Podcast on wounding

[Nicoli7153]

This UK study is probably one of the more scientific. It is about deer hunters, or stalkers as they are called in the study.

The three variables have the greatest impact on shot lethality. Other factors have far less impact.

1) Comfort of the shooting position and situation.
2) Point of aim, such as head, neck, chest, other.
3) Shot distance, with precipitous drops past 150 meters.

Link here - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4198128/

How about having a film crew strapped to your back?

 

[nrpate05]

This is a great topic and one that we in the hunting community need to think on more. One thing that comes to mind is 'unknown wounding'. I've never wounded an animal (knock on wood) but I have missed a few times. Maybe more than a few times. I've done my due diligence in looking for blood, hair, sign of a hit, etc. and never found anything, but that doesn't necessarily mean I didn't wound an animal.

I wonder how many people think they miss, but actually have fatally wounded an animal and just haven't found evidence of that. Then they keep hunting and maybe wound or kill another animal.

From what I understand, game agencies do build in wound loss into quota's but I'm not sure how much and how they determine wound loss for different units, weapons, etc.

 

[Johnny Bravo]

The trouble is, those that shoot the least, tend to stretch things the most...

If most hunters are such great shots, practice the most, and the equipment so great...then why do I so rarely hear a single rifle shot anymore?

Not to brag or anything, but the guys I hunt with can almost tell when one of our party kills elk, because its typically a one shot deal...

As an example, several years back I killed a cow elk with one shot, a bull stepped out and I killed it too.

When I got back to camp, George said, "I heard 2 shots so figured it must not have been you."

 

[Fire_9]

So what about moving targets? Where do we draw the line there?

I wasn’t going to post it but it’s my Friday and I’m feeling a little spicy for whatever reason. I mean no disrespect by this Randy and am only using it as a talking point. I am far from perfect and have taken a fair number of shots that I wish I could have back. Some of which still worked out just fine.

That being said, what would the hit probability be on this hunt? I don’t know the distance but I can take a fair guess. Is this more ethical than a prone, controlled shot on a calm day at let’s say 600 from someone who has the skills and equipment to do it? And when I say ethical, I mean the chance of the animal being killed with 1 round. If I had to bet a large sum of money on one, I know what one I’m choosing.

I agree with the message that everyone needs to be selective with their shots. What I don’t agree with is people projecting their skills or ethics on other people. We’re not all the same…

 

[elkantlers]

Then what is it?

Exponential.

 

[TheJason]

Then what is it?

I’m not super smart so I can’t give you the correct terminology, but I think you would agree with me in that the odds of a bad outcome are way more than 4x higher at 1000 yards than 250.

 

[232401a]

Randy said his pre-2010 lost animal count was zero (zero over 35 years). Now, several wounds since 2010 once camera review is available?

I suspect pre-2010 Randy was much more like the rest of us than he believes he was.

Pre-2010 Randy is free to be one-shot BuzzH because the video evidence doesn't exist.

 

[HSi-ESi]

Let's not focus on any number of how far you feel comfortable shooting. It's situational and different for everyone. It depends on species as well - as we all know that elk can be lethally shot without them exhibiting any visual signs of being lethally shot. We've all heard stories or seen people shooting a cow, not thinking that they hit, shooting another cow and then walking over the hill and finding 2 dead elk.

If I am hunting property that is smaller and the possibility of the animal jumping a fence to a neighboring property is high - then my shot selection is very limited (and different if I am using a bow or a gun). If I hiked in x miles into FS or Wilderness, then my shot selection would open up. Obviously, I'm looking for one lethal shot in both cases - but the external factors can't be ignored.

I think follow-up is key on every shot. Teaching people to have a good sight memory of where the cross-hairs were when the shot broke, how did the animal react / move after the impact and then obvious tracking.

I do believe this is a conversation worth having - and not just diluted down to black and white arguments.

 

[Fire_9]

I’m not super smart so I can’t give you the correct terminology, but I think you would agree with me in that the odds of a bad outcome are way more than 4x higher at 1000 yards than 250.

Nor am I super smart man (if it wasn’t already obvious) and I agree with you to a point. If someone can hit a vital size target 10/10 or 9/10 times, does the distance really matter? That’s really the only point I’m trying to make. People want to talk about distances, when distance isn’t the biggest factor.

I’ll use myself for example. There are situations where I will not stretch it past 50 yards, and there are some where I’ve stretched that number out quite a ways. It’s a sliding scale based on environmental conditions, time, and shooting position. So to throw a hardline number out doesn’t make sense to me. That is all.

 

[232401a]

So what about moving targets? Where do we draw the line there?

I wasn’t going to post it but it’s my Friday and I’m feeling a little spicy for whatever reason. I mean no disrespect by this Randy and am only using it as a talking point. I am far from perfect and have taken a fair number of shots that I wish I could have back. Some of which still worked out just fine.

That being said, what would the hit probability be on this hunt? I don’t know the distance but I can take a fair guess. Is this more ethical than a prone, controlled shot on a calm day at let’s say 600 from someone who has the skills and equipment to do it? And when I say ethical, I mean the chance of the animal being killed with 1 round. If I had to bet a large sum of money on one, I know what one I’m choosing.

I agree with the message that everyone needs to be selective with their shots. What I don’t agree with is people projecting their skills or ethics on other people. We’re not all the same…

(~16:00) I think Randy mentioned about 350 and dialed to about 350yds? And probably trotting at closer to 400yds by the time the buck was hit for the first time? Yeah, that's probably equivalent to the 600 yd controlled/prone shot comparison. Maybe more comparable to 800-1000yds from prone at a standing deer.

I'm not being critical of shooting at moving animals if someone wants to do it. But it would be a statistical anomaly that a hunter that takes shots like those could go the FIRST 35 years of his hunting life without a single lost animal.

And if there is a wounding statute/reg on the books, I would think very few of us would take those shots (unless they were follow up shots).

 

[Doublecluck]

Interesting

Is the distance that’s ethical quantified by the size of the animals vitals? And do some animals have higher ethical value over others?

 

[OntarioHunter]

(~16:00) I think Randy mentioned about 350 and dialed to about 350yds? And probably trotting at closer to 400yds by the time the buck was hit for the first time? Yeah, that's probably equivalent to the 600 yd controlled/prone shot comparison. Maybe more comparable to 800-1000yds from prone at a standing deer.

I'm not being critical of shooting at moving animals if someone wants to do it. But it would be a statistical anomaly that a hunter that takes shots like those could go the FIRST 35 years of his hunting life without a single lost animal.

And if there is a wounding statute/reg on the books, I would think very few of us would take those shots (unless they were follow up shots).

I have essentially been lost meat free since I started hunting in 1964. I hit a spike on the run poorly in 1975 and someone else finished the job before I could. Worked out okay because unknown to me I killed a cow with my first shot. It simply stepped out of sight and fell over. Last year I hit a kudu bull poorly when I shot through debris instead of over it (scope error). Took two days to finish it. All three animals were fifty yards or less. That's as close as I've come to losing a wounded big game animal and I've been hunting a lot longer than 35 years. And I've killed more than a hundred of them. Maybe more than two hundred. I don't think Randy's claim is at all unbelievable.

 

[232401a]

... Worked out okay because unknown to me I killed a cow with my first shot.

Unknown to you, unfortunate things like this happened a few other times as well since 1964.

All data points trend toward the average. There will be very few outliers like BuzzH.

 

[Big Fin]

Randy said his pre-2010 lost animal count was zero (zero over 35 years). Now, several wounds since 2010 once camera review is available?

I suspect pre-2010 Randy was much more like the rest of us than he believes he was.

Pre-2010 Randy is free to be one-shot BuzzH because the video evidence doesn't exist.

I have hit one big game animal with a rifle that I did not eventually recover. Like I said, I had been very lucky up until that point. I try not to confuse luck with skill.

The others I've hit and not recovered were with a bow. Thus, I've changed by thoughts on my archery shots. I've gotten rid of my slider tape. I clipped off my 50 yard pin. I've also been passing a lot more shots on archery.

(~16:00) I think Randy mentioned about 350 and dialed to about 350yds? And probably trotting at closer to 400yds by the time the buck was hit for the first time? Yeah, that's probably equivalent to the 600 yd controlled/prone shot comparison. Maybe more comparable to 800-1000yds from prone at a standing deer.

I'm not being critical of shooting at moving animals if someone wants to do it. But it would be a statistical anomaly that a hunter that takes shots like those could go the FIRST 35 years of his hunting life without a single lost animal.

And if there is a wounding statute/reg on the books, I would think very few of us would take those shots (unless they were follow up shots).

As I said in the podcast, I'm not God's gift to hunting or shooting. I shoot a lot. I also said not to confuse "being lucky" as some sort of indicator that we are great. That shot on that episode was not the kind of shot I'd take today.

Do I shoot a lot at those distances? Yes.

Have I spent a lot of time shooting at moving targets with a rifle? Yes.

Does that mean I should take a shot out near 400 yards on a moving deer? No, I shouldn't have. But, in the heat of the moment, I did. It was a lot of luck that intersected with years of practice at that distance and years of shooting at moving targets, with luck playing a far bigger part than the practice and skill. Since then, I have had closer shots, at bigger moving targets like elk, that I've passed.

Not sure how any of that changes what was discussed in the podcast. I didn't give any distances for anyone. It's up to everyone to make their own decisions.

I seem to have hit a nerve with some folks. I knew that would happen based on the thread I started last fall. That is why I was careful, as was Craig, to explain that we aren't immune to bad shots and bad decisions. The idea was to get people thinking about the pre-shot, the shot, and the post shot situations.

And there is more than just the pre-shot /shot issue. When it comes to post-shot, it's more a function of work, tracking knowledges, determination, and some luck. Too often I hear about some pretty half-assed recovery efforts, as it's easier to just go find the next one.

Then there is the situation when we thought everything would go right, but it didn't. We busted our butt looking for that animal, but after exhaustive effort it still isn't recovered. Then what? That's the bigger question to me. Do I keep hunting? Is my tag for hitting as many animals as it takes before I finally recover one, or should I consider my tag filled once I draw blood?

Some states have made that decision for us. Some private landowners and outfitters have that as their rules. I'd rather leave it up to hunters and I hope a podcast like this does more good for the thought process than any legislation might do.

 

[BuzzH]

I have hit one big game animal with a rifle that I did not eventually recover. Like I said, I had been very lucky up until that point. I try not to confuse luck with skill.

The others I've hit and not recovered were with a bow. Thus, I've changed by thoughts on my archery shots. I've gotten rid of my slider tape. I clipped off my 50 yard pin. I've also been passing a lot more shots on archery.


As I said in the podcast, I'm not God's gift to hunting or shooting. I shoot a lot. I also said not to confuse "being lucky" as some sort of indicator that we are great. That shot on that episode was not the kind of shot I'd take today.

Do I shoot a lot at those distances? Yes.

Have I spent a lot of time shooting at moving targets with a rifle? Yes.

Does that mean I should take a shot out near 400 yards on a moving deer? No, I shouldn't have. But, in the heat of the moment, I did. It was a lot of luck that intersected with years of practice at that distance and years of shooting at moving targets, with luck playing a far bigger part than the practice and skill. Since then, I have had closer shots, at bigger moving targets like elk, that I've passed.

Not sure how any of that changes what was discussed in the podcast. I didn't give any distances for anyone. It's up to everyone to make their own decisions.

I seem to have hit a nerve with some folks. I knew that would happen based on the thread I started last fall. That is why I was careful, as was Craig, to explain that we aren't immune to bad shots and bad decisions. The idea was to get people thinking about the pre-shot, the shot, and the post shot situations.

And there is more than just the pre-shot /shot issue. When it comes to post-shot, it's more a function of work, tracking knowledges, determination, and some luck. Too often I hear about some pretty half-assed recovery efforts, as it's easier to just go find the next one.

Then there is the situation when we thought everything would go right, but it didn't. We busted our butt looking for that animal, but after exhaustive effort it still isn't recovered. Then what? That's the bigger question to me. Do I keep hunting? Is my tag for hitting as many animals as it takes before I finally recover one, or should I consider my tag filled once I draw blood?

Some states have made that decision for us. Some private landowners and outfitters have that as their rules. I'd rather leave it up to hunters and I hope a podcast like this does more good for the thought process than any legislation might do.

I agree with the post shot stuff. I've found a couple dozen animals over the years that were shot, with what I would consider perfect placement. One really nice bull elk and one really nice whitetail buck in particular stand out.

I was able to find out exactly what happened with the whitetail buck as there was snow on the ground. The hunter that shot the buck simply didn't look up hill far enough. From the tracks in the snow, they did a serious amount of looking but about 20 yards below where the buck was laying, shot perfectly in the lungs. I felt bad for them as they damn near did everything right, and they absolutely put in some effort trying to find it.

I believe what happened is they got confused as there were a bunch of deer tracks and I think they couldn't sort it all out and obviously didn't look far enough uphill.

I think the lesson there is look just a bit farther, AND pay attention to exactly where the animal is when you shot it.

IMO, I think there is a significant amount of wounding loss where the hunters actually did a lot right and just came up short.

IMO, if your podcast and stories shared on this thread like mine, can help recover more animals, its worth having the discussion.

 

[Sask hunter]

Haven’t had time to listen to the podcast yet but I wonder how many animals are lost from guys admiring their shot. Shooting till they fall can help make a bad shot good

 

[BuzzH]

Unknown to you, unfortunate things like this happened a few other times as well since 1964.

All data points trend toward the average. There will be very few outliers like BuzzH.

I'm not an outlier, I've put on more than a few "shooting clinics" over the years where you would swear I had never touched a rifle in my life.

Its been a long time, but I'm not dumb enough to think it won't/couldn't happen again.

I think what's changed is I'm just a lot more careful and would rather an animal walks than taking a risk on not killing it with one shot.

 

[OntarioHunter]

I have hit one big game animal with a rifle that I did not eventually recover. Like I said, I had been very lucky up until that point. I try not to confuse luck with skill.

The others I've hit and not recovered were with a bow. Thus, I've changed by thoughts on my archery shots. I've gotten rid of my slider tape. I clipped off my 50 yard pin. I've also been passing a lot more shots on archery.


As I said in the podcast, I'm not God's gift to hunting or shooting. I shoot a lot. I also said not to confuse "being lucky" as some sort of indicator that we are great. That shot on that episode was not the kind of shot I'd take today.

Do I shoot a lot at those distances? Yes.

Have I spent a lot of time shooting at moving targets with a rifle? Yes.

Does that mean I should take a shot out near 400 yards on a moving deer? No, I shouldn't have. But, in the heat of the moment, I did. It was a lot of luck that intersected with years of practice at that distance and years of shooting at moving targets, with luck playing a far bigger part than the practice and skill. Since then, I have had closer shots, at bigger moving targets like elk, that I've passed.

Not sure how any of that changes what was discussed in the podcast. I didn't give any distances for anyone. It's up to everyone to make their own decisions.

I seem to have hit a nerve with some folks. I knew that would happen based on the thread I started last fall. That is why I was careful, as was Craig, to explain that we aren't immune to bad shots and bad decisions. The idea was to get people thinking about the pre-shot, the shot, and the post shot situations.

And there is more than just the pre-shot /shot issue. When it comes to post-shot, it's more a function of work, tracking knowledges, determination, and some luck. Too often I hear about some pretty half-assed recovery efforts, as it's easier to just go find the next one.

Then there is the situation when we thought everything would go right, but it didn't. We busted our butt looking for that animal, but after exhaustive effort it still isn't recovered. Then what? That's the bigger question to me. Do I keep hunting? Is my tag for hitting as many animals as it takes before I finally recover one, or should I consider my tag filled once I draw blood?

Some states have made that decision for us. Some private landowners and outfitters have that as their rules. I'd rather leave it up to hunters and I hope a podcast like this does more good for the thought process than any legislation might do.

I wouldn't lose any sleep over juvenile keyboard wizards who play games taking what we write out of context to skew it into something else.

Do I shoot at moving animals? Actually quite frequently, especially the last dozen years. But I also have a lot of range experience shooting moving targets, usually several thousand rounds per year. My African guides have expressed the opinion, half joking, that I may be better shooting at moving animals. And maybe they're not entirely wrong. I think I shoot better offhand at a moving animal than I do on the sticks at a standing one ... for anything less than 100 yards anyway. Historically, all the issues with wounded big game I have experienced, except that 1975 spike elk, have been after taking standing shots. Shooting at moving targets is now instinctive for me and usually no time to overthink the shot. Would I advise others to shoot at moving big game? No. Not unless they have fifty years experience in the field and shoot thousands of rounds every year at moving targets. Or the animal has already been hit. Anyone can get lucky. Experience doesn't eliminate luck from the equation but it sure reduces it.

 

[Kiwi]

Great podcast, I found it very interesting. A good reminder to strive for 100% one shot kills.

 

[Fire_9]

I hope a podcast like this does more good for the thought process than any legislation might do.

And I think it does. People having a conversation before they encounter a situation can have a huge impact on the outcome.

And I want to be clear that I wasn't casting stones but more or less using a documented experience as a talking point. We as hunters seem to look at some scenarios as perfectly acceptable, but others not palatable at all when in reality, they have could both have similar outcomes.