quote:

Originally posted by TWL:
I doubt a 100lb whitetail living in the semi developed suburbs of Virginia is the same as an impala living in the African bush.

Certainly true. But I wouldn't necessarily discount the difficulties of the Virginia suburban whitetail. In some of the newer suburbs that border on old farm country and undeveloped woods, that whitetail is going to face pretty constant harrassment by feral and loose dogs. In my area there are tons of Walker hounds to be found running loose in the woods just outside many suburbs. Getting chased by a Heinz 57 mutt may only be a tiring hassle, but being chased by a large hound bred for the task is a whole nuhter ballgame.

/

On my only trip to Africa (sadly) my PH made that remark to me about African animals being "tougher". We then had the usual discussion about calibers and bullet placement. He remained firm in his position. (I was probably feeling cocky because I had shot a buff at about 30-35 yards distance with a 375 and the shot had staggered him and he collapsed about 40 yards farther on. (Yeah, fortunately that he didn't use that space to come for me!) Some days later, I decided that I wanted a zebra. So, one early morning at around 8:30 or so I tagged a zebra at about 80 yards (who was looking almost directly head on at me) with a 375, 300 gr. SP. Just as I squeezed off, the zebra stepped down a slight slope and my shot took him under the collar bone. To make a long story short, that zebra was tracked all day long and was finally shot shortly before dark. He was still standing when finally put down. I was amazed that an animal could cover such distance and bleeding the whole while. (I was even more chastened by the fact that a 300 gr. bullet from a 375 didn't even knock him off his feet in the first place) I suppose bullet placement (and mine was poor) was a factor but the idea of a bleeding animal travelling for what had to be a good number of miles or more -and still on his feet almost 10 hours later made a heck of an impression on me -so I became a convert to my PH's thinking -and still am. Maybe "one swallow does not make a Spring" but my own personal "swallow" sure convinced me!

Alf's entry has prompted me to re-enter the fray with some personal experience. I hesitate to offer the following, but in the context of this thread, it may be of interest to some.

Alf is correct in his closing remarks. Mammals of similar mass with similar wounds do have roughly the same rate of demise, within narrow margins. Science, through the application of clinical equations and formula is at work here. But in my personal, practical, non-clincal experience, the margins in the rate of demise among humans can be vastly different. Just as I have found them to be in the game I have taken.

I am a retired police officer from one of our nations largest citys. In the middle of my 33 year career I was a homicide investigator, as well a supervisor and commanding officer of homicide investigation teams. I have investigated or supervised the investigation of approximately 300 homicides, including legally justifiable ones committed by public officals in the course of their duties. I have attended all or part of approximately 100 human autopsies.

When I eliminate cases involving the CNS, or toxicity, prior disease, illness or injury, and include only those cases involving gunshot wounds, stabbings, slashings and blunt force trauma, I can tell you from personal experience that humans of similar physiology who suffer similar mortal wounds under similar circumstances do not expire at the same rate. Moreover, such victims are quite capable, to varying degree, of myriad dissimilar behavior and activity, for varying length of time, post wound. Some are able to run, walk, fight, climb, drive cars, use phones, and many other things. Go figure.

I don't see why it would be any different with game animals.

I have worked with some of our nation's leading medical examiners and pathologists in my career, (not the ones you see on tv, the best wouldn't be caught dead--pardon the pun--on tv) I've had this converstaion with most of them. Many have theories on post-wound behavior, but none has a clincial answer.

I want to make one more point that goes beyond the original thread. The fact that so many of you even consider this issue is laudable. It shows our reverence for life and our respect for the game we hunt, and must ultimately kill. Good on ya.

Regards........

TWL

Thanks for a very interesting post. After reading through this thread, I wonder if the effects of adrenalin in animals (and humans, too) might play a part in why we see varying differences in what the reaction is to a bullet wound. (My father told me at a very early stage of my hunting career not to walk up on a downed white tail deer so that he could see me. He might stir and try to get up to escape) It would be fascinating to hear whether you ever discussed adrenalin with any coroner and what they said. (BTW, I smiled at your reference to what coroners would appear on TV. You can see where I'm from and I think we have some of the same coroners in mind!)

One factor that may be a part of this discussion is that plains game critters in Southern Africa have a larger portion of their body cavity filled with abdominal content than do North American animals.The thracic cavity is condensed slightly and moved slightly more forward.Because of this an African animal can be shot in a spot that will not result in the same organs being struck as it would be when the same shot is made on a deer or an elk. Double lungs on a whitetail broadside may get only liver on an impala.

I presented this question to quite a few PHs at our area sportsmans show this week, and the general consensus is that in the PHs opinions, American hunters don't want to lose any meat, as would occur on a shoulder shot on deer, elk, antelope, etc., and have been taught from an early age to hold just behind the shoulder on a broadside shot. Well, on most African game, the vitals are located lower in the chest, and further forward than our North American game, so with a behind the shoulder shot on African game, one will either marginally hit the vital area, or miss them completely, resulting in a long tracking job. That's why most PHs suggest putting the bullet through the center of the shoulder on a broadside shot.

The theory has been presented that African animals are tougher because from the day they drop from their mother's womb they are in danger of being eaten while in NA, there are far fewer predators. But take heart, with the do-gooders in Calif banning Mountain Lion hunting and the NPS reintroducing wolves throughout the Rocky mountains, soon our game will be just as tough as that in Africa!

adrenalin--what proportion of african game shot knows a hunter is there....many african animals are shot when a truck pulls up and someone takes a sight at them from the back of the truck and pulls the trigger. most american game is killed when the quarry has no clue a hunter is even on the same planet.... no adrenalin flowing.

physical differences--- african game has paper thin skin compared to north american game coupled with bone thickness. ive compared impalas to whitetails and eland to moose. the african game comes off as being infinitely more delicate, without even bringing into play the layer of fat that north american has that african game cant come close to matching.ever take a look at a skinned warthog versus a skinned wild boar ? african pigs, to include bushpigs have no cartilage over their briskets shoulders and back as a north american pigs have a cartilage shield from 2 to 4 inches thick.

in north america most hunters gear their guns and loads to a specific specie they are hunting at a particular time. in africa your using the same combo to shoot anything from a duiker to elephant or maybe using 2 guns to shot 20 different animals. hardly the best choice.

another factor to consider is how many times in africa have you taken shots at game that you wouldnt consider or take in north america ? me, maybe 80% that i couldnt do better by getting in a better position. remember , the ph gets his money for a kill or just a bloodied animal.

add in the ph with the shoot,shoot,shoot mentality ( with an animal who obviously isnt going anywhere...wild?) hmmhmm i had 1 ph tell me about a sable that had 4 different bullets in his skinned carcass not to include the hunters bullet that eventually killed him.5 trophy fees collected on 1 animal.

african game tougher to kill ? ......... more urban legend and myth.

the more and more hunters travel there, the more and more the big time mysteries go away and the truth comes out.

Most North American hunters don't seem to have any problem believeing that elk are tougher than moose even if they are smaller. The smaller deer die easily with anything resembling good placement.They're all deer but once again one species stands out as tougher.
In Africa you aren't shooting deer anymore, they are antelope. Given some variation in toughness between different antelopes and the vastly larger number of varieties is it that big of a stretch to believe that some antelope are going to be tougher than some deer, and that some will be tougher than any deer? Forget hunting, I'd go to Vegas to bet those odds.

Many African PG will have a go at you much more readily than our deer. Roan, sable, oryx and wildebeest could almost be classified as semi-dangerous game, IMO.

In my opinion, like others have mentioned, is that a shot placement is more important than the size of the gun. Most hunters who hunt in Africa or NA study too much on the vital shot areas. They concentrate on a "perfect shot", which is a small part of an animal (i.e. the heart is high in NA or low in Africa). Therefore, when you concentrate on a small perfect shot area, the room for error is too great, as a result more animals are shot either too far back or too low. I have always advised clients to shoot on the shoulder (if you shoot high, you hit lungs, shoot low, you hit the heart area). As a result, we have far less wounded animals. Besides all of the opinions, I believe shot placement is an important factor than size of the gun. In Africa, most people get too excited and rush the shot; therefore, they wound more, which makes animals seem tougher. I hunted in Texas and europe where people are well rested, and dont rush the shot. A wounded animal, be it in Africa or NA, is harder to take down as a result of the adrenalin and the will to survive.