Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Deer Hunting Well, was it really an ethical shot? At 14 min in.

Not sure how it wasn't other than the dude took forever shooting him initially on flat ground and missed his target by 15" or so. Classic target acquisition/shooting issues most don't practice for on top of bad shot or not knowing dope.

Glad he found the buck and shot him again but the ham shot sucked but it was all he had. He should have kept shooting at the buck as it was half down after the chase.

Rodeos happen but it just seems like the shooter sucked...

Ethical? I will say the hunter who shot lacks experience. You always stay on the gun until you are certain as best as you possibly can determine your animal is down and not getting back up. Hopefully he learned a valuable lesson. 😎

I am not going comment on the ethics of the first shot, I don't know the dude or what he is capable of. What I will comment on is the the actions after the shot.

Dude should have reloaded and been ready for a follow up shot, That deer gave him lots of time for a follow up shot or two if he had not stood up and been BSing with his buddy. That behaviour I have an issue with. He could have ended it very quickly with minimal suffering for the deer if he was paying attention and not caught up in the glories of his 7 mag and 180 grain whatever bullet and the great shot that he made.

If my old man caught me acting like that he would have whupped my ass.

I am a big fan of and have taught or tried to teach to everyone I have helped to learn to hunt to reload as soon as reasonably possible and get the cross hairs back on the animal or where it fell out of sight or to move where you can get the cross hairs on the animal and be ready for a follow up shot for at least a couple of minutes.

The first words out of the mouth of the 4 African PHs I have hunted with after a good shot on an animal are "reload", meaning be ready for a follow up shot.

I am a big believer no matter how good I think the first shot was if any game animal gives me a second shot I will take it. I have seen several dead animals get up and move out. Most recently a buddy of mine shot a mule deer, I was watching the deer through binos and called the shot high and little far back. I encouraged him to "get up there and kill that deer", his response "no it's dead" I ask him to humour me and either shoot again it or stick a knife in the ribs to make sure its dead.

During the conversation the gets up and runs off uphill, 3 more shots and the deer is now dead. It could have been finished much sooner.

Just my thoughts.

Could have summed it all up by saying "what Beaver 10 and Greg W said" guess I'm just long winded today.

All the best GRF

I see a dude who made a poor shot on an unwounded animal at a rather long distance.

Everyone has different skill sets and different ethics but for me personally, I wont shoot at unwounded game past 450 yards and most shooters should shave 100 or 150 yards off that unless they want to see some goat [bleep].

I'm just glad he was able to polish it off.

Amen.

The only critters that ever worry me are those that drop at the shot. Zero excuse to not been ready to throw another shot into the deer, and taking that shot.

He's an idiot in my book.

Big +1

+ another 1

That's just how the cool kids do chit these days.

First that buck was not especially big and with patience he could have gotten closer or found another buck. Second no matter what bullet your shooting it might not perform as good as it could if it had a higher impact velocity. I'll bet he tries to get closer next time.

He clipped it high. Should have assumed a stunner hit and been ready to pop him again.

Yup. No idea,why he didn't shoot it again. Plenty of time. Once it stood back up, it looked like it was gonna go. Shoot the darn thing again!

you cant have a one shot kill …..if you shoot them twice......bob

Nicely-matching, complete camo ensemble. Check.
All the other goodies the cool kids are wearing/using. Check.
Speaking ballistics language. Check.
Prepared mind. Fail.

I'm not sure what the guy's experience level is but if he didn't already know better, yes sir, he learned a valuable lesson lesson that day - and with an audience.

"smoked him, smoked him smoked him" he was smokin somethin but it wasn't that deer. also people who disrespect an animal by saying that or dancin a jig after killing are D-bags in my book. And he didn't listen to the guy saying the deer was up (like 5 times). shooter was too busy thinking himself a hero. I would have been embarrassed by that performance and never publicized it at all.

Deer was standing still so I can't criticize someone with the skills to make a shot at that distance. looks like this guy didn't have the skill.

as mentioned what is unethical is pretending to be a TV star instead of putting a second round in the deer - deer was moving or his head was up the whole time - as mentioned shooter should have shot again.

hope the anti-hunters don't get a hold of this. also deer have hair - not fur

Epic fail. I try to stay away from Kryptec clothed dudes.

Thank the internet for that one. Stupid phuqqers....

Based on his comments, I'm not sure he really learned anything.

+1, the comments at the end sounded like he was doing a poor imitation of Steve Rinella but he failed on a few different counts and all the cool music and blather about "feeding the family with organic meat" can't salvage the video from his ineptitude. As far as "ethical" goes, the baseline is taking only the shots you know you can make. I know that things can happen and the best can miss shots but he missed badly with plenty of time to set up so it looks like he didn't have the capability to make the shot. If he's capable and he just missed he should have the common sense to sh**-can that video, not broadcast it.

It was obvious in the video that he clipped the animal high, there wasn't much blood, and the animal bounded off as if it wasn't injured badly. Yet he made it sound like he made a good hit, and said he hoped it wouldn't be a long tracking job. Was that BS, hard to tell?

The most disappointing thing to me was when he got to the animal he went straight to caressing the horns and talking about the G1's or whatever. Kind of astounding that he didn't go right to where the first shot hit to look at the wound and figure out what went wrong. And then they basically ignored that in the rest of the video.

26 minutes!
Thanks for the Cliff Notes version, guys. I'm not watching that.

There is a top statement you rarely hear. So many are happy that they fall at the shot... not here. If they fall unless shooting at head, I'm assuming I missed my target and I'm ready to hit em again.

Even when shooting the head, I rechamber and stay on them until the hair goes back down...

stupid to take the shot when he did. Anyone worth a flip could tell that deer knew the gig was up and was moving on out. Just plain ignorant shooter IMHO.

he learned from his mistakes made on this deer ,we all do. and he was man enough to haul it out to the truck. good job ! no body is perfect in a hunting situation

Flat bill hat is a dead giveaway. Dumbass.

Kill enough critters anyone will fuuck up.... the problem is he was huntin for the camera, running his yap when he shoulda been on the scope... I shoot til the stop wiggling...

Flat brimmer....check....

Can't shoot for chit.....check....

Trying to be a movie star for his Instagram subscribers....check...

Trying to make a film out of a 140" dink and calling him Lazarus....priceless....

Edited to add, I watched it again. Deer was slightly moving forward at shot. All shooter had to do was wait and he'd stop again. Boom.

As an aside, I've seen this scenario a few times now with shots below the spine and in the meat. I was lectured on here a while back that there is no location below the spine that isn't fatal. Those folks care to explain this video then that obviously didn't take his spine out?

Exactly.... social media/ www is breeding this shiit..... dumb

Lazarus...LMAO 😂

😎

A pard years ago busted a rag horn that ate 3 solid hits from a 300 Rum before it stayed in the dirt. I opened it up and found a broadhead and 5” inches of an aluminum shaft encased in scar tissue about 3” inches under the spine. I would say a bullet tearing through the same area could produce a walk away animal. 😎

Poor ethics as far as I'm concerned. Was not taught right or something. You have to stay on them with that scope and be certain they are not going to get up. I don't give a chit if you are on that animal for minutes and wait for the last twitch of the nerves, you got to stay on them and be sure. I'm not faulting him for shooting at 650, but he owes the animal some respect and make sure it is down for the count, not celebrate and dance around like a fu cking idiot. Modern day fu cking twit with his can and longrange bullets, and fancy turrets, wanting to impress his friends on instagram and twitter, doesn't make him a hunter....just a shooter that has no moral concept of making that shot count and following up with a second, if need be... How many of you here left a comment on his youtube channel? I let him know he's not much of a hunter.

Do cameras make a-hole hunters?
Or is it a character flaw,
that makes one think others really care what one does?


When the red light goes on,
these asshats have to put on a show.

I like the Path Films NZ stuff.

Looked to me like the first shot clipped the top of the back, not below the spine? I guess we'll never know for sure since he ignored the whole question of where the first shot hit, what the woulnd looked like, and why it didn't put the animal down for good. If it was up to him his "audience" would be left thinking it may have been a "bullet failure."

If he hadn't recovered the animal I'm sure the story would've been "the Hornady eld-x is no good, I hit a muley buck broadside, smoked him, knocked him down, and it got up and ran off. The bullet splattered on the shoulder."

Absolutely Smoke but if that impact was above the spine firmly in the meat (doesn't appear to just nick, blood and lots of hair, hearty impact sound, etc.) I'd have to think that deer couldn't get up like he did. But crap happens as does my speculation...grin...

Yep on speculation, mine is that the bullet caught enough meat to shock the CNS and temporarily stun the buck but when he pogo-ed outta there he looked like he wasn't gonna stop for a while. The wound from the first shot was what I was most curious about but specualtion is all we've got since this guy apparently wasn't at all curious about it. IMO, if you make that video and send it out for public consumption you've got to spend a little more time on "what happened?"

Agreed. My father taught me that, if the animal is still moving, you're still shooting.

Boy, did he ever get lucky on that one. If that deer hadn't decided on it's own to stop, it would be alive today.

And then he ass shoots it!

It seemed to be an ethical shot to me, other than he took forever to pull the trigger, and the buck was already nervous and starting to move, and he ended up hit well outside of the "bread basket". A couple inches lower, and that buck wasn't moving, though. Shooter error? Dope error? Can't say. There are larger issues here, obviously.

Which one said, "Smoked him", the shooter, or the spotter? Idiot. That shot clipped the top of the spine, obviously. And it was truly a rookie mistake to get up and off the gun. These guys shouldn't be taking 650 yd shots if they don't know how to do it, meaning that you don't get off the rifle or the animal for several minutes after the animal is "down". Just like a close-up shot, where you keep the animal in sight as you approach it to make sure it shows no signs of life, and you are ready for a follow-up at any time.

How frustrating, when that buck gets back up and just stands there. The shooter and the spotter should have been ready to put another shot into the deer, and perhaps be ready with an on-the-fly adjustment to POA. These guys dropped the ball, all the way around. They were more concerned about "getting the footage" than getting the animal in an ethical fashion. Turn off the fuucking camera and pay attention, schittheads!

That was pathetic. I’d never heard of these guys. After watching them make fools of themselves I looked at their website and found this quote:

“Only learn from the best. This is how we do it. We pride ourselves in knowledge sharing and hope we can help the beginner or the advanced hunter hone the craft.”

Azz wipe for taking a shot he wasn't reasonably certain would result in a one shot kill that he could accurately make !!!

Funny this video has made it here. I follow MF on IG. They released this video and are very proud of it. As soon as I seen the video I gave a negative comment on their IG about the shooter not following up and he got very lucky that he was able to eventually recover the deer. Well they wasn’t happy with me and I got some tough talk from them.
When these guys celebrate they’re not celebrating the deer they are celebrating the deer kill was caught on film. That’s how they get paid. There was a perfect opportunity for a follow up shot just a few seconds after the deer dropped.

It is a shame this was even filmed.

Not good on so many layers.

The shot hit the spinous process of the backbone. When they use four legs to walk instead of two the animal will have a spinous process above the vertebrae. That is where the backstraps nestle. Look at a T bone steak or skeletal anatomy.

I dissected a doe, it is in the savage forum thread I posted under 220 savage slug.

Sounds non-lethal??

I agree smokepole.

You can snap a spinous process off the vertebrae. Initially some shock. The animal moving away looked pretty normal to me.

It is real common in archery, to be non lethal due to less shock ( Dead tissue) from the impact.

A secondary clostridium infection can happen with gunshot wounds.

Ethical? first shot to far for me, but if he can make it, ok.

What I had an issue with was his statement of "about to go home the blood trail was getting sparse" That means there is still a blood trail, in snow! You keep tracking. Hell it had only been an hour.

Ethical if one can make the shot. If he thinks he can make the shot, then no. For sure not a video I'd put out there.

C-diff?? Would that be more common with a gunshot wound than an arrow, what's the reason for that? More external debris from the hide dragged into the wound??

Textbook...textbook...textbook example of the sheer stupidity/ignorance/recklessness or ANYONE who shoots that kind of distance at an uninjured animal.

Perfect example of how NOT to hunt...so many mistakes made it is sickening...but sure had top of the line gear huh?

NO SUCH THING AS LONG RANGE HUNTING, IT'S LONG RANGE SHOOTING. Get off your a** and get closer.

Sorry about the typo, "recklessness 'or' ANYONE" should be "recklessness 'of' ANYONE".

Well now, that's a murky and dismal way to look at it.

Without watching the video first I have two observations.

1. Why do you need a supressor on a long range gun?
2. Deer are not that hard to get up on for an under 400 yard shot.

1) Same reason you need one for short shots, to reduce recoil and allow you to see your impacts in the scope.

2) Depends on the situation.

A gunshot wound is ....well a gunshot wound.

It will devitaize tissue , make it an anaerobic environment. " blood shock" etc.

An arrow is more like surgery the tissues are still vital and aerobic due to the much lower kinetic energy on the impact.

Got it, thanks.

What is vital and devitalized tissue in this context?

I'm pretty sure it means "dead" because it's been crushed rather than sliced with a blade. Being dead is what makes it anaerobic. Some bacteria can only thrive in anaerobic environments.

Something similar happened to me elk hunting fall of '18 in that I shot a bull that flopped "dead" at the impact. 350yds shooting kneeling off of a tall bipod. I've killed 8 elk with this rifle and a truckload of deer. Been shooting the same 200gn TSX load through it since '04. I watched for probably 15-20sec turned around grabbed my pack cleared the rifle's chamber and prepared to go get to work on my "dead" elk. When I turned back around, the bull was back on his feet so I quickly peel out of the pack, chamber another round, but the bull lays right back down as the other 2 bulls with him leave, it's obvious he's not going to (can't) follow. While he's down I can see his head/neck and nothing else. I decide that getting closer is a better option than shooting from my present position. I got into a shallow depression, got up to ~125yds and as I was settling in on the bipods for a precise killing shot he managed to effort back to his feet and begins to stumble away. I hit him again through the chest, cycle the bolt, manage to trip the floor plate (which I've never ever done unintentionally on any rifle), find a loaded round at my feet, chamber it, hit him a 3rd time quartering hard away now @ 150yds or so and he was down for good.

Upon breakdown it was pretty obvious the bullet pushed further than I'd expected and got him in the diaphragm/liver. No guts, but, I didn't miss them by much. In my case, the bull was out in the open and there was really no way for him to go that wouldn't take him either relatively close to me or run him past either my hunting partner or another party of hunters that were relatively close.

Alls well that ends well but there was a 5-7min stretch of uncertainty.

Sounds to me like you made all the right decisions, and had a positive outcome. Well done.

In this instance, no, it was not an ethical shot because it exceeded his abilities and did not result in a humane kill.

There are many on here that have the skill set required to make that shot resulting in a clean kill.

It would not have been an ethical shot me personally, as I do not know that I could make that shot with 100% confidence.

It's interesting how different hunters define "ethical" when it comes to shot choice. Some define it by distance, others define it by whether you can make the shot, as you defined it above. I like your definition but I don't personally agree with the "100% confidence" level because as a wise man once said, if you hunt enough you'll miss or make a bad shot. So my standard is closer to 90%. That's not to say I'd take a shot I had any doubts about, just acknowledging that even when I'm "sure" I can make the shot there's still a small chance that I won't.

And for those who equate "ethical" with up close, here's something to think about. The hunters who have to get the closest are traditional bowhunters. And if you read the Traditional Bowhunter's Handbook by TJ Conrad, a respected traditional archer and really good with a traditional bow, he pegs that confidence level at 80%. Because shooting accurately with a trad bow is damn hard.

In other words the guy who wrote the book on "getting close" says 80% confidence that you can make the shot is OK. So who's more "ethical," the guy who has to get within 20 yards and is willing to accept 80%, or the guy who can kill from 500 with 90% confidence?

These guys are funny. I put a comment on their you tube area, simliar to what I posted here, words to the effect of "that was pathetic, especially coming form guys that consider themselves the best..." There were some other simalr comments. All have been removed. I wonder how many negative coments that got that we will never see?

Ethical shot? Yes. Unethical early celebration. Follow up shot, ugly but effective. A lot of ruined meat because he’s a dumbass. Like everyone else, keep shooting until it’s over

One of the moral principles that we as ethical hunters believe in, is a clean humane kill. This was not what most would consider a clean humane kill.

I stand by my 100% confidence level statement, but even at that, rodeo's can and do happen. From 5 to 1200 yards. Traditional archery to LR systems.

I stated personally, that for me to take that shot would be unethical and irresponsible. I am not proficient, or qualified to take that shot. I know this because I have shot steel from 650-900 yards with my hunting rifles.

He probably had to shoot it a third time after that ass shot.

Yes, I agree he probably would have stopped again. OTOH once they are edgy like that it generally takes some amount of time or even regroup and find them once they've moved some and settled again, rather than risk an alert deer taking a step. Though time of flight is not long, I just wouldn't risk it.

IMHO, the body language on that deer is totally wrong to pull the trigger. Even if he was 200 yards away it wouldn't have worked for me. But then most folks say I"m a bit to picky...

The shooter was so fond of himself and of his shot that he would not dare keeping his eyes on the deer.

The animal's reaction was the typical reaction of a spine shot, and experience tells you never lose sight of a spined animal until it stops kicking.

But he would not even listen to his buddy warning him that the deer had stood up.

For me this gentleman is the stereotype of the modern internet-learned shooter who sees more interest in taking a long shot than in the hunting in itself.

Jud was on the money. The shooter was hunting for the camera.

Steelhead, SKane, GregW, Beav, Smokepole, GRF, Recurve, 16Bore... I’m in complete agreement.

There’s no shortage of clowns pining to be the next superstar hunter. Who relates to these “industry” fueled productions, outside the “industry” itself, is anyone’s guess.

These are the last people I’d want to hunt with. You gotta ask yourself...

The medium, i.e. film, isn’t the problem, it’s the story teller’s dimness of vision that’s too blame. That they pretend this shït is anything but a protracted commercial is laughable. I wonder when they’ll figure out we’re no longer playing along.

Rule #1 Stay on the gun, reload. Rio7

That may be true but I think what he's really interested in is shooting videos and setting himself up to be the next Steve Rinella.

He probably should have taken up golf instead, if this video is any indication he has a better chance at becoming the next Tiger Woods.

If you go to 23:35 it shows fairly well where the first shot hit. Definitely very high through the spinous processes. As others have stated, a hit near the spinal cord can deliver enough shock to stun the animal, dropping it to the ground temporarily.

As far as the cause of the high hit, I wonder if they got an accurate range from their rangefinder. It might have ranged the ground behind the deer instead of the deer itself, giving a yardage reading that was too long.

The dancing around after the shot was definitely a douchebag move. How about stay on the gun to make sure of the kill, then film the dancing later if you feel like you need it for the video.

The first shot was too far for me as I only practice to 600 and won't push the knobs further than tested at the range. Even 600 would have to be perfect conditions for me to try it. Ethical? I don't know the shooter's level of competence and so can't say.

What I can say is we follow one rule - shoot them until they are down - and stay that way. Had the shooter done that there was plenty of time for a follow-up. They are lucky to have recovered it.

We can only hope he learned a lesson. No gaurantee.