quote:

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

It is legal but only if a specific license has been granted to do so....normally only for culling or control purposes.

Roebuck222

quote:

Originally posted by Fallow Buck:

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. [QUOTE]

I wrote "my opinion that the THS is a disgusting shot (wounded animals aside)"

So would you take the shot as a first shot,if you had a rifle that was capable?

_______________________________________________
[QUOTE] Incidentally when you and I go out and lamp a few dozen bunnies it's fine here but.....

You mean at night with my silenced,oops moderated .22 ? .

Roebuck222

222

I don't often visit here on your Forum but I just could n't help making a comment on this thread. I just fail to see how making a humane shot on any animal from whatever angle is unethical. With modern firearms and adequate bullets almost any shot can be taken effectively.

The prejudice against that "THS" of course came from when we didn't have adequate equipment for the job and every ounce of meat needed to be saved to get us through until the next season. A shot in the ass with an old black powder rifle would surely end in disaster and a lost animal.

I personally have only taken a shot directly up the butt on a couple of animals and they expired in theirs tracks or only made it a short distance. The raking shot through the paunch is another story and I have used it many times on buffalo, moose, caribou, moose, eland etc. with great success. If the animal you came to hunt is disappearing into the brush you better take the shot that is presented and you better be adequately armed to make the shot.

I don't know what types of hunting you have done but many of the hunts I have been on require multiple shots to put the animal down regardless of marksmanship. The unethical part comes when you don't keep on shooting after the first shot and you loose the animal. My personal ethics won't let me stop shooting until the animal is on the ground and if it is still kicking when I approach I shoot again.

Talk to a few dangerous game guides and PH's and see what they say about a shot up the butt with a heavy caliber. It is just devastating.

If you personally don't want to take the shot that's fine but it would seem you and some others here would like to label your own anitquated personal prejudice as what is ethical for hunting period regardless of circumstances. If that is the case you just don't know much about hunting other than perhaps from your limited perspective.

Regards,

Mark

Dear All

This is becoming quite an interesting global debate. For any hunter who is not hunting/shooting to keep themselveself and family alive there should be one ethical standard.
Killing an animal should have nothing to do with the 'now or never buck' or how much money you have paid for it. Ones primary concern is to make sure that the first shot is 100% fatal before pulling the trigger whether the animal is moving or standing. This requires practice and training be it in a club or back yard.
If the hunter unfortunatly does not stop the animal with the first shot then a quick back up shot at whatever angle must be taken and continue to be taken until the animal is dead.
The same rules apply to follow up on wounded animals where every effort needs to be undertaken to track the wounded animal even if hunting days are lost.
We must remeber that hunting is under constant attack by those who would like to see it stopped. Those hunters who take first shots at animals in an haphazard angles/ distances for a good trophy are not hunting ethically however loud they shout about being European/American or whatever. Theses are living animals and we have a duty of care to kill our trophies/food humanly with the first shot.A shot up the back end without a bullet/calibre that can destroy the heart/lungs cannot be justified and we all know that once a bullet enters an animal no-one can predict its path.
I am quite prepared to be flamed by those people who shoot elk at 1000 yards or shoot first and think afterwards but I would hope that the above guidelines common to the ethical hunter.

Mark,

I think the different attitudes stem from the different circumstances ðos surrounding hunting in the USA and Europe.

To generalise, in the States, you have high hunter pressure, limited seasons and tags and the hunting is very much geared towards trophy hunting..Taking a big buck in the States is a big deal and in exceptional circumstances can earn the hunter a lot of money. The hunter is geared to taking the shot in any circumstance whether it be at extreme range or from less than ideal angles..

In Europe and the UK, the approach is different.

Seasons are much longer, tags are not an isue and hunter pressure is much less. Hunters tend to hunt land where they have some control over the animals, rather than as part of a free for all as in many parts of the States. European hunters are very much geared towards managing a herd for its long term good where as in the States QDM is a relatively recent thing and not at all universal yet..

While looking for a trophy is a consideration for us, its in no way the driving force as it is in the States. I've never heard of anyone making a cent from taking a trophy and even in the hunting fraternaty such success is soon pretty much forgoton...

However venison does have a comercial value and as the way hunting is structured means that many hunters sell their surplus venision, the condition of carcass is a much bigger consideration than in the States.

Most hunters in the UK and Europe would be ashamed to present the dealer with a carcass that had been shot 3 or 4 times or with a carcass that had been hit hit by THS.
Innow in the UK you would gain your self a repuation as a bit of a cowboy if you did it more than once or twice.

Most places I have stalked would prefer you not to take a THS and expect you to make a good broad side on or neck shot at a resonable distance...If those shots don't present themselves, its not see as a big deal rather it being just part of hunting i.e there's always another time...

Hunting driven game in Europe is slightly different and I would say that attitudes generally are also changing or evolving whether in the States or Europe..whether that change is always for the good is of course a different debate!

Regards,

Pete

quote:

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

I am not in favor of the THS. And would never take one purpose except under certain circumstances. ie wounded game animal, then it is any available shot so as not to lose the animal.

I enjoy the tablefare that my hunting provides. I process all of my own game animals. The THS ruins too much meat and makes an unpleasant mess. But the THS is an effective shot.

To clarify my above statement on Trophy hunting mentality. In the Trophy culture, the meat is of secondary importance to the headgear.

Dear Pete

I think we have now come to the real issue in this post. We all agree that a THS is OK as a follow up shot on wounded game. With reference to the US:
"To generalise, in the States, you have high hunter pressure, limited seasons and tags and the hunting is very much geared towards trophy hunting..Taking a big buck in the States is a big deal and in exceptional circumstances can earn the hunter a lot of money. The hunter is geared to taking the shot in any circumstance whether it be at extreme range or from less than ideal angles.."

Is that not the problem ie the hunter has paid for and animal/tag, taken the time out of work and if they dont get it someone else will. Is one hunting to prove how macho one can be by the size of the trophy or by the quality and ethics of the hunt. Is it that important to take the shot at the risk of wounding the animal.

By the way I have done a THS and have a wall of trophies some CIC Silver medal, some Rowland Ward others just immature bucks, they are all equally important and all have a story to tell.

There is hunting, and there is hunting. I have hunted in Belgium once, in Sweden once, and been on a hunt in England once.

None of these hunts come anywhere near the sort of hunting in Africa.

In Africa, it is a different ball game altogether.

If you have not chased a buffalo in thick mopane for several hours, under the African sun, and the only chance you get for a shot is like the above, then do not pass judgement on those who have.

A perfect example of what I mean

Guys,

I've followed the comments since mine and what I have gathered is that you guys from the UK have a generalized idea of what hunting in the States is like. Namely that it is some sort of free for all with the paticipants only interested in fueling their machismo. I must admit there are places in the States where huge numbers of people are in the field at the same time and with that many people some are going to be slobs.

On the other hand much of the hunting in the States bears no resemblence to the above. I don't hunt in situations like that and you don't need to be a multi millionaire to get away from that. If you came to hunt with me I would organize a private land hunt where our party would be the only ones hunting the land. Yes I would encourage you to take the largest animal we could find because removing that one animal has no effect on the structure of the herd. Another big buck will take his place. To me trying to take the biggest animal is selective hunting. The meat is a wonderful addition to the hunt but in all fairness for most of us hunting for meat is incredibly impractical. If we all sold our guns, hunting equipment, meberships in clubs, hunting leases we could live on T bones for eternity.

The point about markmanship and not knowing what the bullet will do inside the animal comes back to where I think the ethics lies. If I took a THS on a moose with a 243 shooting some tinfoil bullet that would be unethical. That same shot taken with a 375 H&H and a 300 gr. Premium bullet is a very effective shot but it has to be placed correctly to shoot completely through the lenght of the animal just as a broadside rib shot cannot be placed too far back and cause only a gut shot.

I'm not trying to tell you to use the THS but on the other hand I see no reason for you to take the moral or in this case ethical high road.

I am hunting in Scotland next year for free ranging stag and believe me I'm not going to try and tell the gamekeeper how it should be done. I'm sure he will want be very close and will only want me to take a nearly perfect shot. That's fine because that is the expereince I have paid for and it is the way it is done. In the States on the last day of the hunt you paid hard earned dollars for you should just take and be prepared for whatever makable shot is presented because there may not be another chance.

Regards,

Mark

I don't remember ever taking a THS on a big game animal, but I really don't see any problem with it. If you're worried about wasting meat, any shot where the animal is quartering towards you that necessitates shooting it diagonally throgh the front shoulder or straight on through the chest is going to waste a lot more meat and tear up the guts.

Personally, I think the neck shot is worse. If you're off by an inch and miss the spine, you have an animal that is going to die a really slow painful death. Given the choice between the THS or the back of the neck shot, I would definitely go with the THS.

quote:

Originally posted by SDhunter:

quote:

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

I am not in favor of the THS. And would never take one purpose except under certain circumstances. ie wounded game animal, then it is any available shot so as not to lose the animal.

I enjoy the tablefare that my hunting provides. I process all of my own game animals. The THS ruins too much meat and makes an unpleasant mess. But the THS is an effective shot.

To clarify my above statement on Trophy hunting mentality. In the Trophy culture, the meat is of secondary importance to the headgear.

OK but there is a difference between an indiscriminate ass-shot and a "THS".

Properly executed, no damage is done to the hams. Improperly executed, it is NOT a "THS" but a "hip shot". And FWIW, a hip shot is a respected shot on Dg in most of Africa.

I appreciayte the idea of a rear spine shot but that risks the tenderloins which are at least 1/2 of the reason to meat hunt, IMO.

A true "THS" skips just under the spine into the heart/lungs and out the center of the chest, missing virtually all of the edible muscle tissue.

Quite a while back, Saeed had a rather long post about this very subject. His position was that in most of the places he hunts, if you're not willing to take a THS, you're not gonna do much shooting. The same can be said for many parts of the USA.
For someone to sit on their pompous ass and pass judgement on someone else's hunting style when they haven't a clue as to what the hunting conditions are like is rather extreme to my way of thinking. One has to wonder if their information is from actual hunting or, more likely, gathered from travel brochures and hearsay.
FWIW, I've never shot an anything in the ass but that doesn't mean I wouldn't and I certainly am not gonna tell someone not to.

quote:

Originally posted by MARK H. YOUNG:

I am hunting in Scotland next year for free ranging stag and believe me I'm not going to try and tell the gamekeeper how it should be done. I'm sure he will want be very close and will only want me to take a nearly perfect shot. That's fine because that is the expereince I have paid for and it is the way it is done.

all the way to Scotland to intentionally shoot a stag in the arse...
I'm sure the gamekeeper will listen with sympathy to your explanation and rationale for that one.
Anyway as you said your paying for it...however the meat has commercial value and normally remains the property of the estate,so if your shot is only a little bit off the "brown starfish" well you know the rest.
At least the gamekeeper can regale his mates in the local pub with the tale of your request,as well as explaining to the game dealer when he comes to pick the carcass up.

Anyway good luck I'm sure you will enjoy Scotland.

regards
Roebuck222

roebuck222

Your last post is breathtakingly dishonest. Mark Young is clearly saying that he intends to comport himself in accordance with local standards while in Scotland. As his own post says, he believes that will involve a close and perfect shot in the eyes of his Scot gamekeeper. Obviously, that does not include a "shot up the arse."

Yet you persist with this THS obsession of yours and twist Mark's comments totally out of context. It defies reason.

You may have valid reasons for your obvious anti-Americanism. But you only discredit yourself by lowering yourself as you have.

China Fleet,and mark young,
ok I accept that,you aren't coming to scotland to take a perfect shot up the arse (no double entendre intended),apologies for my misinterpretation.

And as you pointed out our local (high) standards do so count,so for the rest of the shot up the arse brigade (of what ever nationality)not in Scotland carry on.

Roebuck222

Roebuck,

Help me out please, I am having trouble following your argument just now. You have stated that you do not think a THS is an ethical or appropriate shot to take, perfectly understanable. Others have stated, and in some cases given their reasons, why they would make a THS, which is also understandable. What else do you want?

I seem to recall reading somewhere that THS when executed correctly is a very effective shot, which calls for a high degree of marksmanship, and that it is quite often used in Africa on DG. Whether I got that right or wrong I don't know. What I do know, I think, is that the THS when executed correctly is a perfectly legitmate shot, and those that take it should not be criticised, or put into the same category as those unethical hunters that exist, worldwide, who who shoot at whatever part of their quarry they can see in the hope that it will die, sooner or later. I take it these are the people you are getting at, I think that as ethical hunters we should respect the practices and customs of others.

Now before you or anyone else starts on at me, NO, I have not, nor will I, use a THS. I am not sure that my marksmanship is good enough to keep me clear of the brown stuff!

Now I have told a lie. I did once take a THS using a WRM, and achieved full penetration. It was on a Hooded Crow that was dining on a rabbit, shot him up the soil pipe ran full length of his body and took his head off.

John

John,
I am not argueing / discussing it anymore, there seems to be a 50/50 split on the merits or otherwise of the shot.
I have given my opinion and others have given theirs,which is fair enough,I intend to leave it at that.

Regards
Roebuck222

Gentlemen,

I honestly fail to see any argument against shooting an animal in any part of its anatomy, as long as the bullet is able to penetrate deep enough to reach the vitals and kill.

That photo I posted of the buffalo shot in the tail, the bullet penetrated teh full length of his body, and we found the bullet under the skin at the junction of his shoulder and neck!

Years ago I used to hunt with a 270 Ackley, and always waited for the animal to offer a good angle for the shot. I found that we had to pass on the shot on many occasions. Hence my decision to use my 375/404 with bullets that will penetrate to the vitals from any angles.

Makes life much easier for everyone concerned.

Roebuck,

I am pleased to hear it, good decision.

John