Alex C wrote:
sgthurley wrote:
I can't believe you are bragging about such unethical actions. Around here such actions would geet YOUR ARSE kicked.
Didn't realise I was bragging, sorry. I was describing another unsuccessful year hunting.
Unethical? You mean firing at it's arse? Or firing while it's running broadside? I was taught neither was unethical, but the former might get messy. Still, that's coming from a 65 year old veteran who had to do such things or his family went hungry that winter. Not ideal I know, but not like some of the s**t the slickers pull up here.
I hunt in the middle of 70 acres of private land with natural backstop all around and shooting downhill. A miss is hitting the dirt and nothing else, and usually drives the deer off for the season. I get the one chance all season and try to make it count.
We mean this:
Alex C wrote:
Sod it, even though all I could see was his arse I thought I'd take my shot.
May I be blunt?
You do not fire at the target unless and until you have confirmed the target is actually an eligible target, by
seeing the whole deerI'm not sorry if that sounds like hunter's safety 101. People in my state have been killed because some jackass thinking he was a hunter decided to take your course of action and what they thought was a deer was a person. I'm sure Maine isn't the only state that's had that happen.
And another problem was the fact that you took a shot that would not have been a first kill shot.
Assuming that you had properly and correctly identified the target as an eligible game animal, firing at the rear end is not only "not ideal" but also unacceptable. An ethical hunter doesn't take a shot that they realize would only wound, not kill. I had an opportunity to take a second shot at an animal that was running from me. I had already taken (and missed) a perfect broadside shot, and had cycled the bolt. By the time I had cycled the bolt, the deer was already running away from me, presenting me a target that was quartered away but the largest part was his rear end. I made the decision to pass up the shot because I knew that: A) I probably was not going to hit the target; and B) Even if I hit the target, I would only wound the animal. Never mind the wasted meat, which, as important as it was to preserve meat, it was more important that the animal be DEAD, not wounded. It's one thing to have to shoot an animal twice because the first shot that should have killed it, didn't. It's another thing entirely to wound the animal deliberately prior to taking the kill shot because "It's the best shot".
Of course, this is coming from someone who's hunting once, compared to someone who's been hunting much longer, so what does a slicker like me know, right?