I've read quite a bit on other forums about "hunters" and I use the term very loosely advocating the texas heart shot,but it does not crop up in many,if any discussions I have read on european hunting,why is this?
Personally I think it is a deplorable shot and anyone trying it should have their rifle barrels bent 90 degrees in a vice.
Sooo are we,on the whole more ethical hunters than some perhaps from across the water...just a thought.

Roebuck222

Roebuck222 I live in Texas and it pisses me off to have a shot like that named after a great state. It seems to me if you can shoot a animal in the ass you should be able to put a shoot between the ears.

Hullo,

first, asking on the Euro board whether Americans and those that take a THS is unethical doesn't seem very sporting in an of itself. How can we properly flame you if we don't see the post?

All kidding aside, I for one would like to think I'd not take one unless under very specific circumstances, namely, a wounded beast I wanted to put another round into that only gave me an arse to look at. But if I am to be perfectly honest, I suppose if I saw a beast of a lifetime, and that's the only shot I had, then maybe I would as well. I dunno'. I'm not sure I follow your sentiment or argument, however. Just what exactly is the problem you have with it? Certainly, it's not a terribly dignified way for a noble creature to go. But then is dying from having holes blown in your chest dignified to begin with? From what I've read and heard, a THS can be a very effective shot, one that leads to lung/heart/other organ destruction; it just takes out some other stuff on the way in. Can you explain your disdain with more detail, please? Is it that meat may be contaminated, and thereby wasted, or just that you feel an animal needs to be taken out using a traditional boiler room shot? Not trying at all to be
cheeky, honestly, just looking to understand. Perhaps it's simply a cultural thing. If I understand it correctly, use of dogs in some european countries to hunt is pperfectly well accepted. Well, I think many here in the US would want you strung up for hunting deer and like creatures using dogs, and even using them to locate downed ones.

Anyway, would like to hear your rationale, and from others. I've often wondered about this myself.

Cheers,

Leighton

Hi Laredo,
sorry your getting pissed off at the term "THS"...wasn't me coined the phrase..honest!!...but while we are on the subject why is such a shot called so?

I dont fancy the shot due to possible / probable meat wastage,and also driving a bullet that distance through a load of guts..mmm!! doesn't appeal.

Any animal, trophy quality or otherwise,just deserves that bit more respect than a ass shot...personally I've never been that desperate that I couldn't wait for a better opportunity.
interesting to hear your views too Thanks
Roebuck222

Roebuck222 As a young boy I was taught to shoot pest birds and small game in the head as I only had pellet rifle. After I proved I was a good shot my dad started to let me use a 22 single shot ,so I had to learn to be patient and wait for the right shot. Today I think people are mediocre shots and hope their super mags will put a animal down from a gut shot.There is no substitute for marksmanship and common sense.I don't believe most shooters know where the vital organs are located on most game animals.

For me, I think the THS is aptly named. Texans are big talkers and have a great state, and can stand to be be teased.

A texas heart shot is like shooting a man in the back. IT is a workable way to kill, but plain and simple, its a chicken shot. Now some dangerous game may be better shot in the back. I dont know. but I do not take butt shots. I do shoot at the back of the neck or head, and certainly have shot my share of spines from above, behind, and the side.

I think it is like taking a deliberate gut shot. something less than ideal for me.

Would I take a THS on my dream muley or bull? Only if it were standing still and I was certain there was no chance for a better presentation, then I would decide at that time. I would hope to wait and restalk or refind the animal for a better shot.

regards european and american standards? ground swatting ducks grouse and turkeys and aurhans and gamebirds and shooting rabbit and hare with rifle and or shotgun and use of dogs makes it clear there are different local customs. I give latitude to others to do what pleases them, and I do what pleases me.

I think that in Europe the meat of the game animal is given a LOT more respect and value....Private property managers will not let you destroy any meat by taking such shots!
Furthermore, if you wound with a THS it is a beast on your property that is lost for good. On highly pressured public land, perhaps that is the last opportunity you will get that year, and maybe even the next!
It is a personal choice, but I don't think it is undignified or cowardly as all poetry aside, we are killing an animal by punching a hole in it and letting it bleed!
More likely to wound that a heart shot? yes
More likely to waste meat if placed a little off? yes
undignified? no (in my opinion only!)

Boghossian...so just to be clear...are you personally a advocate of this type of shot?

At the end of the day it is always nice to shoot a lovely stag or roe or whatever with a magnificent rack,all that for me is a added bonus,but I'm sure a lot of people dont shoot just to have a trophy hanging on the wall,and getting the deer on the ground any which way is not IMHO what it is all about.
I have been presented on several occasions with this shot,and just waited the deer out for the most part until it turned, or taken a neck shot from behind,no problem either way.
Shoot it in the butt no,and you would be run off EVERY highland estate for contemplating it..thats how much the professionals think of it.

BTW is The Athletic arms or "diggers" still there beside tynecastle...great pint!!

Roebuck222

Hi Roe222
Well i've never done it on big games ,but on birds and various smal games . if you have a caliber which can outpenetrate the game well it is yours for the most of the time.
regards
danny

Highlander, can't say I'm an advocate as I have only taken it once or twice and always on wounded game. Now am I glad I put the animals down immediately and with less suffering than if I had waited for them to 'stiffen up' YES. Sure it isn't the optimal shot, and like you I probably won't take it on an unwounded animal, but that is because there are better shots available in most cases- not because it is undignified to shoot in the ass. I believe that you have to be very precise with this shot to prevent the bullet shooting a ham or never reaching the heart/lungs. If you are this precise you might as well go for the back of the animal's neck and poleaxe it.
As the say, different strokes for different folks! The animal doesn't care if you eat is or not, so each hunter takes different shots according to his priorities. I also do believe that the professionals in the highlands wouldn't say much if a paying client from overseas took this shot, although they might be a bit miffed at the meat damage.

Something we should all think about is what good this kind of discussion does. On a forum like this not much except maybe to let the anti�s see our division. Around the campfire or the clubhouse it is a different story. Among other hunters and stalkers you need this kind of debate to set the rules of any given club or lease etc. But since it is not illegal to take this kind of shot then you really shouldn�t worry about it to much. I just worry about the antis getting something on the ballot like the �no arse shot � bill. That�s all we need.

This is just how things like bear baiting and lion hunting with dogs get banned.
If you don�t want to shoot deer in the butt, then don�t, if you don�t want to shoot ducks on the water then don�t and for heavens sake if you don�t want to shoot animals with a bow and arrow then don�t. But if it is legal for me to do it and it suits me then let me do it.
One thing that hunters/stalkers forget that worry about this kind of thing is that we are all out to kill a beast. Whether it is for meat or trophy.
Another 2 cents from ��.

Shawn

Sorry Blue tick,
I seem to have missed something along the way,what happened to freedom of speech?,I dont recall reading anything that said I couldn't post anything I wanted too...which in this case is my opinion that the THS is a disgusting shot (wounded animals aside),and just because it is legal does that make something better or right?
The point I am trying to make is that hunters,IMHO should have at least some morals and behave ethically.
is that too much to ask of anyone?

Roebuck222

Not all hunting is from quaint little high seats.

Not all hunting is done on manicured, soft and easy European fields.

Hey Bluetick, I wouldn't worry about the antis as we have much worse stuff they can use against us!! This is just a nice civil conversation and I think we all know we won't change each other's opinion but we'll give it a go
I agree with you Nitro, when hunting truly difficult game, or a wounded beast, ideas such as a 'noble shot' go right out the window as after all the true essence of hunting is bringing the beast to ground in a sporting AND effective fashion. The THS threads on the African forum show that it is possible to do this very reliably (check out Saeed's video of the buff shot up the spout)!

The problem is not THS really, the problem is hunters that are incapable of letting a shootable animal pass them by without firing. IMO, this is a sign of immaturity and some seasoned hunters have never grown out of it.



Some hunting conditions can require long shots, for example hunting in mountain terrain. Hunting in bushland does not allow the hunter to be too picky with respect to foliage in the bullet's path. Maybe there is some aspect of some specific hunting that makes the THS an acceptable shot even for the hunter who doesn't cry himself to sleep after letting an animal walk away unharmed, but I must confess I can not think of an example on that (except for when one is tracking wounded animals)...



What I do have a problem with are not the long-rangers, or the bushwhackers, or the Texans . I have a problem with people who can not pass a shot and I do not willingly hunt with such people, they seldom have much love for the animals they hunt.



Regards,

/HerrBerg

Different cultures have different values.

I can understand from my ex-European friends here why THS's might not be liked in Europe. I find it unbelievable how much deliberation can go into making a shot at a game animal. Deliberation over the sex, age, antler development, etc, as if it is a black mark against the hunter it might mean the end of his hunter's licence.

Where I hunt if you like the stag, doe or hind, you shoot it.

I have taken several THS and have absolutely no problem having done so. Except I would preferred not to.

My kudu in Zimbabwe. We had hunted for Kudu for 5 days out of a 7 day safari and had to change properties to find a decent one. The first decent kudu was spotted day 1, the second, the one I took, day 5. It was with two other males. On sighting us they turned and I shot it up the arse with the first shot, again with the second shot, the next two were in the chest/lungs as it turned. Then I ran out of bullets and reloaded as we ran to the kudu but it only went a few steps and died not before long. I don't imagine any meat was wasted in nyama hungry Africa.

Another was a trophy red stag. We were hunting fallow deer but any red deer in the area were culls. The red stag was bedded down in a bushy tree and came running out and directly away up a steep hill opposite. I again shot it using the only shot I had. Straight up the arse. It turned on the shot and I shot it twice more in the chest. Very little meat was wasted and the damaged meat was fed to my dog.

Two other shots also broke the gut. My eland in Zimbabwe shot from behind with a flanking shot to the heart. My red stag in NZ, same shot, also to the heart from three-quarters angle. The meat with these was also fine, some wiping off required. Obviously prefered not to break the gut, but you don't always know if the angle was sharp enough. I tend to picture the heart and lungs in my mind only when shooting.

I don't find any problem with any of these shots. All the animals died very quickly. A shot up the arse with the right rifle with the right bullet can still get to the vitals. All of these shots were taken with a humble .30-06. That's about it from hundreds of animals shot.

In the Victorian Alps one of the most common shots on Sambar deer is the THS. One reason many hunters carry larger calibre rifles with heavier bullets. It may be the only shot you get on a trophy Sambar stag in a twenty year hunting career. No manicured fields with quaint little wooden boxes to sit in here.

A lot of hunters dislike hunting from stand's thinking it is unethical, but probably really they think it is boring. I tend to find it closer to target shooting . But hey, when in Rome ..... If I ever get to Austria (or whereever) I would love to sit in a hochsitz

Aussie deer hunters really detest people who shoot deer (or animals) at night.

Different cultures in different places.


PS Some of you guys really like your rules.

I dont use the THS. I just cant bring myself to do it. I wouldnt hesitate however to use it on a wounded animal. It is a devistating shot. It is just a mental thing with me if someone wants to use it so be it. Just for discussion does it really make a difference if the bullet penetrates front to back or back to front?

Nitro wrote

"My kudu in Zimbabwe. We had hunted for Kudu for 5 days out of a 7 day safari and had to change properties to find a decent one. The first decent kudu was spotted day 1, the second, the one I took, day 5. It was with two other males. On sighting us they turned and I shot it up the arse with the first shot, again with the second shot, the next two were in the chest/lungs as it turned. Then I ran out of bullets and reloaded as we ran to the kudu but it only went a few steps and died not before long. I don't imagine any meat was wasted in nyama hungry Africa".
and also
"Another was a trophy red stag. We were hunting fallow deer but any red deer in the area were culls. The red stag was bedded down in a bushy tree and came running out and directly away up a steep hill opposite. I again shot it using the only shot I had. Straight up the arse. It turned on the shot and I shot it twice more in the chest. Very little meat was wasted and the damaged meat was fed to my dog".

seems pretty pathetic to require 3 shots to bring bring a Stag down and if I read this right 4 for the Kudu....just doesn't smack of accurate shooting,what is does smack of is desperation on the part of a "hunter" to get those antlers on that wall regardless.

have you considered the use of some kind of high capacity belt fed weapon?...save on reloading time.

Roebuck222

I hear in Texas they call this shot...."The French connection"

Roebuck

Many consider using a .222 on deer a spotighters (lampers) rifle of choice too.

Try getting out into the field a bit more, even if it means having to tip your hat to m'lord Al Fayed for access. You may find animals bigger than a squirrel sometimes need to be shot until they are down. Also if the PH says to keep shooting, one does.

Can't use a belt fed auto, banned unfortunately .




PS I find your infammatory posts quite amusing .

well hell yes Bob lets have a logical discussion about the merits or otherwise of shooting a animal in the arse,
That is if Blue tick doesn't object....instead of chipping in with some throw away Troll insults, lets hear what you have to say on the matter.

Roebuck

Nitro..
" spotighters?..infammatory? "...I can only hope your typing finger hasn't developed a flinch.

So by your reference to the humble .222 I gather that your totin' something heavier...well good for you,I would have hoped to avoid a "my guns bigger than your gun" discussion so I'll let you have that one.

But I'll tell you what with all the deer and other animals I have shot,not once,ever did I have to shoot something 4 times...nor even 3 when it comes down to it.
and by your own very admission the THS did not drop the animals..all it did was get them to stop so you could continue the lead onslaught,do you really really consider that sporting,and can you honestly say you were happy with your performance?,I doubt it.
I wonder what would the total weight of 4 bullets be? I was taught,and it has never failed me,that it is where you put the bullet that counts most.
I live in and get out and about in the Scottish highlands,I haven't heard any stories down the pub,with stalkers and gamekeepers bragging about putting 3 or more shots into a animal to bring it down,I rather suspect I won't either.
Another tip you may or may not know is that deer are naturally curious,often they will run off and stop 100 yards away turn and have a look..then take your shot..or..sometimes a whistle will stop them in their tracks for a moment or two.

the .222 a scalpel wielded to great effect.

Roebuck222

Mate

.222's make a great rifle to shoot a fallow between the eyes when spotlighting. Why so touchy? I have done it when culling not hunting, an escaped fallow deer herd from a farm. Not sporting, but neither is a .222 shot deer escaping when shot with an inadequate calibre. The ONLY shot at a deer with a .222 I would take is a brain shot. I can see a .222 would be OK with the tiny roebuck though.

Who is "bragging"? I gave actual real examples of when I used the so-called THS. The animals died almost as quickly as any other non-brain shot, little meat was wasted. The first shot in both of my examples may have killed the animals outright. Insurance shots can be good idea if the effect isn't immediate. Especially with African game which can go a long way with even a lung shot. Don't know if you know that or not.

No one chooses a THS has a preference but if one is adequately armed it can be a choice. As said I probably have used it in less than 0.4% of game I have shot (ie 2-4/>1000 animals).

roebuck222 - can I ask you, what is the largest animal you have shot? Please detail the hunt and the shot? Were you stand hunting or stalking? Did you have a guide or whatever to hold your hand? The calibre and the bullet used? What was the animals reaction to the shot? Also an estimate of how many large (no roe deer please ) animals you have shot? Some facts instead of theory please. Also have you ever wounded an animal and had to follow it up?

"Another tip". Some deer are actually quite wild and smart and keep on going. Very few deer I have spooked have ever stopped and not at 100 yards , still going a kilometre away. Your deer must be very tame. I've walked in many UK estates and the deer are fed lucerne from vehicles or feeders. Hardly sporting propositions!

Not bragging?...come come my dear Nitro,you of the thousands of animals shot...it would appear to me,that having shot so many animals, and I honestly believe you btw,you of all people could pass up a shot in a animals arse in favour of a better opportunity,once again you have stated it "may" have killed them as quick as any non brain shot.
btw I wouldn't take a brain shot...I prefer the neck shot if I am that close,the thought of being that little bit off and smashing a jaw bone...nah!!,ponder on it for a moment.

Ok I'm not going to get into a pissing contest with you as to has the better prowess as a "hunter",but the largest animal I have shot to date have been red deer stags,using a .243,red deer being the largest natural land animal in the uk of course,I can assure you these stags were no bottle fed park stags either.
I also have never sat in a high seat,I prefer to move about,part of the pleasure for me is using stalking skills to get near enough for a decent shot,yes I have wounded 2 deer...shoot enough that will happen,one was due to the scope being inexplicably off,and the other one well I dont know for sure,both deer were recovered though.
I usually stalk alone,carry my own rifle,gut my own deer,drag or carry it back,and butcher it myself,and also cook it myself (if needs be)....I dont question your credentials...maybe your judgement in the THS yes.

Perhaps this answer some of your questions...feel free to ask more,but please tell me what 4 bullets would weigh?

Roebuck222

Although I would not choose to do it on a deliberatly stalked UK deer, I find the THS or the raking gut shot absolutly first rate at anchoring driven game.

I don't suppose the animal is bothered if it is shot north-to-south or south-to-north, so long as the death is quick.

Sorry if that offends some peoples delicate constitutions.

Dear All

I will admit to a THS on a kudu that did not drop at the first chest shot in thick bush. I attembed and immediate second shot but the bolt on the Blaser R93 closed but did not lock properly and the action fired off but did not hit the primer hense the animal started to run off. As the animal was shot on an island in the Limpopo River and only offered a THS when it stopped so thats what it got and it went down. I would not take a THS as a first shot unless I was really really hungry (survival situation) and the bullet/calibre was big enough to reach the heart/lung area . Therefore a 100 gn 0.243 ballistic tip would be out of the question (375 H+H 300gn would be OK) unless you want a long follow up on a gut shot animal which is totally unethical.

MarkH,

I agree with what you say. A THS would not be my first shot of choice on a game animal. Just something unseemly about it, at least to me. But, your example of trying to stop your Kudu is a perfect example, for me, of where the THO fits in and its use.

I used a THO just last August on an Impala in South Africa. But, it was a sick Impala ram that we stumbled across while hunting. It was limping from what looked like a broken rear leg and was VERY noticably emaciated. My PH said to take it. The Impala was headed into thick brush and would have been out of sight in a few seconds. I took the THO shot which put him down. The shot was not fatal, though. We got up to him ASAP and I put in a finishing shot as quickly as possible. I'm glad that we were able to put him out of his misery but it was sad to see him in that condition. No telling how long he had been suffering.

-Bob F.

There is much to be said for the European hunting traditions, but believe me when you are stalking in native bush as we do here in New Zealand after an animal which is often close and mobile then one has on occasion to take a less than perfect shot.

I'm with Nitrox on this one and not because the shot is named after my state.

We frequently read a post about a quartering-on or quartering-away without similar negative comment and frankly, they are much less cetain.

A through-and-through shot with a heavy caliber is the same shot from either direction. And as far as I am concerned, my responsibility as a hunter is to make a humane kill, regardless of the compass points.

I can only assume that people like roebuck222 use calibers insufficient for 100% penetration and I respect the restraint in that case. It may be that organ meat has value in Europe and I can respect that too but it has virtually here none in the US. In fact, there is no legal market for hunted game at all.

OTOH, when a hunter is carrying a caliber capable of the shot, it is among the most humane one can take. It does make for messier field dressing but that is a matter of degree as I find all field dressing a chore.

All I can see is a cultural gap similar to the one when washing/not washing a skinned and hung carcass thread comes up. Brits wouldn't think of it and Americans by and large wouldn't think of not doing it.

NitroX,

I have to say I find your comments about our "wooden Boxes" quite offensive... I'll have you know that in the name of progression I have purchased a couple of METAL ones this year... After all it wouldn't be cricket if some poor fellow fell out of a wooden high seat while out to nab himself a little sport. What would Health and Saety say???? Besides with the metal one we can put some padding around the rail so we don't scratch our rifles...
HEE HEE


222,

Your question STATES that the shot is Unethical so really the question isn't a question. Personally I don't take the shot because my rifles haven't had the ballistics/penetration to pull it off efffectively.

Incidentally when you and I go out and lamp a few dozen bunnies it's fine here but, in the states you would mostly be locked up and have your rifle bent to 90 degrees in a vice....

God only knows what the Aussies would do to you!!!

FB

Off topic,is it illegal to shoot deer at night in the U.K with a spotlight?(lamp)

quote:

Personally I think it is a deplorable shot and anyone trying it should have their rifle barrels bent 90 degrees in a vice.

Sooo are we,on the whole more ethical hunters than some perhaps from across the water...just a thought.

I have only had one experience of purposely taking a THS. This was after another guy gut shot a deer. When the deer jumped up on follow up. I missed the first shot for the head/neck. He missed also, sooo I leveled the crosshairs, shifted to the right ham and took the shot. I figured it was better to lose one hindquarter instead of two or the whole deer.

For the last statement. I may have to agree with you. I think Europe has more ceremony that goes along with hunting. Plus a whole lot more rigorous education/testing to be allowed to hunt. Kind or separates out the riff-raff hunters.

With the trophy mentality that is pervading the US hunting culture, the win/succeeed at all cost mentality has lead to some very questionable field ethics. But that is a totally separate topic. If that buck/bull of a lifetime is walking straight away from you....
???

quote:

Originally posted by SDhunter:

quote:

Personally I think it is a deplorable shot and anyone trying it should have their rifle barrels bent 90 degrees in a vice.

Sooo are we,on the whole more ethical hunters than some perhaps from across the water...just a thought.

I have only had one experience of purposely taking a THS. This was after another guy gut shot a deer. When the deer jumped up on follow up. I missed the first shot for the head/neck. He missed also, sooo I leveled the crosshairs, shifted to the right ham and took the shot. I figured it was better to lose one hindquarter instead of two or the whole deer.

For the last statement. I may have to agree with you. I think Europe has more ceremony that goes along with hunting. Plus a whole lot more rigorous education/testing to be allowed to hunt. Kind or separates out the riff-raff hunters.

With the trophy mentality that is pervading the US hunting culture, the win/succeeed at all cost mentality has lead to some very questionable field ethics. But that is a totally separate topic. If that buck/bull of a lifetime is walking straight away from you....
???

So SDhunter, what exactly is your position on the THS? You seem all over the place.

Is the only justification for a THS on a gut-shot deer?

On the one hand you want to brand a lot of home-educated hunters riff-raff because they don't have access to European training, then you want to raise hell with trophy hunters for trophy hunting and then you side with the trophy hunters assuming you'll never see one better?

Which the hell is it?

I disagree with Texas Heart Shots, both in name and principle. I've passed on game animals before simply because I didn't want to shoot them in the ass. I'm a man of reasonable means and I get to process a lot of my own game and in my book, nothing sucks worse than trying to clean up a gut shot carcass after all that nasty, smelly gastric fluid gets all over everything.

I further resent that the Texas Heart Shot is named after my state. I'll remind the history buffs here that we used to hang people for shooting someone in the back way back when in the frontier days and we still frown on the practice today. I haven't met a hunter locally that would take an ass or gut shot on a game animal. It is indeed generally unethical; and you've heard this from a Texan.

Rather, I believe the original intent of this post was to flame America. Whether out of spite or jealousy, I'm unsure but I tend to think Roebuck has a beef with us Americans. Which is fine I suppose - we do believe in freedom of speech afterall and he is entitled to his opinions. However, if its an internet pissing contest he's after, why do it in the political forum rather than here?

So the only reasons not to do it is :

1. You're offended by guts

2. It reminds you of John Wayne movies where the bad guy back-shoots?

Offended is a harsh word. I don't take shots that lacerate the gastric organs because I don't like the added hassle although I guess others don't mind. I didn't intend to flame anyone who might have to take such a shot...I just prefer not to take them myself. I included the word "generally" rather than make an absolutely blanket statement. I do however consider the policy of "any shot, any where" to be poor sportsmanship. A hunter aught to take his time and get a good shot and I'm sure most rear to front shots can be avoided. However, and again, I guess you can't absolutely exclude all of them - hence "generally."

I've seen John Wayne shoot a man in the back before too...

How'd the Duke get involved in this conversation anyway?

quote:

Originally posted by Tex21:
Offended is a harsh word. I don't take shots that lacerate the gastric organs because I don't like the added hassle although I guess others don't mind. I didn't intend to flame anyone who might have to take such a shot...I just prefer not to take them myself. I included the word "generally" rather than make an absolutely blanket statement. I do however consider the policy of "any shot, any where" to be poor sportsmanship. A hunter aught to take his time and get a good shot and I'm sure most rear to front shots can be avoided. However, and again, I guess you can't absolutely exclude all of them - hence "generally."

I've seen John Wayne shoot a man in the back before too...

How'd the Duke get involved in this conversation anyway?

Disagreeing with something "in name and in principle" is pretty hard to back down from.

A reasonable person can only assume that (a) you're ashamed it is named after Texas and (b) it's an unprincipled shot.

To me both positions are flaming, intended or not.

But I will agree though that "any shot, any time" is not hunting. Too bad the ignorant can't distinguish a well placed THS from a "Hail Mary" shot.

"Texas heart shot" interesting topic. If you shoot for the guts from the rear it's messy-if you shoot for the base of the tail it isn't so messy and breaks the spine effectively "anchoring" the animal. If shooting for the spine is it less unethical????? I hate to waste meat it's against everything a chef does, but I'd hate to lose the animal of a lifetime. What about a severely quartering shot-you could, as I have miss by two inches creating a modified THS through the hams. Is this unethical? Where does it all end.

the chef