The best \'Ethical\' shot
- Thread starter cnelk
- Start date
\"cnelk\" said:
I would think that a quick, humane death would be the goal of all of our shots. Can you give an example of an unethical shot?
The only ethical reason for a shot other than what you describe is a follow-up shot, in which case any arrow or bullet in the animal is a good thing.
If shot with an arrow, I expect to see the animal tip over or perhaps go only slightly out of view before doing the same. If a bullet is involved, they can go further, in my experience. Either way, I like to see the animal in a relatively open area, if possible, before shooting so as to see well what happens after the shot -- Did I hit it? Was it a good hit? Did the animal give a clue as to how it was hit, such as hunching up after a gut shot, or limping on a broken leg?
Well, I probably wouldn\'t have done it, regardless of the confidence in my shooting. Reasonable -- not \"unethical\" -- but outside my comfort not because of accuracy but because of possible movement on the calf\'s part.
Can\'t argue with success, though! Were I the calf, I suppose that\'d been better than the shot I would have put on him.
What was the range of that shot, Cnelk? Looks from the photo like it was very close, which makes me somewhat back down from my initial \"wouldn\'t have done it\"-answer.
(By the way, my son made the same hit with a rear-view mirror on a pronghorn a couple weeks ago ... very deadly.)
Which brings up the point that the idea of (my) hunting is meat ... and and \"ethical shot\" means one that will result in a useable pile of meat ... and, particularly with a rifle, one has to balance \"humane\" and \"don\'t destroy the shoulder\". A close neck/head shot with a rifle can be done and meet all the criteria of an ethical shot.
Can\'t argue with success, though! Were I the calf, I suppose that\'d been better than the shot I would have put on him.
What was the range of that shot, Cnelk? Looks from the photo like it was very close, which makes me somewhat back down from my initial \"wouldn\'t have done it\"-answer.
(By the way, my son made the same hit with a rear-view mirror on a pronghorn a couple weeks ago ... very deadly.)
Which brings up the point that the idea of (my) hunting is meat ... and and \"ethical shot\" means one that will result in a useable pile of meat ... and, particularly with a rifle, one has to balance \"humane\" and \"don\'t destroy the shoulder\". A close neck/head shot with a rifle can be done and meet all the criteria of an ethical shot.
timberland
New member
- Aug 27, 2015
- 471
I personally would call that unethical for the following reasons:
Small target, way smaller than the broadside shot. It looks like the area was fairly open, and not knowing the scenario I assume that a better broadside shot would present itself.
I took a shot that many consider unethical. A whitetail fawn at 20 yds quartering to me. I knew I could make the shot between the shoulder blade and the neck. And the deer probably weighed 40 lbs dressed. I drove the arrow about 6\" in, just getting into the chest cavity. The fawn covered a couple hundred yards with just a couple drops of blood. Had the deer been any bigger or the arrow went left or right, it would have been a lost animal.
My reason? WI enforced Earn-a-buck in the area where I hunt. Meaning in order to harvest a buck, one must shoot an antlerless deer first.
The STATE made me do it. Never again.
My definition of an ethical shot? Taking the BEST opportunity that presents itself within your capabilities that is immediately lethal.
Small target, way smaller than the broadside shot. It looks like the area was fairly open, and not knowing the scenario I assume that a better broadside shot would present itself.
I took a shot that many consider unethical. A whitetail fawn at 20 yds quartering to me. I knew I could make the shot between the shoulder blade and the neck. And the deer probably weighed 40 lbs dressed. I drove the arrow about 6\" in, just getting into the chest cavity. The fawn covered a couple hundred yards with just a couple drops of blood. Had the deer been any bigger or the arrow went left or right, it would have been a lost animal.
My reason? WI enforced Earn-a-buck in the area where I hunt. Meaning in order to harvest a buck, one must shoot an antlerless deer first.
The STATE made me do it. Never again.
My definition of an ethical shot? Taking the BEST opportunity that presents itself within your capabilities that is immediately lethal.
I doubt I would have taken that shot on the elk calf like that, but then again, I shot a coyote in the head with an arrow, hit him right between the eyes, and he was dead right there at 20 yards. Is a coyote\'s existance less important than an elk calf\'s? Some would argue that it is, but the coyote would probably disagree. I\'ve seen the media photos of deer walking around with arrows stuck through the tops of their heads and snouts - they draw a lot of sympathy and are disturbing to me, knowing that someone attempted a shot like that on a deer - but at the same time I can\'t say it\'s unethical because I took the coyote head shot without a second thought. So I guess what it comes down to is this: if you can make the shot - not some of the time, but ALL of the time - and you feel confident in the angle, distance, and target, AND you can be sure that a hit guarantees a quick kill, yes, take it. If you answer no to any of those, then don\'t. Likely the only ones who will ever have to suffer through the aftermath of a bad shot are you and the animal.
Eyeeyecaptain
New member
- Aug 4, 2017
- 167
To me, the \"best\" ethical shot is a heart/lung shot that takes them out quick and as painless as possible. This includes knowing what you are capable of as far as each shot goes. As far as the calf to the head, I would say that based on what I know about you that yes for you it would be ethical. For me, not so much. My buddy can hit a paper plate at 600 yds every time and is an incredible shot, for me, not so much. For him it would be ethical to take a 600 yard broadside shot, but for me it would not.
I guess to me the thing that immediately comes to mind in the realm of ethics and bowhunting is distance. I honestly believe that too many bowhunters believe that their proficiency in their backyard transfers directly into the field with a living animal in front of them. I can honestly tell you that in my case it doesn\'t and it is up to me to make the \'ethical\' decision!
iccyman001
New member
- Apr 30, 2014
- 5,489
I agree with you 100%\"mainebrdr\" said:
So many people practice well beyond their means in perfect conditions, then go out and make 70 yard shots with a lot more going on.
It\'s not fair to the animals. I like the up close and personal game.
I am comfortable at 45 yards, with perfect wind and a clear shooting lane, but when does that ever happen? :lol:
I believe most of my kills we be under 30 yards this year.
