# Ethical shot



## btreybig (Jul 3, 2008)

I was hunting a friends lease this weekend looking to help him out in some MLD tags he needed to fill. While hunting one of the hunters killed a doe. He shot her in the head at 30 yards. Got back to camp and was pretty proud of it. I have never shot a deer but in the vitals or neck area. But never in the head. Got me thinking if this was a ethical **** or not. For me absolutely not.

Wanted to hear some of your inputs on this.


----------



## jtburf (May 26, 2004)

Instant kill and no meat loss.

What is the issue?

John


----------



## sboudreaux (May 22, 2008)

I do believe it is ethical because the animal should not suffer. With that said I have done it a few times and it is not for me. I prefer to shoot doe high up on the neck and have had very good success with this shot. Of course some believe that you should only shoot deer in the heart/lung region. 

Whatever shot you choose IMHO should put the animal down as fast as possible with as little meat affected as you can. That is what I feel constitutes an ethical shot.


----------



## Bucksnort (Jun 29, 2004)

I don't like it. I have done it. I believe it is ethical. Not my thing.


----------



## RobaloSunrise (Jun 10, 2011)

Depends on How accurate you are. I have seen deer emaciated and starving cause some clown shot half their nose off trying to hit them in the head. Even a blown neck shot will lose animals. But it's all up to the trigger puller. Head shots are low percentage shots. This is why you should shoot for center-mass and the A box. Now does that mean a good marksman can't make head shots all day? No. Evaluate your skills and whether you can watch a wounded animal run off. Then make the call. I have made head shots and will continue to do so, however I also evaluate every shot and call it. Head shot or center-mass, I will take center-mass almost all the time. Gust of wind, twig you can't see in your scope, mirage, what have you, center-mass will deliver.


V/R
J


----------



## Instigator (Jul 6, 2004)

The ethical issue with a head shot is the high potential for a crippling miss that results in a slow starvation death. Most shooters don't have the skills to keep a group tight enough for that target. I know I don't that's for sure. A slight drift low and to the side and you have blown out the jaw. It's a kill shot but you'll never pick that deer up. Move that shot to high on the neck and you get the same quick kill, and if you miss you either have a big blood trail and a short tracking effort or crease the muscle above the spine without killing the animal. The only reason that I can see for a head shot is hunter vanity back at camp. A well placed neck shot gets you that as well, so why take the chance on targeting the head?


----------



## wolffman73 (Nov 30, 2011)

30 yards. Head shot. Sounds ethical to me. Deer went right to sleep.


----------



## RobaloSunrise (Jun 10, 2011)

You want a tough shot? Try heart only. Lower quarter of chest right behind the elbow. Hit it without touching either leg. And don't miss high. Points go to the one who is closest to the center of the heart without touching anything else. Think it's easy? Try waiting until everything's lines up perfectly and you won't hit a leg. Very frustrating and extremely tough shot.


V/R
J


----------



## ReelWork (May 21, 2004)

So shooting them in the heart/vitals and having them run and fight for life until they expire is more ethical than BAM! Lights out... 

The only ethical issue here is you...

You have to shoot the best shot for the conditions, angle, distance, etc..


----------



## RobaloSunrise (Jun 10, 2011)

ReelWork said:


> So shooting them in the heart/vitals and having them run and fight for life until they expire is more ethical than BAM! Lights out...
> 
> The only ethical issue here is you...


Alright, so it's going to get personal eh. Well let's see.

There is a difference between ethical kills and humane kills. The ethics of the kill should be to minimize the suffering of the animal. If you can guaranty 100% clean kills with head shots. Then by all means go for it. However for the vast majority of shooters who shoot a half a dozen times a year head shots a a very low probability shot. If you miss slightly with a head shot you have a maimed animal that takes days or weeks to die. If you miss slightly with a body shot you may have to track it another hundred yards. I can't tell you which one is more ethical of a shot for you. You have to make those decisions. I however, won't take a head shot unless conditions are perfect, too many variables that can lead to a seriously maimed animal that has to suffer. Is it a more humane kill to put one immediately out of its suffering? Yes. Is it more ethical to risk the animal suffering for and extended amount of time? I don't think so. But you make your own call.

Since I notice you fish, or at least seem to, is it ethical to throw a fish on ice where it can slowly suffocate to death or do you kill each one immediately to ease their suffering?

V/R
J


----------



## willeye (Mar 2, 2007)

ask osama bin laden, or the somali's the captured the ships captain. both head shots.
it may not look pretty, but it does the trick.


----------



## Bill Fisher (Apr 12, 2006)

pop'em-in-the-grape........ that's what i say

oh wait,....... you where talking 'bout deer weren'tcha...........

nevvuh mind


----------



## ReelWork (May 21, 2004)

Wasn't trying to be a ugly, was saying just that the only ethical issue here is perception and that was my point... btrey is concerned about the shot placement, not the activity. How the activity, hunting/harvesting is carried out is what makes it ethical. 

If they went out to do nothing but gut shoot animals. leave 'em in the brush and laugh about it, that would be unethical (and illegal). 

When you go out to kill an animal or go fishing for that matter, as long as you're doing your best and not taking unnecessary risks, that's the best you can do. Since you bring up fishing - this is sort of like gut hooking a fish, we all do the best we can to revive the fish but some just don't make it. Same for hunting, you sight in make sure your equipment is on and squeeze off a good shot - head or vitals. Doesn't matter, it's entirely up to the hunter and the decision they have to make. This is the HUMANE aspect you mentioned, which was spot on - humane, not ethical.

The "ethics" here in this discussion deals with perception. A kill shot is a kill shot...


----------



## h-meier (Jun 22, 2010)

I have seen deer with their jaws shot off and it is very unsettling. That is why when I choose to shot deer in the head I wait until they are directly facing me or away from me. This way there is no chance of blowing their jaw off. However, you still face the risk of grazing their neck or piercing their ear. "Equally as well as" when you are comfortable shooting one can do this at 180 yards with a 7mm mag. (Smith, Danny 2003-2009)


----------



## RobaloSunrise (Jun 10, 2011)

ReelWork said:


> Wasn't trying to be a ugly, was saying just that the only ethical issue here is perception and that was my point... btrey is concerned about the shot placement, not the activity. How the activity, hunting/harvesting is carried out is what makes it ethical.
> 
> If they went out to do nothing but gut shoot animals. leave 'em in the brush and laugh about it, that would be unethical (and illegal).
> 
> ...


Yeah I apologize, I saw your amended post and realized you weren't directing at me perse. I agree with your interpretation.

V/R
J


----------



## sboudreaux (May 22, 2008)

h-meier said:


> I have seen deer with their jaws shot off and it is very unsettling. That is why when I choose to shot deer in the head I wait until they are directly facing me or away from me. This way there is no chance of blowing their jaw off. However, you still face the risk of grazing their neck or piercing their ear. "Equally as well as" when you are comfortable shooting one can do this at 180 yards with a 7mm mag. (Smith, Danny 2003-2009)


That picture explains why I do not shoot them in the head anymore. As mentioned in my earlier post I prefer the high neck shot as they do bleed quite a bit they do not end up looking like something out of Texas Chainsaw Massacre!


----------



## wolffman73 (Nov 30, 2011)

sboudreaux said:


> That picture explains why I do not shoot them in the head anymore. As mentioned in my earlier post I prefer the high neck shot as they do bleed quite a bit they do not end up looking like something out of Texas Chainsaw Massacre!


What do they look like when you are half way through gutting them?


----------



## sboudreaux (May 22, 2008)

wolffman73 said:


> What do they look like when you are half way through gutting them?


A half gutted deer.

It's all personal preference but I am just not crazy about brains and eye balls splattered on the ground after shooting a deer.

But is it ethical to shoot in the head, yes. Just not for me...


----------



## Mad Mike (Dec 28, 2005)

Bucksnort said:


> I don't like it. I have done it. I believe it is ethical. Not my thing.


x2 Don't like looking at it.


----------



## Bigj (Jul 22, 2007)

IVG


----------



## dwilliams35 (Oct 8, 2006)

The "pretty proud of it" carries more weight as "unethical" with me than the shot. As RS said, if it's a comfortable shot for you to make as a high percentage shot, go with it. A 30 yard shot to the melon is a lot higher percentage shot than doing the same thing at 2-300 yards.. That being said, the "pretty proud of it" just shows a lack of class if you ask me: Make the shot, come back to camp, say "I got a doe" and clean it: that's it. Not gloating about how bad you screwed her up, posting pics all over the internet showing just how much damage it did (that's got a place too, however: if the topic is what damage a bullet will do, it's often appropriate: as a "look what I did, Jethro, I told you my .22 mag would **** 'em up", it isn't.) There's a certain amount of respect due the animal before and after their death: gloating at a gaping head wound from an ill-advised shot is anything but respectful. Just simply a matter of having a basic modicum of class and respecting the game that the Lord provided you the opportunity to take.


----------



## Tommy2000 (Mar 23, 2008)

I shoot hogs just below the ear. Deer, I try for the double lung/heart shot. Could I shoot their heads? Yes. Just prefer a different target on them.


----------



## ReelWork (May 21, 2004)

h-meier said:


> I have seen deer with their jaws shot off and it is very unsettling. That is why when I choose to shot deer in the head I wait until they are directly facing me or away from me. This way there is no chance of blowing their jaw off. However, you still face the risk of grazing their neck or piercing their ear. "Equally as well as" when you are comfortable shooting one can do this at 180 yards with a 7mm mag. (Smith, Danny 2003-2009)


Agreed and that is how I head shot typically, the deer is facing me, acting calm and show no signs of being fidgety where a sudden head movement might make for a missed/bad shot. Aim pretty much between their front hooves, wait patiently, control breathing and when all seems good - squeeze off the shot.

That's about my farthest head shot, 180 yards on a very calm deer - same caliber too (7 MM Mag).


----------



## Lat22 (Apr 7, 2005)

It's an ethical shot with very little margin for error. I don't do it.


----------



## artys_only (Mar 29, 2005)

*Head shot*

Have shot a few . Deer in the head qty 2 , now I shoot boiler room only 99% of the time , now I have been known to give a pig a headache


----------



## spurgersalty (Jun 29, 2010)

Lat22 said:


> It's an ethical shot with very little margin for error. I don't do it.


Simply stated and very true. Me neither.


----------



## SwineAssassiN (Jul 24, 2011)

if its not with a bow and u feel comfortable that you are a good enough shot i dont see a problem with it. i have never done it though..


----------



## h-meier (Jun 22, 2010)

dwilliams35 said:


> The "pretty proud of it" carries more weight as "unethical" with me than the shot. As RS said, if it's a comfortable shot for you to make as a high percentage shot, go with it. A 30 yard shot to the melon is a lot higher percentage shot than doing the same thing at 2-300 yards.. That being said, the "pretty proud of it" just shows a lack of class if you ask me: Make the shot, come back to camp, say "I got a doe" and clean it: that's it. Not gloating about how bad you screwed her up, posting pics all over the internet showing just how much damage it did (that's got a place too, however: if the topic is what damage a bullet will do, it's often appropriate: as a "look what I did, Jethro, I told you my .22 mag would **** 'em up", it isn't.) There's a certain amount of respect due the animal before and after their death: gloating at a gaping head wound from an ill-advised shot is anything but respectful. Just simply a matter of having a basic modicum of class and respecting the game that the Lord provided you the opportunity to take.


For the "Aspiring professional pot-stirrer" I also have been called a "wooden spoon!"


----------



## CoastalOutfitters (Aug 20, 2004)

if you are capable of making the shot fine , if you don't have any business trying it then no.

you know who you are 

as for bragging about shots, if you are good, you shouldn't have to...............


----------



## SSST (Jun 9, 2011)

In my younger years, i shot every doe in the head, i guess it was a macho thing when i was in my teens and early 20's, my dad always frowned upon it, but i can honestly say i trusted where my bullet was gonna hit that i never had a doubt. Now i know some guys who thought they were good shots and blew off a jaw and that's what sucks to see. Just for that reason i taught my kids to shoot them in the base of the neck because if you miss down there, at least you should hit something vital. I rarely shoot does anymore, that's my kids's job, but if i do i just bust them in the neck because i have no reason to show off a half a head anymore, but as many as i shot that way, i'm not passing judgement on anybody


----------



## wolffman73 (Nov 30, 2011)

I've shot a few does in the head. For me, it was always a preservation of venison thing. Sometimes a lung or heart shot would mess up one of the front quarters depending on what the bullet did on the way out. Neck shots always messed up a lot of neck meat, and if too low, would even get into the front shoulder. It was nice to skin out a deer and not have to waste a single thing due to blood clotting. As far as being unethical, maybe those shots weren't the best for fellow hunters to see, but they were the most humane way I've ever taken a deer down.


----------



## rwooldri (Mar 6, 2006)

I shoot turkey in the neck at 30 yds. with my 308. Not a risky shot IMO.


----------



## shhhh...ducks (Feb 22, 2010)

Taking a head shot..........it is not, in my mind, a question of being ethical or not. I am not questioning a neck shot or one in the heart/lung area.
A ethical shot is one that dispatches the animal in a quick and humane way so as to minimizing any pain and suffering. All 3 will do the job. 
Now with that being said, Not all folks should take a head shot, most folks are not as good as they think they are and pride will not let them admit it and that presents a situation that can become unethical in a hurry. I know that I will catch flack over saying this but I am a better shot than most folks and have the awards, trophies, plaques to prove it and I do not take head shots unless everything is just right. Having the confidence allows me to take head shots at whatever distance I choose but most folks that are average shots and take the chance at a head shot is what is unethical.

Like I said, the most ethical shot is the shot that dispatches the animal the quickest and a shot to the head is the fastest by far. Yes some animals die instantly from a shot to the heart/lungs and most die instantly from a high neck shot but a clean shot to the head is ALWAYS instant........but I said a CLEAN SHOT. A head shot is not pretty but a 600 pound Sumo wrestlin Chinaman in a thong isn't either but he is effective, not pretty but effective.

I have posted links to 3 youtube video's os different shots on different animals that I have taken......a high neck shot on a slick 6.......a shot through the boiler house on a mouflon Ram.......and a head shot on a doe. All were shot with a Weatherby .257 magnum with 110gr accubonds. The only real difference is the distance. The buck was about 210 yards and was the high neck shot, he dropped right there but flopped around for a while and when I walked to where he lay.......it was a bloodbath. He obviously flopped around longer than I knew and in my mind...suffered a bit. The Mouflon was about 135 yards, great shot through the heart/lungs and he ran about 75 yards fell over and kicked for a few seconds......obviously he suffered. Lastly was the doe. She was closest, about 75 yards.....shot through the head and never knew a thing,,, dead right where she stood. No pain, no suffering, no wasted meat. Yes it was graphic, but I don't think she cared and no wasted meat and no pain was the best respect I could give her.

just my $0.02


----------



## camarokid (Dec 27, 2011)

*For what it's worth*

I can understand the arguement that it was an instant kill, no suffering for the animal and zero meat loss...but a 30 yard, headshot on a doe isn't anything I would brag about. IMO


----------



## dwilliams35 (Oct 8, 2006)

rwooldri said:


> I shoot turkey in the neck at 30 yds. with my 308. Not a risky shot IMO.


That's just a little different.... An inch off one way or another, it's either fatal or a clean miss.. Two inches off on a deer head shot and you've got a grievously wounded deer dying of dehydration or starvation..


----------



## Rainbow Tex (Jan 10, 2012)

For the love of it all, you boys take the cake. Head shot, instant kill, ethical or not, HELL YES. Good shot. Ya'll need to get out and kill, oh, excuse me, Harvest a few more deer then make a decision on if it was ethical or not. I shoot all meat deer in the head, whether it's 30 yards or 300 yards. Get over yourselves.


----------



## RogerB (Oct 11, 2005)

so, I guess the way I was taught - back in the 50's, shooting a deer in the head or the neck to sever the jugular isn't ethical? funny- I did that for most of my growing years, with a 22 Hornet and then a 30-30. Both open sights. Non-Ethical at that time, in the part of Texas where I hunted was hunting with a scope. Just sayin'
and no - I never missed and every deer I shot dropped like a rock. I guess it depends on your skill and your confidence and how you're taught. My Dad and My Uncle developed my shooting skills to a fine point and I'm forever grateful for that.

I know this much. 50 years later, that skill came in handy when I dropped a bull Elk at 295 yards with a Savage 300 - a neck shot, which was all I had available other than the head. That Elk dropped where he stood and totally bled out. Yeah that shot was with a scope.


----------



## Rainbow Tex (Jan 10, 2012)

dwilliams35 said:


> That's just a little different.... An inch off one way or another, it's either fatal or a clean miss.. Two inches off on a deer head shot and you've got a grievously wounded deer dying of dehydration or starvation..


Bwaaa-haaaa-haaaa. What a arm chair hunter. Now I've heard it all:rotfl:


----------



## rwooldri (Mar 6, 2006)

just making a point William. 30 yds for crying out loud.


----------



## dwilliams35 (Oct 8, 2006)

Rainbow Tex said:


> Bwaaa-haaaa-haaaa. What a arm chair hunter. Now I've heard it all:rotfl:


 Yes, you've heard it all. Of course, it's also apparent you haven't READ it all: especially the post where I said I had no problem with a head shot if you can comfortably take it as a high-percentage shot, rather than just some misguided, incorrect idea that you're some kind of accuracy badass. I've seen way too much of that: of the dozens of people that I've seen come in with head-shot deer over the years, I think there was probably three that I would trust to make that shot each and every time they pulled the trigger. Meanwhile, the basic size and shape of the target on a turkey, as I responded to, makes it a completely different shot: I've successfully taken that shot before on multiple occasions, and wouldn't have a problem doing it again... It's a clean hit or a clean miss, few other options.. A deer headshot, however, has a lot of other "options", few if any of them good. Again, if you can make the shot, go for it. If you either can't or simply have too much pride to admit you can't, don't.


----------



## Rainbow Tex (Jan 10, 2012)

dwilliams35 said:


> Yes, you've heard it all. Of course, it's also apparent you haven't READ it all: especially the post where I said I had no problem with a head shot if you can comfortably take it as a high-percentage shot, rather than just some misguided, incorrect idea that you're some kind of accuracy badass. I've seen way too much of that: of the dozens of people that I've seen come in with head-shot deer over the years, I think there was probably three that I would trust to make that shot each and every time they pulled the trigger. Meanwhile, the basic size and shape of the target on a turkey, as I responded to, makes it a completely different shot: I've successfully taken that shot before on multiple occasions, and wouldn't have a problem doing it again... It's a clean hit or a clean miss, few other options.. A deer headshot, however, has a lot of other "options", few if any of them good. Again, if you can make the shot, go for it. If you either can't or simply have too much pride to admit you can't, don't.


Your over thinking it amigo. LOL.


----------



## Tommy2000 (Mar 23, 2008)

OK, here's one from a week ago. Head shot and it dropped in it's track. 185yd shot and I heard the bullet "whap". I was shooting off-hand and it was quartering towards me. I took the only shot I had. I was aiming at it's chest but after a short run, my breathing was making the barrel rise and fall. A very lucky shot indeed.


----------



## dwilliams35 (Oct 8, 2006)

Rainbow Tex said:


> Your over thinking it amigo. LOL.


 I just have a personal ethic that holds me responsible for treating the game which the Lord supplied me with all possible respect, including making absolutely positive to the best of my ability that I successfully, quickly, efficiently, and with the aforementioned respect, take that animal from nature. Ending the life of one of God's creatures is not something I take lightly. If that's "over thinking it", guilty as charged. I couldn't live with myself otherwise, and I don't consider the death of an animal "entertainment" as so many here do..


----------



## rwooldri (Mar 6, 2006)

dwilliams35 said:


> A deer headshot, however, has a lot of other "options", few if any of them good. .


I guess that a kill shot IN THE HEAD from 30 yards would be considered a good option. I understand what you're sayin' from a little more distance, but don't buy it from 30.


----------



## h-meier (Jun 22, 2010)

Maybe the next deer I shoot will get a "Texas Heart Shot" LOL.


----------



## spurgersalty (Jun 29, 2010)

dwilliams35 said:


> I just have a personal ethic that holds me responsible for treating the game which the Lord supplied me with all possible respect, including making absolutely positive to the best of my ability that I successfully, quickly, efficiently, and with the aforementioned respect, take that animal from nature. Ending the life of one of God's creatures is not something I take lightly. If that's "over thinking it", guilty as charged. I couldn't live with myself otherwise, and I don't consider the death of an animal "entertainment" as so many here do..


Good post, says I gotta spread some first.


----------



## dwilliams35 (Oct 8, 2006)

rwooldri said:


> I guess that a kill shot IN THE HEAD from 30 yards would be considered a good option. I understand what you're sayin' from a little more distance, but don't buy it from 30.


 That's not what I meant by "options".. The "options" I was speaking of were what happens if you fail. As noted before, a turkey neck is a small target, and few "failure modes" would be anything but a clean miss or a fatal hit. A deer's head, on the other hand, has many of these "options" that would not be on the "good" list: the aforementioned jaw blown off, a hole blown through the sinuses, taking off the top of the skull cap in a non-fatal manner, etc.: all is possible within what would otherwise be somewhat of a reasonable margin of error for most hunters. Of course, at shorter distances, that margin of error will shrink, and the probability that a head shot is a high percentage shot grows.. Of course, with that decreasing distance comes the increasing possibility that people think you're a moron when you actually brag about it..


----------



## spurgersalty (Jun 29, 2010)

How many people actually believe the "average" hunter actually knows exactly what his bullet is doing from the muzzle to 200 yards. Regarding trajectory. Most of my guns are zeroed for 200, but, I know I'm 1.5" high at 100, .5" low at 30. So, if like most, zeroed at 100, I'm 1" low at 30 yards. I know that, do they? That could be a wounded animal.
I'll keep it in the boiler room.


----------



## wolffman73 (Nov 30, 2011)

dwilliams35 said:


> I just have a personal ethic that holds me responsible for treating the game which the Lord supplied me with all possible respect, including making absolutely positive to the best of my ability that I successfully, quickly, efficiently, and with the aforementioned respect, take that animal from nature. Ending the life of one of God's creatures is not something I take lightly. If that's "over thinking it", guilty as charged. I couldn't live with myself otherwise, and I don't consider the death of an animal "entertainment" as so many here do..


Come on man. I think you're a little out of line with that statement. This entire argument is flawed. The OP tries to make a correlation between a headshot and gloating over a kill. What's the real argument here? Showing bad character by gloating over a kill or shooting a deer in the head?


----------



## ReelWork (May 21, 2004)

Tommy2000 said:


> OK, here's one from a week ago. Head shot and it dropped in it's track. 185yd shot and I heard the bullet "whap". I was shooting off-hand and it was quartering towards me. I took the only shot I had. I was aiming at it's chest but after a short run, my breathing was making the barrel rise and fall. A very lucky shot indeed.


So to get this straight... You took a shot at 185 yards, shooting off-hand, quartering towards you and you were aiming at the chest but hit her in the head.

That's like a foot off target (if not more). :headknock

You got lucky and so did the deer since you didn't wound her. If the only shot you have is a bad shot, don't shoot...


----------



## dwilliams35 (Oct 8, 2006)

wolffman73 said:


> Come on man. I think you're a little out of line with that statement. This entire argument is flawed. The OP tries to make a correlation between a headshot and gloating over a kill. What's the real argument here? Showing bad character by gloating over a kill or shooting a deer in the head?


 Have you read nothing I've written here?:headknock


----------



## wet dreams (May 21, 2004)

47 or 48 yrs back I hit a doe in the head while running purley by accident, to this day I remember that deer flopping around with my dad trying to cut its throat, both eyes popped out, one ear gone and very much alive. Do this once and most will never try again.....carry-on....WW


----------



## Instigator (Jul 6, 2004)

The great thing about this thread is that it makes weeding through future lease applicants much easier. Theoretically, anyway. And I suppose that knife cuts both ways, Philosophically, I can't find a good spot for head shots on deer. They either represent irreverence for the animal, excessive hubris or both. Neither position is appealing on the lease, but that's just me. If these guys were serious about minimizing animal suffering then why does only? Any decent taxidermist can repair antler damage completely. 

While this is a great ethical litmus test for me I can see it working the opposite as well. There are obviously enough guys out there from the polar opposite philosophy who would be disgusted with my more conservative viewpoint. Now that I know who some of them are, it will make life easier when we are shopping for new members.


----------



## boom! (Jul 10, 2004)

I love seeing hunter vs hunter threads, I guess everybody has to prop themselves up occasionally. Remember that if you have to tell everyone, it doesn't count. That goes for how ethical or how great a shot you are.


----------



## Tommy2000 (Mar 23, 2008)

ReelWork said:


> So to get this straight... You took a shot at 185 yards, shooting off-hand, quartering towards you and you were aiming at the chest but hit her in the head.
> 
> That's like a foot off target (if not more). :headknock
> 
> You got lucky and so did the deer since you didn't wound her. If the only shot you have is a bad shot, don't shoot...


It was a good shot. I made it bad. It happens. My point is even when shooting at a large target such as a chest of the deer, your shot can go off for many reasons. When you shoot at a small target such as the head, the margin of error is even greater.


----------



## h-meier (Jun 22, 2010)

awwwhhh F-it, turn 'em into swiss cheese!


----------



## ReelWork (May 21, 2004)

Tommy2000 said:


> It was a good shot. I made it bad. It happens. My point is even when shooting at a large target such as a chest of the deer, your shot can go off for many reasons. When you shoot at a small target such as the head, the margin of error is even greater.


That's a true statement! :cheers:


----------



## ReelWork (May 21, 2004)

Y'all want to talk "ethical" and/or "Humane" when I was in Virginia, I got the opportunity to go hunting in North Carolina. Anyone know how they hunt out that way? 

Use dogs.. 

Shotguns.. 

Buck Shot (rifles were banned where I was)


Talk about the other extreme, the deer get chased all over hell and high-water. Every hunter is in a truck with a CB trying to head off the deer with dogs in tow to try to get in front for the CHANCE at a shot. 

When it's time to shoot, you frickin unload on 'em and pretty much hope you get a kill as they run by you with dogs on their tail...

This method is steeped in tradition and is very different than our style here (which is basically baiting). Personally I didn't care for it but I am so glad I got to experience how other people hunt. Surely those who grew up hunting this way think the feeder/blind method so commonly used around Texas is not "hunting" but it was weird having a pack of dogs take off and their only goal was to run/chase deer.


----------



## justinsfa (Mar 28, 2009)

Gah!!! See what happens when your computer battery dies for the weekend!!!

If you can pull off a head shot, more power to you.... not for me, but to each their own. But, as parts of this thread has proven, the head shot is more of a braggart tool for some than a means of "ethical" or "humane" shot placement.

There is only one reason one would take a photo of a head shot on a deer... and thats to brag about the damage you caused...


----------



## Capt. Marcus Canales (Aug 25, 2005)

justinsfa said:


> Gah!!! See what happens when your computer battery dies for the weekend!!!
> 
> If you can pull off a head shot, more power to you.... not for me, but to each their own. But, as parts of this thread has proven, the head shot is more of a braggart tool for some than a means of "ethical" or "humane" shot placement.
> 
> There is only one reason one would take a photo of a head shot on a deer... and thats to brag about the damage you caused...


not always true...needed camp meat, didn't want to waste meat on a small blackbuck doe...i took the pic for myself and if i wanted to email it to my family or just to have for my kill album...i cleaned her up.

headshot, 255 yards. :biggrin:


----------



## justinsfa (Mar 28, 2009)

osoobsessed said:


> not always true...needed camp meat, didn't want to waste meat on a small blackbuck doe...i took the pic for myself and if i wanted to email it to my family or just to have for my kill album...i cleaned her up.
> 
> headshot, 255 yards. :biggrin:


Quite a difference between your photo and a zoomed in photo of brains and eye sockets...

A dead animal is a dead animal... but a mutilated animal is a distasteful photo.

If your gonna kill it, kill it.... but dont brag about blowing its brains out.


----------



## Capt. Marcus Canales (Aug 25, 2005)

justinsfa said:


> Quite a difference between your photo and a zoomed in photo of brains and eye sockets...
> 
> A dead animal is a dead animal... but a mutilated animal is a distasteful photo.
> 
> If your gonna kill it, kill it.... but dont brag about blowing its brains out.


that i can agree with...i almost took a splatter pic, but decided against it.


----------



## outtotrout09 (Apr 21, 2009)

*Head Shots*

The head shot is very Ethical if done right! We do it all the time with .223, .22-250, 220 swift, and even smaller calibers. We choose to shoot them in the head when we cull does. No meat is wasted and it is either a hit or miss. It also cuts back on trailing deer that have been shot in heart or lung area. This helps when you are trying to kill 5-10 does in a afternoon. You also wont get blood on your hands when you clean the deer because it is all pumped out through the head. We do most of our doe culling out of the truck on our main road of the ranch. I have alot of head shots on video I need to post them!! One down side is the mess of the head...

To master the head shot takes practice and I wouldnt recommend it to our clients, amateurs or houston lease hunters... LOL had to say it!!


----------



## mstrelectricman (Jul 10, 2009)

What a crock! If you can make the shot clean then go for it. If you doubt your ability to do so don't. The animal is still just as dead, and the head shot animal is clean. Would I try it over 100 yards....no.


----------



## justinsfa (Mar 28, 2009)

osoobsessed said:


> that i can agree with...i almost took a splatter pic, but decided against it.


haha.... kinda....

If you are proud of your kill, then by all means, get all set up with it and take some papparazzi!!!

But dont hover over your kill and only take pictures to flaunt a gaping wound... sheesh.


----------



## Capt. Marcus Canales (Aug 25, 2005)

justinsfa said:


> haha.... kinda....
> 
> If you are proud of your kill, then by all means, get all set up with it and take some papparazzi!!!
> 
> But dont hover over your kill and only take pictures to flaunt a gaping wound... sheesh.


oh, i was proud alright, small target at that distance, but then again, i'm shooting sub-moa with that little killer of mine...


----------



## Spec-Rig.006 (Nov 2, 2007)

dwilliams35 said:


> The "pretty proud of it" carries more weight as "unethical" with me than the shot. As RS said, if it's a comfortable shot for you to make as a high percentage shot, go with it. A 30 yard shot to the melon is a lot higher percentage shot than doing the same thing at 2-300 yards.. That being said, the "pretty proud of it" just shows a lack of class if you ask me: Make the shot, come back to camp, say "I got a doe" and clean it: that's it. Not gloating about how bad you screwed her up, posting pics all over the internet showing just how much damage it did (that's got a place too, however: if the topic is what damage a bullet will do, it's often appropriate: as a "look what I did, Jethro, I told you my .22 mag would **** 'em up", it isn't.) There's a certain amount of respect due the animal before and after their death: gloating at a gaping head wound from an ill-advised shot is anything but respectful. Just simply a matter of having a basic modicum of class and respecting the game that the Lord provided you the opportunity to take.


Pretty much the only retort worth a spit right here ... well said.


----------



## teamgafftop1 (Aug 30, 2010)

RogerB said:


> so, I guess the way I was taught - back in the 50's, shooting a deer in the head or the neck to sever the jugular isn't ethical? funny- I did that for most of my growing years, with a 22 Hornet and then a 30-30. Both open sights. Non-Ethical at that time, in the part of Texas where I hunted was hunting with a scope. Just sayin'
> and no - I never missed and every deer I shot dropped like a rock. I guess it depends on your skill and your confidence and how you're taught. My Dad and My Uncle developed my shooting skills to a fine point and I'm forever grateful for that.


I have to go with Roger on this one. We had guns in our hands from just about the time we could walk. We started off shooting squirrels in the head with pellet rifles and moved up to deer from there. Shooting deer in the head with open sights was the norm in the mountains in NC (we didn't use dogs or shotguns; I too started off with a .22 Hornet). Shooting them in the head meant you didn't have to track them up and down a mountain for hours because we didn't have time for that. We really didn't hunt for sport, we hunted for food. Antlers never mattered because you can't eat those. Head shots weren't for bragging rights or to prove any point; it was pretty much expected and back then we ate nearly everything on a deer. I couldn't really say how many deer I've killed with headshots but it's been a bunch. And, I've never missed one or made a bad shot. One shot, one kill. When I first got to TX I culled a lot of does for people and always shot them in the head. I was surprised that people were "impressed" with that type of shooting. I finally got bored with rifle shooting deer off feeders and haven't killed a deer with anything but a crossbow in about 15 years. But, some of you are right, make the shot you are comfortable with but don't rag on the guys who can make the shot and take the shot. I've tracked a whole bunch of "gut shot" deer for people so I haven't seen the heart shot be statistically more ethical.


----------



## rrp (Oct 24, 2009)

*Shooting an animal*

A shot should only be taken with the best intentions of putting down the animal with minimal suffering to the animal.

I have made several shots to the head due on many animals. I like to believe that it is more human for the animal providing that the hunter has enough control to not shoot when he or she is not under control of their emotions ( i.e. buck fever). A neck shot will drop the animal, however the animal tends to suffer more due to a neck wound and not a critical shot. A vital shot does in fact inflict massive amount of damage, however you run the risk of the deer not being found. By that I mean an animal my jump a fence line to an adjacent property or loosing a blood trial.

My family has a ranch near Alice, Texas and every year I find at least 2 deer shot in the vitals near a stock pond dead. These deer were shot on an adjacent property by a hunter or hunters who will not use proper hunting ethics and go get the deer. Thus the animal suffers a long slow death that could have been avoided.

In closing if you are going to shoot an animal do it with the best of intentions and control. If you are not in control please do not shoot the animal, you run the risk of injuring the animal with bad shot placement. Further more if you wound a deer and it jumps a fence call a game warden or the owners and get your *** over the fence and do your responsibility as a hunter.


----------



## rrp (Oct 24, 2009)

I meant to say humane not human


----------



## Chase4556 (Aug 26, 2008)

Depending on the rifle I am shooting, I am comfortable with high neck shots out to 200-250 yards. With my .22-250 I could probably make headshots at that range. Key word is probably. Too many variables come in when your shooting at a longer distance for you to decide on a head shot. I shoot high neck(about 4in below the skull) shots on 95% of my deer now. I am comfortable taking it, and its a very clean kill.

Whatever you choose, as a hunter the "ethics" is how well you can put the deer down with minimal suffering. Wether that be a head shot, neck shot or vitals. We can't let our ego over shoot our skills. I'm a "crack shot" I like to think, but that doesn't mean I'm going to go for head shots just so I can gloat about it. However... if I did do a head shot I don't think I would be able to resist yelling "Boom HEADSHOT!" right after.


----------



## w_r_ranch (Jan 14, 2005)

RogerB said:


> so, I guess the way I was taught - back in the 50's, shooting a deer in the head or the neck to sever the jugular isn't ethical? funny- I did that for most of my growing years. Just sayin'
> and no - I never missed and every deer I shot dropped like a rock. I guess it depends on your skill and your confidence and how you're taught.


Same here. 8 does again this season & everyone was a head shot... Heck, 23 of the 25 hogs last were also head shots (I do it because I can & I don't like following blood trails).

There is absolutely nothing wrong with a head shot... those that whine about it are either squeamish or as you said, lacking in skill/confidence.


----------



## mstrelectricman (Jul 10, 2009)

*Good job Sir.*



w_r_ranch said:


> Same here. 8 does again this season & everyone was a head shot... Heck, 23 of the 25 hogs last were also head shots (I do it because I can & I don't like following blood trails).
> 
> There is absolutely nothing wrong with a head shot... those that whine about it are either squeamish or as you said, lacking in skill/confidence.


I totally agree with you. As far as the whiners go...they are playing right into the antis game. No hunter or fisherman should talk trash about another's technique as long as it's legal. I, for one, will continue just as I've done in the past and laugh at the whiners every time I see their crying.


----------



## justinsfa (Mar 28, 2009)

mstrelectricman said:


> I totally agree with you. As far as the whiners go...they are playing right into the antis game. No hunter or fisherman should talk trash about another's technique as long as it's legal. I, for one, will continue just as I've done in the past and laugh at the whiners every time I see their crying.


Of course, posting pictures of deer with their brains blown out and matter and blood all over the place doesnt play into the "antis" game....

The act of the shot isnt popular for some, like myself, but that is personal preference. No argument here that is CAN be an instantaneous and ethical shot if executed properly..... but there shouldnt be any doubt that bragging and showing off pics is tasteless.

We did some doe killing on a new MLD property his year.... 65 total (in East Texas, mind you... for the naysayers)... all neck and "traditional" vital shots... but you dont see folks that do that post pictures of blown out chest cavaties... Why? Because there is no "braggart" value to a shot like that. Do your head shots if you feel he need to reduce meat loss ... but be proud of your kill, not how traumatic your wound is....

PS... MESLAOIETRICITY... there is now way to shorten you name... haha.... you never said who did your replica red.... I havent slept in days because the suspense in killing me man!


----------



## mstrelectricman (Jul 10, 2009)

Dang Justin, you been drinkin already? I even got my Websters down to see if that was a real word! HaHaHa! I don't remember the company that did the Red. They are out of Florida. I hope you get some sleep tonight. BTW, the antis will whine if you hang em with a new rope. Ignore them but join the NRA.


----------



## justinsfa (Mar 28, 2009)

mstrelectricman said:


> Dang Justin, you been drinkin already? I even got my Websters down to see if that was a real word! HaHaHa! I don't remember the company that did the Red. They are out of Florida. I hope you get some sleep tonight. BTW, the antis will whine if you hang em with a new rope. Ignore them but join the NRA.


If its not already a word, I call dibs on it and am copyrighting its use from this point forward.

My whole life has been building up to the moment of finding out who did that red.... and you killed it...

DREAM KILLER!

As mentioned, I shot one HELL of a load of deer this year (Donated the majority to Hunters for the Hungry.... Everyone should join teams with those folks... great people to skin with). So, obviously, nothing against hunting.... as long as it is kept as tasteful and respectful as possible (I think we have had this go-round before.... haha)


----------



## wet dreams (May 21, 2004)

Question....you save meat by taking head shots BUT thro all away but the straps, hams n shoulders...am I missing something.....WW


----------



## gunnut (Aug 3, 2004)

If you got the skills... if you don't, well then you should know the answer.


----------



## BIG PAPPA (Apr 1, 2008)

*Can't believe this one is Still goin*

Rattle Snakes, Hogs and Doe all get the Head Shots. Coyotes get the anywhere you can hit'em shots. Haven't Took a Trophy in so Long I can't remember where to shoot one of those...LMAO


----------



## SuperflyMD (Sep 26, 2009)

In both my job and hunting, I have a fair amount of experience with bullet wounds. I will say unequivocally that, on the whole, head shots cause less suffering. Is it possible to hit a jaw? Sure, but I would be willing to bet money that hard data would show more gut-shot deer from "vital shots" than jaw-shot deer when the head was targeted.

If I shoot a doe, a hog, or anything else that will not be mounted (which is pretty much everything since I meat hunt almost exclusively), I shoot it in the head if possible. If it's moving too much or my view is a little obstructed, I shoot for the vitals or base of the neck.

There's no pride except for what comes with a quick kill with no suffering. Not ruining any meat is just a bonus.


----------



## wet dreams (May 21, 2004)

wet dreams said:


> Question....you save meat by taking head shots BUT thro all away but the straps, hams n shoulders...am I missing something.....WW


You do know you can shoot just behind the shoulder, not mess up nothing but the ribs (which you thro away) and have neck roast all the way to the ears. I wouldn't consider myself squeamish or as said, lacking in skill/confidence BUT have missed my mark by an inch or so which DON'T mater in the least when shooting >>behind<< the shoulder, miss your spot by >>1 inch<< at ANY distance when shooting at the head and you mite have a problem on your hands and you will never forget that deer flopping around blateing while you try and get another shot or cut its throat, I remember it like it was yesterdy and it was 47-48 yrs ago....WW


----------



## Capt. Marcus Canales (Aug 25, 2005)

even with a bow i should be good to go. :tongue:


----------



## RobaloSunrise (Jun 10, 2011)

Just something to think about.

V/R
J


----------



## Capt. Marcus Canales (Aug 25, 2005)

RobaloSunrise said:


> Just something to think about.
> 
> V/R
> J


i think everyone already thinks about that...but ethics are up to the individual, not for judge and jury to decide for them.

why if someone has the marksmanship to make said shots or even long distance shots, should they be held back because others do not put in the time perfecting their shots?


----------



## shhhh...ducks (Feb 22, 2010)

osoobsessed said:


> i think everyone already thinks about that...but ethics are up to the individual, not for judge and jury to decide for them.
> 
> why if someone has the marksmanship to make said shots or even long distance shots, should they be held back because others do not put in the time perfecting their shots?


:work::work::work::cheers:


----------



## RogerB (Oct 11, 2005)

SuperflyMD said:


> In both my job and hunting, I have a fair amount of experience with bullet wounds. I will say unequivocally that, on the whole, head shots cause less suffering. Is it possible to hit a jaw? Sure, but I would be willing to bet money that hard data would show more gut-shot deer from "vital shots" than jaw-shot deer when the head was targeted.
> 
> If I shoot a doe, a hog, or anything else that will not be mounted (which is pretty much everything since I meat hunt almost exclusively), I shoot it in the head if possible. If it's moving too much or my view is a little obstructed, I shoot for the vitals or base of the neck.
> 
> There's no pride except for what comes with a quick kill with no suffering. Not ruining any meat is just a bonus.


exactly.. well said.


----------



## RobaloSunrise (Jun 10, 2011)

osoobsessed said:


> i think everyone already thinks about that...but ethics are up to the individual, not for judge and jury to decide for them.
> 
> why if someone has the marksmanship to make said shots or even long distance shots, should they be held back because others do not put in the time perfecting their shots?


I don't think you should beheld back from making it. That's not the point. I think the lesson here is that while everyone has their own opinion of whether you should shoot in the head or not. Most everyone is of the opinion that and ethical, quick kill is the best. My point is that the most highly trained marksman can not 100% guaranty hitting a 3" target at all ranges. Your ability and confidence go a long way to minimizing the error in a shot. However anything can happen, including someone else knocking your scope off. If you willing and comfortable to chance maiming and animal then go for it, but let's face it you could do the same aiming at the heart.

V/R
J


----------



## Capt. Marcus Canales (Aug 25, 2005)

RobaloSunrise said:


> I don't think you should beheld back from making it. That's not the point. I think the lesson here is that while everyone has their own opinion of whether you should shoot in the head or not. Most everyone is of the opinion that and ethical, quick kill is the best. My point is that the most highly trained marksman can not 100% guaranty hitting a 3" target at all ranges. Your ability and confidence go a long way to minimizing the error in a shot. However anything can happen, including someone else knocking your scope off. If you willing and comfortable to chance maiming and animal then go for it, but let's face it you could do the same aiming at the heart.
> 
> V/R
> J


by most of the posts in here, it would seem that is the case, holding someone back...it's up to the individual shooter in his circumstances that must decide on what shot he wants to take, when to take it and if the conditions fit, pull the trigger...

i don't get the "knocking the scope off"....it usually takes a pretty good knocking to get a scope "off", personally, my rifle stays in case at all times, unless we are target shooting or hitting the field...any clients come to the ranch, we shoot at the range before hunting any critter just to make sure they are on.

as for a quick kill, which suffers more, lights out head shot or heart/lung shot...i have yet to see a head shot animal run off and die, unlike a heart/lung shot critter...

high percentage shots and low percentage shots have their risks, but ethics are up to that person pulling the trigger, only he/she knows what they have put into it to make ANY killing shot.


----------



## Capt. Marcus Canales (Aug 25, 2005)

sorry, i'm off on a rant....just seems to be a trend on what to do and what not to do based on someone elses "opinions"....just read a article last night in a well known Texas magazine, the authur of said article was basically handing down ethics on long range shooting/hunting and bascially telling everyone that it is just plain wrong and crazy to be hunting critters at long distance, just because he's never shot anything over 200 yards....made it seem that just because you go out and buy a rifle, put a scope on it, you too can make that 1000 yard kill, blaming TV shows and companies like Nightforce optics for the trend...just funny how everyone throws the turn "ethics" around these days.

anyway, carry on fellas, i'm off the box now... :redface: kisssm


----------



## KIKO (Oct 24, 2006)

I dont like to shoot at the head. The first time I tried because it was the only part of the deer i could see thru the brush and I ended up with a doe without a jaw and still standing. I was lucky to finish her off quick. I do not like lung shots either because they can run a lot before they die. 

I now aim where the shoulder meets the neck. If if the bullets goes either way, I will hit soft spots.


----------



## RobaloSunrise (Jun 10, 2011)

osoobsessed said:


> sorry, i'm off on a rant....just seems to be a trend on what to do and what not to do based on someone elses "opinions"....just read a article last night in a well known Texas magazine, the authur of said article was basically handing down ethics on long range shooting/hunting and bascially telling everyone that it is just plain wrong and crazy to be hunting critters at long distance, just because he's never shot anything over 200 yards....made it seem that just because you go out and buy a rifle, put a scope on it, you too can make that 1000 yard kill, blaming TV shows and companies like Nightforce optics for the trend...just funny how everyone throws the turn "ethics" around these days.
> 
> anyway, carry on fellas, i'm off the box now... :redface: kisssm


The rants are the fun, it's no fun if everyone agrees.

I see it as being at least a two part issue. First issue is it ethical to head shoot animals, I think so as it ensures a quick kill. That is not only ethical but humane.

Second issue, is one of physics. Is it within you and your rifles ability to make these shots? Now here is where the opinions come in. I know very few people who can pull of head shots at extended ranges. Now short ranges, under 300 yards, all day long under most conditions. Mid to long range? Not so much. Natural shot dispersion of a rifle will all but guaranty misses. For those who don't know natural shot dispersion is the variance in point of impact due solely to the variance in tolerances of ammo, and rifle and has nothing to do with the shooter. A rifle that shoots a half minute of angle would have a natural dispersion of 2.5 inches at 500 yards. Doesn't leave much margin of error on your part for the shot. Now that's a very accurate rifle, most hunting rifles are capable of minute of angle. I know a lot of you have more accurate firearms but we are talking the average hunter. At only 300 yards a minute of angle rifle will naturally have shots that border on a miss.

Now my pop and I will hunt hogs in order to keep their numbers in check. We do butcher the majority of them. How ever we have had contests that we got points for distance and only head shots count. On a couple feilds we are good for out to 1200 meters. So don't get me wrong I will shoot head shots. I just like to give the information as to just what can happen. I think a lot of people forget the downside to things.

As far as the author you mentioned, there was a trend for a while in Colorado where people would shoot animals at 1000 yes and them leave them because they didn't or couldn't walk to go get them. They did this with elk and mule deer as far as I know. That is my only concern with issues like this. Making sure the few that don't care of the ethics involved get weeded out before we end up with more regulations.

V/R
J


----------



## Capt. Marcus Canales (Aug 25, 2005)

RobaloSunrise said:


> The rants are the fun, it's no fun if everyone agrees.
> 
> I see it as being at least a two part issue. First issue is it ethical to head shoot animals, I think so as it ensures a quick kill. That is not only ethical but humane.
> 
> ...


good points and great discussion. :cheers:

i have a limit on the head shots because the greater the distance, the larger the margin of error...that being said, the last one i took was at 255 yards (laser range finder for distance)...was a very clean kill, but i spend a lot of time with "black death" and shoot constantly...not to mention the conditions were perfect for it...like stated, you must know your rifle, but more importantly, your load and for a lot of folks, they do not understand that part of it, sight in at 100 yards, look at ammo box, should be good to go on distances printed on the back of the Federal or Remington factory ammo...not always gonna be right.

as for the last part, now that is just wrong...if i'm shooting any game at any distance, bow or rifle (long range), i'm doing so because my job does not end at the squeeze of the trigger....those people doing that in CO are just lazy and well, slobs.

:cheers:


----------



## RobaloSunrise (Jun 10, 2011)

Yeah the CO thing was bad JuJu for a while. It is a big deal to leave and animal or any part of one up there. They go after these clowns with a passion normally reserved for rapists.


V/R
J


----------

