That's why you always make a good shot on the deer, and if you gut shot it or something, you back out for a while and then go back in after it so it has time to lay down and die.
37 replies [Last post]
Sat, 2010-08-14 16:13#21
That's why you always make a
Fri, 2010-08-20 07:00#22
I agree with Deer Slayer
I hunt in NY and have taken about 10 deer in 22 years so I have been happy with my average. My closest shot was about 7 yards my longest shot was about 60 yards. Be patient and wait for just the right kill shot and take your time, dont forget to get to the range a few times before the season to build your confidence.
Sun, 2010-08-22 12:45#23
It's Ethically Obvious
I don't see this as too hard to figure. As described, the deer was obviously mortally wounded by the first 2 shots. The sport(?) who provided the coup de gras simply ended the animals suffering a little early. I'll bet your favorite camp chair that if the buck would have been a nice meat buck, the sport wouldn't have even thought of punching his tag. The antlers made the difference.
The buck belongs to the first 2 shooters - for them to split as they see fit. The sport should be ejected from the club, his face posted on whatever your area has for the local hunters grapevine with a description of his stellar hunting ethics with a special note to other clubs in the area. Just don't send him to Nevada; we don't need that kind of dipstick here - we've got enough of our own.
Tue, 2010-09-07 07:33#24
Well...I can't see how you can say the deer was obviously mortally wounded by the post. From what I gather the deer was still capable of getting up and running even through the tracking. Heck, that could have been going on for an hour...who knows? Personally, I think we could have any member of the group post this story and make it sound as though they're in the right.
What if the guy who killed it came on and said "I saw this deer run past me but didn't have a good shot so I left it go. Turns out the next two guys were flinging lead at it without a clear opening and wounded the thing. I figured I'd might as well help find it at this point and ended up jumping it and killing it since they blew the left leg off of it".
In THIS scenario I'd say the guy that dropped it gets it. I'm still wondering how two guys who were driving shot the same deer? The only thing I can think of is that it was running past one who flung some rounds at it and then it ran past the other who did the same thing. Neither of which would have been quality chances at an ethical kill shot.
I guess what I'm saying is that I think we may need a little bit more info here, and I'm not 100% sold on this deer being "mortally" wounded. At least mortally wounded enough to die in the next hour. If that's not the case, and the deer wasn't mortally wounded then the guy that finished him off gets it. If it was a lung or heart shot and this guy finished it off, then it goes to the first two hunters. My guess though is that if it was heart or lung shot we wouldn't even be having this conversation. My suggestion is next time make sure you have a clear shot and an accurate gun. Make the kill on the spot or within 100 yards. If you drive deer and just throw lead at them then you really can't cry too much when you wound an animal and someone else gets it. I think both parties may need to have their ethics checked here.
Tue, 2010-09-07 23:02#25
Sorry Bearklr, we'll have to
Sorry Bearklr, we'll have to agree to disgree. I see it as a matter of ethics more than anything else. The other member said he'd help track the wounded deer. Had the deer not been gravely wounded as described by Eddie, this guy most likely never would have seen it let alone shot it. His offer to help in recovering the animal was commendable; his taking possession of the animal that was obviously and knowingly wounded by others was deplorable.
Had it been your buck that had been wounded I and I think many others here would have gladly helped put the wounded animal down, would most likely have helped field dress it (at least hold a hind leg out of the way), hell would have helped drag it to the road. But it wouldn't have even entered my mind to try to steal it away. Thats just plain poor sportsmanship.
Wed, 2010-09-08 11:54#26
missing the point
You're missing my point there Hal. Yes, if the two hunters mentioned, made an honest "kill" shot on the deer that was ethical and this guy snuck in the back door and put a bullet in him then you're right. But this story just seems to have some holes that make me question the ethics of the two original hunters to boot. It's always tough when you only get half of the story. What if the guy that everyone is bashing on here was actually the ethical one who let the buck walk to begin with because they were driving and he didn't have a clean shot. What if the two hunters being mentioned were the unethical ones who didn't care about a clean shot and just flung some lead at it because it was running from a drive? What if said hunter was so ticked that these two guys wounded it after he let it walk that he finished it.
I see waaay too many deer wounded by guys driving because they'll shoot at anything they can fit in their scope regardless of distance, speed or branches. I've heard PLENTY of clips being unloaded as well. To me...THAT is unethical. You owe it to the animal to make sure you can guarantee to the best of your ability a clean kill. When I hear of a deer wounded in a drive by not one, but TWO guys it almost seems obvious that they shot at it many times while it was running full speed. Thus, it resulted in a poor hit that may or may not have killed the animal. I'm assuming it was a poor hit because not only did the deer stay alive long enough to make it to hunter number two but it stayed alive long enough for hunter number three to contact the first two hunters, for him to make his way over to wherever they were located, for him to track the deer AND for him to jump it and shoot it. To me, a mortally wounded deer is finished in a matter of seconds. Anything longer could go either way so it can't be considered "mortally" wounded because in all honesty you can't tell until you get that final bullet in it.
This is the typical result of drive hunting. I think all parties were in the wrong to some extent here. Everyone involved should know this is a possibility when they choose to put on a drive and deal with the outcome. If you're willing to hunt a deer knowing full well that it's most likely going to be running and you're not going to get a good shot at it then don't complain when someone else does.
If that's going to bother you then wait until you have a standing clear shot and put the animal down in his track. If you don't give someone else a chance to finish your deer then it won't happen.
Now, if they were stand hunting and made a good shot (heart or double lung) and this guy threw another round in it before it dropped in a hundred yards THEN him and I would have some words. THAT would be unethical in my book. I just don't think this deer in this story was wounded as bad as it makes it sound.
Tue, 2010-09-14 01:18#27
Get the cliff notes of this?? ^^^^^^^^
Mon, 2010-11-01 19:42#29
First Mortal Shot
I recently heard one person comment that in his area, the deer belongs to the person who puts the first bullet in it.
To me, this is somewhat ludicrous, becuase many times a deer is hit in the leg, the brisket, or someplace else where it is not mortally wounded, and may live a normal life if not shot again.
Where I hunt, most hunters seem to agree that the deer belongs to the person who put the first MORTAL shot in it. In other words, a hit that will result in the deer's death within a reasonable time.
In the scenario you told about, the two guys who shot it first had mortally wounded it, and the guy who finished it was simply putting it out of its misery. If it hadn't been wounded so badly, he probably would have never even seen it.
The first deer I ever shot had a bullet in the stomach; it had been hit before 9 am. When it came by me in the middle of the afternoon, it gave absolutely no indication that it was wounded, though it might have, or even probably would have died within a day or two.
The man who had shot it first came upon me field dressing the deer; he had been following a very scant blood trail for over 5 hours.
Though he probably could have made a case for firing the first mortal shot, he was a good sportsman and congratulated me on my first buck.
But I agree - your club needs to formulate a rule concerning this, and whatever the majority agrees to is what you should all follow.
Tue, 2010-11-02 08:37#30
The hunter who wounded the
The hunter who wounded the deer and came upon you and then congratulated you is the type of hunter we should all strive to be like. Is an animal really worth fighting over? Since it is a hunting club then they should establish rules to avoid disputes. Won't eliminate all disputes but will help reduce them.
I've never encountered a wounded deer that presented me a shot and now I wonder if I would take the shot? I guess it depends on whether or not I actually realize its been shot and two how badly it is wounded. I think if I could reasonably determine that it was mortally wounded I'd let it pass and then maybe watch out for the hunter who shot it and help them track it.