorant and proud of it! At least I get some GOOD info there, too! Ethics in all walks of life is getting rarer and rarer as we get more and more willful and haughty. That's not gonna' lead us to anywhere good, eventually. We just missed a real lulu of a consequence for our failings. God forbid we should jump right back into that snake pit!

[buckwheatpaul]

Ethics: rules of behavior based on ideas about what is morally good and bad

Have we lost sight of ethics as it pertains to humane (high percentage quick kill) shots that we take on game animals?

Seems like this may be taking the same road as ethics in all other aspects of our lives.

I, for one, have passed on MANY shots because there was not the opportunity to put the shot in the VITALS of a deer. I have never considered the gut, to be the vital area of a deer. Also, I have never regretted letting an animal walk, due to this practice.


shoot-in-lead....I could not agree with you more....I have always waited for the right shot and has never rushed the shot....thanks for the post....Paul

[Prodigal Son]

I guess Elmer Keith was unethical too, breaking the hip and then walking up and shooting again to dispatch his game! Sounds like a bunch of arm chair quarterbacks playing football! I for one don't mind who thinks what, hunting is not a political correct endeavor, I refuse to be PC it has crippled this country and the thread too!

[leeggen]

When it comes to ethics you have to factor in several things. The gun- the hunters capability- the bullit/boolit-the weather- the cost of the hunt, if I put out 6000 dollars for a hunt I will need to make those LOOOOng shots probably. Each of us have different capabilities. Some hunters can shoot a deer at 600 yds others can't hit one at 100 yds. I have seen deer hit threw the lungs that ran far enough it would have killed a good coon dog. But I have seen deer shot threw the lungs drop right there. You take a deer that has been spooked by one hunter that runs infront of another hunter, well adrenolin does wild things. Saw a deer hit with an arrow that stood straight up on its hind legs run 50 yds and drop, front legs never touched the ground till it dropped. I have dropped deer with a litttle 5mm remington rifle doing head shots, never lost onne of them. But also hit a deer with the 270 130grsp. and it just kept walking about 100 yds ahead of us until it hid in a water pond. It was on the edge of a thicket. It is up to each hunter what they themselves call ethical for them.
CD

[Bodean98]

Prodigal Son,
Two words for you sir, GOOD SHOOIN'!!
Difficult shot to make and I applaud your marksmanship. You had the wherewithall, the equipment, and the training to accomplish it with success. Sleep well and eat well!
I had a friend from Georgia come and hunt deer where I live. He was armed with a 30-06 with 3 to 10X Leopold and he was concerned about having enough rifle. His longest shot by his estimate had been 40 yards. The normal shot where I hunt is right at 250 yards. I coached him a bit on taking the longer shots and eased his concerns somewhat. He nailed a nice buck in the boiler room/shoulders @ 220 yards and dropped him clean. Up until then he was unsure that a 30-06 would even travel 200 yards!
I do not tell this to make light of my friend. Too many variables in each situation for anyone to judge another's ethics. You do what you think is best at the time and you live with the outcome. Success or failure are the benchmarks and they each speak for themselves.

[shoot-n-lead]

Okay, then...it is settled, acting ethically is purely situational...just depends on the circumstances that you are presented with.

If you can take an ethical shot, fine...if you can't, take the shot offered, and that is fine, too.

That is what I thought...

[GrayTech]

We will just have to disagree on this...there are plenty of folks that have cast more bullets than me...but few on this forum have witnessed more dead deer than I have. I have lived in this deer rich south all of my life with high bag limits for decades (current bag limit is 12 per season) and have seen a TON of deer shot and killed by a lot of very good outdoorsmen...these gut shots are not nearly always quick and humane kills. I guess ethical shots have become like everything else...it is whatever the shooter wants to do.

Y'all can defend this practice all you want...but these shots will NEVER be as predictable as shots directly in vital's area...and that is irrefutable. I have seen the evidence...over a long period of time and I will unapologetically take the position that repeatedly taking these shots is a mark of a poor sportsman.
I believe the last word in your post may hold the key to the difference of opinion. To me, hunting is not a sport, it is the procurement of meat by any legal means. Thinking of it as a sport invites all sorts of ethical and moral conflicts which undermine a practice as old as humanity itself.

[Sweetpea]

Okay, then...it is settled, acting ethically is purely situational...just depends on the circumstances that you are presented with.

If you can take an ethical shot, fine...if you can't, take the shot offered, and that is fine, too.

That is what I thought...
Ethics IS subjective, just like what underwear is comfortable.

Unless something unlawful is being done, focus on your own hunting experience.

I think we all would say that shooting deer in a spotlight is unsportsmanlike, but coyotes, hogs, and jackrabbits are fun.

I don't consider high fenced lands "hunting", but I also have no compunction to sit over a feeder and wait for deer either. Not necessarily unethical, just not for me.

If I believed that I could judge everyone else, I'd have to change my political affiliation.

[Traffer]

Shoot em in the head.

[shoot-n-lead]

Ethics IS subjective, just like what underwear is comfortable.


That is pretty clear, in this thread...some have ethics...and some don't.

As for my judging everyone, that is just a much my prerogative, as it is your prerogative to take that bad shot and see what happens.

If someone doesn't like being thought of as unethical because they will take whatever shot, for the sake of bagging an animal...that is best resolved with their introspection. But, most of you guys don't care...that is evident, also.

[MT Gianni]

Well since your address says Georgia most westerners think hunting with dogs is unethical. I see that shooting ethics is terrain based. Know your background, know how far to shoot accurately, most importantly know how far you can pack something out and what is on the other side of the ridge. If an animal is shot dead through the heart it generally goes in a hard run somewhere. If you are in country that takes 2 hours to go through the deadfall to the bottom of the canyon and four trips out with a 125 lb elk quarter it is better to put them down now. I think most of us do care, that is what range time and knowing where you hunt shows,

[ChristopherO]

S n L, it is you arrogance and tact that is more at question here than ethical shots. You questioned Prodigal Son on his original thread and then ran to make a new thread waving the flag of ethics because he did something you don't like. Quite transparent and demeaning. Then you continue to make snide comments to others in this thread to insinuate they are poor and unethical because they don't tow your line. You haven't led anyone to see your way of view in a constructive manner but have degraded fellow hunters in an attempt to promote your agenda. We've had a whole year and a half of presidential campaigning that did this very thing. It didn't endear anyone to either candidate. The only reason one of the two was voted in was because the majority disliked the character of the one over the other. This doesn't say much for the winner of that office and doesn't say much for these type of threads that pit hunter against hunter, especially against a hunter that used enough boolit, power and shot angle into the vitals to drop a deer in less than 10 steps.
Encouragement to consider one's shot placement is always welcome. Casting dispersion one someone else to feel good about one's self imposed limitations is another matter. It is all in the delivery. Take this as you will.
Christopher

[Thundarstick]

I had asked in another forum, "where do your hunting ethics come from?".

Nothing in nature is wasted, everything goes back into the circle one way or another. Ethics are just rules of the game. In a way laws are just forced ethics. I am perfectly able to make a clean kill on a white tail doe at 50 yards every time that's more humane than a broadhead through the lungs, but it's against the law. Despite what any one thinks, ethics are situational and personal.

So a better question may be. Just where do your hunting ethics come from?

[runfiverun]

I think your just mistaking a 'whatever shot' with one that is deliberately aimed from a less than optimal position to get the projectile into those same organs.
if your only willing to take that perfect [over the feeder] shot, shows an unwillingness to learn your quarry's anatomy.

[44man]

So a better question may be. Just where do your hunting ethics come from?
Mine comes from the love of nature and the animal. Nature is cruel way more then man. Every single thing on earth eats other things. Bugs eat bugs and on and on. Fish eat bugs and fish. Not one has ethics, kill and eat. As humans we worry about pain. Even to kill cattle or a goat. Do it right. We are set apart with feelings. Unless you are a Muslim. To kill a human on his knees for a false God is wrong.
But we kill to eat as it has been from the beginning. We do not kill from hate. It is compassion. Tell God thanks.

[Digital Dan]

My .02 cents has been significantly devalued by inflation, but FWIW...

I have hunted over much of this country and on a few foreign lands with success and occasional excitement. I take no joy whatsoever in seeing suffering after the shot and have been of that mind since my earliest days afield. I'm not here to tell or suggest how anyone deals with the topic of hunting ethics, only to relate my own perspective.

In my youth it was common for my quarry to shoot back. That metric tempered my aim quite a bit.

In recent years, for reasons I won't elaborate, I've been shooting hogs with low powered .22 RF ammo. Hogs can do a fair bit of "shooting back" if you flub up, and given that I use a single shot I am motivated to take my shots carefully w/o exception. I let a lot of them walk if the right aspect does not present and know another day will come. If one views their quarry as "dangerous game" it does wonders for guiding your methods and decisions.

Anyone here ever put a "dead" squirrel in the game bag only to find out a little later it really wasn't dead? Dangerous game is where you find it....or create it.

[cainttype]

A hunter trying to put meat on the table by stalking thick woodlands, or dense swamp bottoms, is going to have a different view of "ethical shots" than the trophy hunter paying to sit in a heated box waiting for the feeder to go off... Most "hunters" fit somewhere between those examples.
Bottom line; A proper cast projectile penetrating med/large game from stem to stern is at least as "ethical" as any HV jacketed projectile placed well from perfectly broadside, and in some cases it is MORE ethical.
I've seen failures with "perfect" shots due to poor bullet performance (failure to expand, or worse, premature fragmentation). Pushing a proper medium/heavy cast from the ham on one side through the front of the shoulder on the other will definitely anchor game as quick and humanely as any other method.
So "Yes", ethics can be very subjective.

[shoot-n-lead]

This will be the last time that I reply to this thread. I created this thread to confirm the conclusion that I had already come to…it did that, in spades.

I will say this again…I take the position that gut shots…raking or otherwise, are not ethical. I will also say, again, that I come to this conclusion based on my experience in a state that has had at least a 10 deer bag limit for decades. Matter of fact, it has been 12 deer for a decade, now. I have already seen more dead deer than most you will ever see in the rest of your life…by multiples. I have seen the results of these gut shots…this is not to say that I have not seen gut shots that were DRT or soon dead humanely, and quickly…but they have been RARE. I have seen enough of this to know that these are marginal shots…at best and the predictability that so many claim…IS NOT THERE. Sorry, despite all of the claims to the contrary…that predictability cannot be counted on as the margin for these shots to be off a little, is too great. You can tout the equipment and shooter ability all you want…but the likelihood of this shot going bad and the percentage of times that is does, is a lot greater…and that is NOT REFUTTABLE.

I have seen far too many so called “hunters” that will take these shots every time. These are guys that will not accept the fact that their skill or just plain circumstance did not allow them to be in the right position to take an ethical shot…a shot that has a much higher percentage of QUICK kills than these other shots, will ever have regardless of how “great” the shooter is…not “hunter”…and there is a difference.

Yesterday, 11-16-2016 at 8:11am I was hunting and saw the biggest buck that I have ever seen, in the 40yrs that I have been deer hunting. I watched that buck for more than 5 minutes…at a distance that I was comfortable with and with equipment that was up to the task…but that buck never offered me an ethical shot. I watched as he went out of sight and I was completely comfortable with the fact that he won the match…I had not put myself in the position to ethically take that buck. And, just to counter those that talk about spending a lot of money and that justifying taking these shots…I have no idea how much money I have spent to kill THAT deer…over all of these years. This year alone, I have spent over $2400 in lease, insurance payments and recurrent costs…to have the chance at THAT deer…”THAT” meaning…the biggest rack and body deer that I have ever encountered while hunting.

Bottom line of all of this…I respect the animals that I hunt and I think that I owe it to them to make sure that I do my very best to dispatch them, quickly.

[rodwha]

S n L, it is you arrogance and tact that is more at question here than ethical shots. You questioned Prodigal Son on his original thread and then ran to make a new thread waving the flag of ethics because he did something you don't like. Quite transparent and demeaning. Then you continue to make snide comments to others in this thread to insinuate they are poor and unethical because they don't tow your line. You haven't led anyone to see your way of view in a constructive manner but have degraded fellow hunters in an attempt to promote your agenda. We've had a whole year and a half of presidential campaigning that did this very thing. It didn't endear anyone to either candidate. The only reason one of the two was voted in was because the majority disliked the character of the one over the other. This doesn't say much for the winner of that office and doesn't say much for these type of threads that pit hunter against hunter, especially against a hunter that used enough boolit, power and shot angle into the vitals to drop a deer in less than 10 steps.
Encouragement to consider one's shot placement is always welcome. Casting dispersion one someone else to feel good about one's self imposed limitations is another matter. It is all in the delivery. Take this as you will.
Christopher

Well said.

[cainttype]

This will be the last time that I reply to this thread. I created this thread to confirm the conclusion that I had already come to…it did that, in spades.

I will say this again…I take the position that gut shots…raking or otherwise, are not ethical.

...I have seen the results of these gut shots…this is not to say that I have not seen gut shots that were DRT or soon dead humanely, and quickly…but they have been RARE. I have seen enough of this to know that these are marginal shots…at best and the predictability that so many claim…IS NOT THERE. Sorry, despite all of the claims to the contrary…

…but the likelihood of this shot going bad and the percentage of times that is does, is a lot greater…and that is NOT REFUTTABLE.

Bottom line of all of this…I respect the animals that I hunt and I think that I owe it to them to make sure that I do my very best to dispatch them, quickly.

I'd wager you have NEVER seen any white-tail ventilated crossways from ham to front shoulder with a 40 caliber soft lead flat-nose cast projectile, or you'd have stopped replying a long time ago.
NO deer is less likely to be DRT from a proper 375-45 cal lead projectile penetrating end-to-end, cross-ways, and right through the vitals than if it were shot through your "ethical" zone from broadside with a small caliber HV jacketed bullet. Suggesting otherwise is beyond silly.

Now change the criteria to a lightweight HV jacketed projectile and everyone here would probably agree, and should, that intentionally shooting a "gut shot" is a terrible choice. I wouldn't do it either.

Speaking of things to avoid... A person shouldn't question the motives, manners, or ethics of others when discussing subjects he obviously doesn't understand... That might lead the others to question his ethics, manners, and motives... in spades.

[mattd]

A whole lot of people think killing an animal is unethical.

[shoot-n-lead]

Quote Originally Posted by ChristopherO View Post
S n L, it is you arrogance and tact that is more at question here than ethical shots. You questioned Prodigal Son on his original thread and then ran to make a new thread waving the flag of ethics because he did something you don't like. Quite transparent and demeaning. Then you continue to make snide comments to others in this thread to insinuate they are poor and unethical because they don't tow your line. You haven't led anyone to see your way of view in a constructive manner but have degraded fellow hunters in an attempt to promote your agenda. We've had a whole year and a half of presidential campaigning that did this very thing. It didn't endear anyone to either candidate. The only reason one of the two was voted in was because the majority disliked the character of the one over the other. This doesn't say much for the winner of that office and doesn't say much for these type of threads that pit hunter against hunter, especially against a hunter that used enough boolit, power and shot angle into the vitals to drop a deer in less than 10 steps.
Encouragement to consider one's shot placement is always welcome. Casting dispersion one someone else to feel good about one's self imposed limitations is another matter. It is all in the delivery. Take this as you will.
Christopher

Said I wouldn't post again...but I had not seen this.

Christopher...I did not start this thread to win friends and influence people. I stated the reason that I started the thread...and that was to confirm what I had come to suspect...and it confirmed that.

Also, I am not concerned, in the least, at being thought of as arrogant, by some...especially when I read what those same folks view as ethical.

[white eagle]

A whole lot of people think killing an animal is unethical.

those people have no ethics whatsoever

[popper]

There is no ethics in hunting. There is a little of 'just go kill something' in all of us but that is not hunting as we want to call it. Whether meat, pest or trophy, the objective is productivity. Do you cry over the gut shot deer and jump with joy at the poisoned rat? Which is 'worth' more? Why? Properly use the tool that works best.

[roadie]

Said I wouldn't post again...but I had not seen this.

Christopher...I did not start this thread to win friends and influence people. I stated the reason that I started the thread...and that was to confirm what I had come to suspect...and it confirmed that.

Also, I am not concerned, in the least, at being thought of as arrogant, by some...especially when I read what those same folks view as ethical.



Pretty high hoss you're perched on there.

I wasn't there when Prodigal Son made the shot, don't know the conditions, or how badly he needed the meat....lots of people depend on deer to feed their families, and 'ethics' takes second place to providing food for your kids.

It appears that the shot he made worked out okay, it's not my normal shot....I prefer head shots....so I can't say he was wrong in taking it. The ones I do judge are the 'hunters' who sight in by sending a couple of rounds in the general direction of the target, and call it good if they manage to punch a hole in it.

Yep, I judge people, I just try not to climb too high on the hoss, hurts less when I fall off.

[Prodigal Son]

Judge not less ye be judged! I don't understand why S&L started the thread he said he already knew the answer, if it had turned out differently he wouldn't believe it as he already knows me so well! I used to have an Exwife like him, always wondering where I was & what I was doing! Turns out she was the one caught cheating on me! That's why she's the Exwife! I believe they call people like S&L a narcissistic character! I know I lived with one as a child!

[OnHoPr]

There is no ethics in hunting. There is a little of 'just go kill something' in all of us but that is not hunting as we want to call it. Whether meat, pest or trophy, the objective is productivity. Do you cry over the gut shot deer and jump with joy at the poisoned rat? Which is 'worth' more? Why? Properly use the tool that works best.


There are self ethics, doubts, concerns in taking a GAME animal cleanly. There are many reasons to support this notion. One example is to have delectable palatable fodder without throwing a large hunk of it in the scraps. If you ever had a bad hit on a game and knew there might be a two day tracking job with all kinds of self pyshcy thoughts running through your mind you would have experienced this. But, from what I recall is that you have never shot a deer let alone a number of them where the odds could be in getting a less desirable outcome of the harvest are greatly expanded. Sounds like keyboard warrior stuff to me. I don't think you have any idea at all really with this comment "There is a little of 'just go kill something' in all of us but that is not hunting as we want to call it." and why did you mention WE or what context.

you know there are places with trees between the sidewalk and the curb, which is a form of intelligence.

[popper]

I did pass on a 5' shot behind the ear on a large doe - because I didn't need the meat. Also passed on a 100 yd shots on a doe & 8 pt. Same reason. All perfectly PRODUCTIVE shots, if i'd taken them. Did a rear-end shot on a boar - left it for the coyotes. Was that not an 'ethical' shot? Did what it was supposed to do - killed the pest. I was a kid once, I remember killing harmless snakes, bugs, etc. IMO we agree that we want a high probability/productive shot - anything else is just plain mean or stupid. I guess we are really talking emotion not ethics.
edit: a guiding philosophy - ethics definition.
A valid reason for passing the opportunities I had, deer were ~20yds from a property line fence with underbrush cover. They don't run to the plowed field on the other side. nothing to do with ethics, but productivity.

[theleo]

This will be the last time that I reply to this thread. I created this thread to confirm the conclusion that I had already come to…it did that, in spades.

I will say this again…I take the position that gut shots…raking or otherwise, are not ethical. I will also say, again, that I come to this conclusion based on my experience in a state that has had at least a 10 deer bag limit for decades. Matter of fact, it has been 12 deer for a decade, now. I have already seen more dead deer than most you will ever see in the rest of your life…by multiples. I have seen the results of these gut shots…this is not to say that I have not seen gut shots that were DRT or soon dead humanely, and quickly…but they have been RARE. I have seen enough of this to know that these are marginal shots…at best and the predictability that so many claim…IS NOT THERE. Sorry, despite all of the claims to the contrary…that predictability cannot be counted on as the margin for these shots to be off a little, is too great. You can tout the equipment and shooter ability all you want…but the likelihood of this shot going bad and the percentage of times that is does, is a lot greater…and that is NOT REFUTTABLE.

I have seen far too many so called “hunters” that will take these shots every time. These are guys that will not accept the fact that their skill or just plain circumstance did not allow them to be in the right position to take an ethical shot…a shot that has a much higher percentage of QUICK kills than these other shots, will ever have regardless of how “great” the shooter is…not “hunter”…and there is a difference.

Yesterday, 11-16-2016 at 8:11am I was hunting and saw the biggest buck that I have ever seen, in the 40yrs that I have been deer hunting. I watched that buck for more than 5 minutes…at a distance that I was comfortable with and with equipment that was up to the task…but that buck never offered me an ethical shot. I watched as he went out of sight and I was completely comfortable with the fact that he won the match…I had not put myself in the position to ethically take that buck. And, just to counter those that talk about spending a lot of money and that justifying taking these shots…I have no idea how much money I have spent to kill THAT deer…over all of these years. This year alone, I have spent over $2400 in lease, insurance payments and recurrent costs…to have the chance at THAT deer…”THAT” meaning…the biggest rack and body deer that I have ever encountered while hunting.

Bottom line of all of this…I respect the animals that I hunt and I think that I owe it to them to make sure that I do my very best to dispatch them, quickly.
Lots of blather rite there. You're views of ethics are pretty dumb. Perhaps if you're hunting experience the majority of your life had been based off of one year, one season, one week, one tag, one shot, instead of killing 10 deer a year you'd have improved your marksmanship skills and understanding of big game anatomy to make difficult ethical shots. Just because you and your buddies can't figure out what your and your weapons are capable of has no bearing on what many of the rest of us are capable of doing with our weapons of choice.

[rodwha]

"If someone doesn't like being thought of as unethical because they will take whatever shot..."

I'm still at a loss for how the guts would impede the bullet from the vitals to make it unethical? If you understand the anatomy and angles, as well as your abilities and skills within range...

As I said it's not what I'd do as I'd not want to puncture the guts, but has nothing to do with ethics and everything to do with the mess.

[Texas by God]

Ever kill a gamebird with a shotgun? Ever kill a deer with buckshot? I have and I must be unethical because almost everytime the guts take a hit. I would plow a deer's abdomen to reach the vitals at ten feet with a big CB. Because I KNOW it will do it. King size break needed! Best, Thomas.

[ShooterAZ]

I have taken shots similar to Prodigal Son's, even on Elk and never never lost an animal. The keys are to use enough gun and proper bullet selection, know your abilities, and just flat get the bullet into the vitals. There is NOTHING unethical about the shot he took.

[Digital Dan]

Shot a boar once that was quartering toward me. .44 mag just below the point of the shoulder blade. Took out ribs, spine, lungs, liver, intestines, far side hip and maybe a few parasites along the way. Sorta like a reverse Texas heart shot. Is that like a reverse unethical shot? Curious and all that. Ruined a lot of meat. There was a famine in Bangladesh a few months later.

[Thundarstick]

I was thinking the same thing about using a shotgun squirrel hunting and punching guts. Does that make all shotguns "unethical"? I head shoot squirrels now days because I don't want busted guts, not because of ethics! I'm not going to judge you if you still use a shotgun though!

[popper]

That is pretty clear, in this thread...some have ethics...and some don't. No, you just like to put your 'guilt trip' on others so you feel better. Social morals say it's wrong to walk down the street shooting people or into the woods to shoot rabbits - that's killing just to kill. Feel bad if you screw up a shot but quit berating others for the same. It happens. It's not like you just shot Bambi or the last deer or dove. If you want to place ethics in hunting, join PETA and feel guilty when eating your next burger.

[dverna]

This is an interesting question especially for me being a first time deer hunter. I decided that my ethical range is 300 yards. I can hit a 6" target with every shot at that range with the .308. I suspected that under field conditions, the groups size will be double that due to excitement, errors in range estimation and a jury rigged gun rest. But a 12" hit area will kill deer quickly. I also decided I would not shoot a running animal unless I had wounded it.

My buddies who saw the test groups (1/2 MOA) told me to take a head shot if the range was under 100 yards. Instant kill and no meat loss. I did not argue much but thought a slight miss could remove the jaw leaving a wounded animal to die a slow death; and that was unacceptable. When the doe appeared, I aimed behind the front shoulder and it dropped instantly. I do not regret taking the "safe" shot.

I do not need to affirm my marksmanship by taking risky shots at a beautiful animal. I do not need the meat badly enough either. If someone needs to make a kill to feed their family, I can understand taking shots with a higher probability of wounding an animal. And as others have noted, if they know their caliber and bullets will shoot clear through an animal, a shot up the butt may be acceptable. The problem I see is that many hunters have no clue as to how their guns/bullets actually perform and "assume" they can do what a top hunter/shooter is capable of.

Heck three of the guys here have not even sighted in their rifles this year!!!

Don Verna

[44man]

I will never try a head shot on a deer. They can move too fast. Pigs are varmints. Do ethics change between destructive animals and meat animals? Maybe so. Shoot a fox anywhere after he kills a bunch of chickens, who cares? Blow the guts from a chuck and he gets in a hole, who cares?
Farmers in PA will gut shoot deer all year so they run out of the field. Farmer does not want to remove a dead deer. Season opens and they don't find a deer. Ethics say to not kill them all in the summer. Why not use the meat?

[popper]

I do not regret taking the "safe" shot You took the higher probability shot - even with your excellent skills.
Do ethics change between destructive animals and meat animals? It's NOT ethics, it's purpose.
Ethics say to not kill them all in the summer. No, common sense and herd management.
Ever kill a gamebird with a shotgun? It's against the law so yes, ethically you are wrong but it generally is shooter error in not identifying the target properly. A mistake. Stuff happens.
I'm not promoting cruelty or waste but I haven't been given the authority to berate my kid because he didn't make the buzzer beater shot. Please quit playing the blame game.

[Hawgsquatch]

I agree that hunting ethics are situational. In the west where I live and hunt, baiting, dogs, stands around water, and shooting does are all considered unethical. Shooting 500 yards cross canyon is not as long as you are capable of making the shot. Transversely we shoot blue grouse in the spring out of trees with rifles?

I see on this forum where people will hunt on small patches of land sometimes only three or four acres. Out here, if I see another hunter in a week of hunting I feel very crowded. And by hunting I mean walking or riding a mountain bike up to ten or fifteen miles in a day. Does this mean my style of hunting is more ethical or "sportsmanlike"? Nope. It has just evolved from what I have available. I have few animals and lots of land. In the east you have lots of animals and sparse land so it figures in.

I will make the blanket statement that I see nothing wrong with a shot through guts to get to the "more important " organs. I guided a little when younger and I can remember many deadly shots that weren't supposed to be. I saw spine and ham shot archery bucks that dropped in their tracks instantly, and heart shot rifle deer that ran several hundred yards before falling. I will also boldly say that when I have ridden a bicycle ten miles to base camp and then walked another six miles up a mountain my ethics change. If a cow elk gives me a hip shot in timber, I am taking it. I shoot a 30-378 for this reason and if I must drive a bullet all the way through and animal I will. I find no comfort in the moral safety blanket of never making a mistake or never giving offense. Nature has no ethics, no moral high ground, and no participation trophy.

[44man]

You fellas are good. A deer should die fast with no pain or suffering. A creep that tortures and kills a person slow should not get a fast injection. I want to pull him apart. A thousand cuts. There is nothing I would not do for revenge.
Sorry, take a girl and rape, torture and kill. I want you. Ethics change. I would take an inch of skin and pour salt on it. Battery acid.

[RP]

I do not like head shots since the thought of me taking its jaw off and it running around the woods for maybe days is something I am not willing to risk, Those who do take head shots will that is something they have to decide. I do not like neck shots my son loves them but that is just me again. I like to play it safe and go for the biggest area that kills the quickest just because things happen and I invested to much time hunting to risk losing a deer.
Have I shot deer in the head yes I have but it was a sure thing well as sure as it could be and it was the only shot I had so I am not up on a soap box here its what the hunter feels like is best for them and a clean kill well that is what I hope is going on.
What I hate more then where someone shoots a deer is when someone shoots goes and looks around to see if they can find any hair or blood and say oh well I must have missed and goes home.
Last year I shot a small buck knocked him down but he got back up and ran I looked for a few hours tracking blood still no deer. I went home got my dog which will track blood and came back another 3 hours looking and the deer was still going and blood trail was lost. Do I feel bad about not finding the deer yep I sure do did I do all I could to find the deer I think so. But I did find 4 other deer that had been shot in the woods by other hunters by the looks not over a month old and two that were shot last year that were just bones. That is 6 deer that were shot and wasted that is what is not right and angers me more then shot placement.
I am in a hunting club so I feel those deer were all shot by members and one of those members asked me if I wanted some deer meat since he did not have any room for it which is fine. But then his son says he wants to shoot a doe since he has not shot one this year. I asked him why was he going to shoot a deer when they did not have any need for the meat ? They had no answer some people just make you want to choke them.

[Bigslug]

Everyone just remember that we have the leisure to partake in these moral finger-pointing episodes today, holding the front link in the food chain, because our ancient ancestors drove entire herds of game animals over cliffs using fire as their beater.

[ammohead]

Ah yes, those unethical indigenous peoples. Shooting running game is one thing, but shooting running game from a running horse....just showing off. Doesn't get more unethical than that. Not to mention hunting mastadon with stone tipped spears. My God what were they thinking. Then running game off of cliffs? We couldn't have conquered their land fast enough. Of course slaughtering the buffalo from moving rail cars helped. Lots in the past to point fingers at. I grew up in Wisconsin where taking does, hunting with dogs and using buckshot just wasn't done. Now you have to shoot a doe before you can harvest a buck. I live in Nevada now and dumping corn or apples on the ground and sitting in a tree is just cheating, but we tree lions with dogs and shoot wolves anytime they are seen. (Oops, I mean those really big coyotes that have been showing up lately. Everyone knows there are no wolves in NV). Embrace what makes your fellow hunters different. Take the energy spent on nit picking others experiences and spend it defending our hunting heritage in all the forms it takes, even running mastadons off cliffs. Either we all hang together or surely we will all hang separately.

And to all those of you that are too perfect or too opinionated to understand what I am saying....

Nevermind.

[GunnyJohn]

my ethics or in this case choice of shot on game
is my choice that I personally have to live with
the results of that choice
its not for me to say that another person's choice
to shoot or not is wrong or rite
they in turn have to live with their choice
I like your thoughts White Eagle

[Hamish]

"Nature has no ethics, no moral high ground, and no participation trophy."-Hawgsquatch

Outstanding quote!

SNL's "moral outrage" is nothing new or different than the screaming bloody murder that has been seen over deer hunting with dogs, or small calibers, or crossbows vs compounds, or compounds vs self bows, or dump truck sized bait piles up North, or timed feeders, or,,,,,.

[Katya Mullethov]

"Nature has no ethics, no moral high ground, and no participation trophy."-Hawgsquatch

Outstanding quote!

SNL's "moral outrage" is nothing new or different than the screaming bloody murder that has been seen over deer hunting with dogs, or small calibers, or crossbows vs compounds, or compounds vs self bows, or dump truck sized bait piles up North, or timed feeders, or,,,,,.




I'm totally gay for "All Natural Ingredients " .

I know a place over by Victoria where you can collect them with a ball peen hammer . This guy's garden looks like the exercise yard at Guantanamo . Come to think of it , there are places inside the Austin city limits where you could do this as well .
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/87/81/db/8781dbc85256be32f1bf14d2f729b0c9.jpg

[Plate plinker]

IF I have the time and the animal is not aware of me I do head shots or neck shots, but if I don't like the situation I go for the engine room. This said I am fortunate enough to hunt where the deer are rather stupid.

[TXGunNut]

Okay, then...it is settled, acting ethically is purely situational...just depends on the circumstances that you are presented with.

If you can take an ethical shot, fine...if you can't, take the shot offered, and that is fine, too.

That is what I thought...

Awesome! Thanks for saving me the keystrokes. I think it's wonderful that ethics threads attract dozens of posts in short order. I'm a bit disappointed that some folks apply their ethics to hunting situations that they don't understand.

[TXGunNut]

So a better question may be. Just where do your hunting ethics come from?
Mine comes from the love of nature and the animal. Nature is cruel way more then man. Every single thing on earth eats other things. Bugs eat bugs and on and on. Fish eat bugs and fish. Not one has ethics, kill and eat. As humans we worry about pain. Even to kill cattle or a goat. Do it right. We are set apart with feelings. Unless you are a Muslim. To kill a human on his knees for a false God is wrong.
But we kill to eat as it has been from the beginning. We do not kill from hate. It is compassion. Tell God thanks.

Well said. We raise cattle, goats, chicken, turkey and even deer for meat. There is a term for assigning human emotions to animals. Too drunk to look for it now. Yes, I love critters. Especially in my freezer.

[mcdaniel.mac]

I was thinking the same thing about using a shotgun squirrel hunting and punching guts. Does that make all shotguns "unethical"? I head shoot squirrels now days because I don't want busted guts, not because of ethics! I'm not going to judge you if you still use a shotgun though!
I'd say the opposite, the shotgun is used to ensure a quick kill on a hard to hit animal.

I figure if someone was gonna sneak up and shoot me, I'd want it to be over quick, so I try to extend the same courtesy to anything I shoot.

[Lloyd Smale]

theres the right answer. IF you are truly living with the definition of ethical you probably aren't going to kill something period. Ethics are rules that you personally make up. As long as a hunter is following the law I have no business telling him he should change the way he does it. Ill leave that to the liberal peta people.
my ethics or in this case choice of shot on game
is my choice that I personally have to live with
the results of that choice
its not for me to say that another person's choice
to shoot or not is wrong or rite
they in turn have to live with their choice

[6bg6ga]

I'm for a quick sure kill so the animal's life is gone like turning off a light switch. Can't make a good shot then don't take the shot.

[Thundarstick]

I figure if someone was gonna sneak up and shoot me, I'd want it to be over quick, so I try to extend the same courtesy to anything I shoot.

I've always said the most humane thing in capital punishment would be to tell them "your pardon from the governor had come through". Then as there leaving shoot them in the back of the head! Now I see a blast of 000 buck between the shoulder blades would work just as well!

[Omega]

I'd say the opposite, the shotgun is used to ensure a quick kill on a hard to hit animal.

I figure if someone was gonna sneak up and shoot me, I'd want it to be over quick, so I try to extend the same courtesy to anything I shoot.Not me, I want time to return the favor...in spades.

As for ethics, specially in hunting, it's an individual thing. Some bait, some use dogs, some use electronic callers, some use cross bows, compound bows, modern black powder, flint, 209 primers, etc., etc. What some consider "unethical" some call getting the job done. In the end, it's the individual who has to decide what he's comfortable with and I have no place setting others ethical line. There are game laws which set legal boundaries, stay within the lines and you're OK with me.

[dragon813gt]

Farmers in PA will gut shoot deer all year so they run out of the field. Farmer does not want to remove a dead deer. Season opens and they don't find a deer. Ethics say to not kill them all in the summer. Why not use the meat?

Red tagged deer are required to be turned into the wardens so the meat doesn't go to waste. I know of no farmers that do as you say. The Amish like to hunt out of season but they keep the meat. Same goes for others that like to poach out of season.

Red Tags are easy to acquire and there is no shortage of hunters willing to help. Going into an orchard at night and culling deer by spotlight is a completely different experience. Considering both practices aren't allowed for normal hunting.

It's up to each individual to make the determination about what's ethical. I know what my limits are. I won't proselytize or belittle anyone because of theirs.