Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Ham Shot Ethical?

I was on a facebook hunting page this morning when I came across a post where a guy apparently had made what he considered to be a good clean kill on a buck with his bow by shooting it right in the left ham.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?...m.744820605556046&type=1&theater




Immediately people started posting negative comments when the site's administrator (who is a registered hunting guide) stepped in and reprimanded the nay sayers as uninformed troublemakers, defending the shot as ethical and proper as the location of the hit is a good place to aim as it is loaded with blood and has major blood vessels and arteries and stating that a hit there will result in a good clean kill.
I'm fully aware that the femoral artery runs through all four quarters but is this a new fangled scientifically correct technique that I've somehow failed to pick up on?
I'm an old school guy and have always considered the heart lung shot to be the only aim point that any archer should ever take.

Am I missing something here?

You aren't missing a damn thing. I see so many bowhunters on Bubbavision make shots like that that I can't bear to watch anymore�.

Bad shot and they don't want to admit it. miles

Shoot it in the azz, then call it "an ethical ham shot"?
Sounds like something out of DC.

To me, very unethical. The femoral artery is maybe 3/8" wide........awful tough to target it.
First or second deer I ever killed with the bow was quartering away pretty hard. As I released it took a step. Smacked him square in the ham....he took three steps and keeled over. It honestly looked as if some dumped 5 gallons of blood on the ground and all over the trees. Fastest kill I've seen with a bow. Complete and utter luck though. I'd never take the shot or condone it in any way.

I am not a bow hunter but it seems to me if that were the only shot I had I would go home empty handed.

Swampman is at it again I see..

my brother made a bad shot like, hit in the same place, deer only went 20 yrds and bleed out real fast. he had lucked out and hit the artery.

That's a double whammy. Ham shot into the guts. What's not to love?

I don't recall that being a practiced shot in Hunters Education? Never seen a target that has a kill zone in the arse? I personally wouldn't take that shot unless the animal is wounded already.

I don't care WHAT his name is, he would NEVER "hunt" with me.

We used to just call that a bad shot.



But we used to also call a spade a spade, a crook a crook, and impeachment used to be an option for bad presidents as well.

Strange times we live in, this wonderful make believe world.

It's not just bow hunters.
I came across this Cow while Cat hunting a few years ago that was very much alive despite being ass shot (right ham) by a large caliber rifle. The shot came far from killing her but it caused a compound fracture of the femur bone so she wasn't going anywhere.
I had to put her down with my 17rem which should be a discussion on the "ethics" (and low percentage IMO) of head shots but that's another thread.

Witnessed a similar experience on a pig, probably didn't even make it that far. Was very surprised but it's still dumb luck, not an ethical shot.

If you have enough horse power in the chamber, an odd angle spine shot can, imo, be an ethical choice.

However, that is not a choice I would make with a small caliber rifle or bow.

Good thinking, a 99.9% chance of simply increasing the suffering is always a good idea.

Sorry, but that's bad shot regardless of the situation.

Looks to me to be a fortunate outcome to an unfortunate(read botched) shot placement.
I wouldn't try to take that shot on purpose myself.

Ethical if one is hopelessly lost and starving in the desert/forest.

If one is a recreational hunter, however, and with conscious thought made the decision to take on that angle, he/she would not be included in subsequent camp invitations. I find it entertaining when the same question is posed with the situation being the trophy of a lifetime. Responses aren't quite as rapid. There are after all some who's main goal is to put something on the wall meat be damned.

I have arms slinging 450+ grain slugs that could probably put down rhino sized critters with that approach. Given that the loins and hams provide the bulk of meat I intend to take home though, I don't habitually unleash my destructive powers in those regions.

As to the femoral artery: I suspect that only one out of 100 of us on this site could successfully track its path on the target's exterior. I always note it when butchering, but I'd not stand there and bet a paycheck that I could push in an ice pick and make contact. Even vets who have done thousands, often miss brachials or jugulars when drawing blood.

I too think it's a lack of respect for our quarry. On the more human side and in defensive situations, we don't commend folks for "back shooting."

If the OP's rendering above was a "sh-t happens shot", that's fine, and the person at least owned up to it. Acceptable practice? Again, not in my camp.

I will admit I once inadvertently put one in the hams on a small buck, and he needed finishing. It was also the very first big game hunt my young wife had willingly participated in. Given the resulting vocalizations, thrashing, and struggles to escape, not to mention the subsequent butchering mess, I would have fully understood had she refused to ever go afield again. Fortunately, she is still my best and most dependable hunting buddy.

The femoral artery is only found in half the quarters, the rear ones, right along the femur.

The front end has similar brachial arteries which are neither as big nor as long.

Modified texas heart shot?
I'd go home empty handed before taking a shot like that.
Show some respect for the animal..