shot placement

[jackG]

I've only been hunting deer and pronghorn for two years, the third is coming up. However, I've been fortunate enough to fill about a dozen tags, which really accelerated the learning curve. All the shots I've taken were broadside, into the boiler room. The ranges varied substantially, from a little over 100 yards to over 300. I used two different calibers, a 7mm-08 the first season and a 270 WSM last year.

The results are interesting. The 7mm-08 killed them pretty well. The first was a heart shot and the mulie took one big jump and dived into the ground. A pronghorn at around 200 yards, trotted up hill for perhaps 20 yards and piled up. The first deer with the 270 WSM was at around 125 yards. I had a good rest. The mulie was not pumped up or excited. I took it behind the shoulder and it behaved as if unwounded. It didn't flinch. It didn't hurry or react in any way. I was pretty surprised at that. I chambered a second round. Before I could get another shot off, it took a step or two and then flopped. The lungs were pulverized. With the 270 two deer, one a large two point and one a button buck, dropped like rocks. A pronghorn took off with the group when hit, began to lag, stopped and flopped after around 20 yards. One of its entry side ribs was sprung into the body cavity. Other than that, I don't recall any of the shots striking bone. They slipped between the ribs and out again, taking out lungs and or heart.

One of the benefits of the boiler room shot placement has been, essentially zero meat damage. I've hunted with some guys who are less restricted in their shot placement. Usually this had been because an animal is walking away. They waited until it turned its head to peek back and they placed a round in its neck. While all my shots have successfully and humanely killed the animal, I've seen others who will go for a high shoulder shot. The results are dramatic. Bang, flop. There was no standing around, or taking a couple of steps. My question is, will that result in important meat loss? I've talked to elk hunters who prefer that shot, considering how far and fast an lung shot elk can run, into the deepest canyon in the county. That shot anchors the animal on the spot. What sort of experiences have others had comparing this type of shot placement? What do you prefer if you've got a choice?

[Rich M]

My experience is limited - only about 20 deer over the past 28 years. Guns used - 25-06, 30-06, .243

I've had a few bad shots - took a hind leg off my first deer - 132# doe (dressed) and made an iffy shot very early one morning - in one ham and out the opposite shoulder, 150# (dressed) 7 pt spike walked 60 yards & toppled. Both shots with 30-06.

The other 18 or so deer have dropped on the spot. Dad taught me to shoot for the shoulder on one side. They flop and that's it. Narry a wiggle most of the time.

Meat loss has been minimal. There isn't a lot of meat on the shoulder. Hit him in the ham and you just lost 20# of meat. Not a desired shot, at all.

One other thing he taught me - take the first good shot, you'll probably NOT get another one.

I'm heading out west with my .243 this fall - 100 gr Nosler Partitions - will take whatever shot the buck presents - shoulder, ribs, neck, head, whatever is the best shot at the time.

I had a thought - if you shot a devastating bullet like a Nosler Ballistic Tip - more energy would get dumped upon impact and probably drop the deer right in its tracks. You just don't want to try and penetrate a shoulder with one of those...

[C. Schutte]

Jack,

All of us have our own points of view about the best shot. Sometimes due to a bad or good experience. For me I like the broadside center shoulder or "high" shoulder shot because I am willing to sacrifice a little meat in order to save the rest. There is nothing worse than tracking a deer for miles simply because you did not want to waste any meat. On a hot day you might loose all of it. The way I think about it is my 1st responsibility is to not shoot anyone else, the 2nd is to take the game quickly and the last thing I worry about is meat. Don't get me wrong, I don't want to waste meat but, I'll waste a little to ensure that I have made a safe shot and the animal is dispatched quickly.

As far as shots are concerned and everything is equal my favorite is the center shoulder (be careful, too high and he is gone like Arnie O's youth) My 2nd most favorite shot is the boiler room shot followed by the neck shot. My least favorite is the head shot which I am forced to use on my favorite hunting grounds when taking a doe. Ranch rule that I must follow.

You have to balance what shot you are willing to take. If the shot is hard to take I wait for a perfect shot. If easy I might take any shot that I am confident that will get the job done. Just remember that you don't commit until you are confident that you will hit your mark. After reading your post I think that you are doing a fantistic job and should not change a thing. chs

[farmdude]

way overkill (not me)

300 win mag...130 grain nosler ballestic tip close to 4000 fps
high speed of the bullet may cause this result when hitting bone...a ton of damage

keep putting it in the boiler room!

http://i311.photobucket.com/albums/kk476/pfarmdude/neckshotw300wm.jpg

[Arnie Oakley]

I prefer any broadside shot in the ribs. I hate pulling the hide off a deer that has excessive meat damage/broken bones. Not being able to use rifles in our area, shots are close and 12 ga. slugs have quick, devastating effects with no meat damage (providing the shot is in the ribs), small entrance/exit holes and kill quickly.
C-man, you have been removed from my Christmas card list.

[C. Schutte]

C-man, you have been removed from my Christmas card list.






Just making sure you have not dozed off again!........................chs

ps. If I were to use a 12 ga. slug I would also go for the broadside boiler room. A rifle does not have that kind of knock down power.

[Lodiman]

Texas heart shot all the way.

[Rich M]

Farm Dude,

That is one sick photo. Glad you didn't hit that deer in the body or there would be nothing left! WOW! (the picture shows a doe mule deer with most of its neck removed by a bullet - devastating)

I don't shoot the NBT type bullets, did once and found that it came unglued. Been shooting Nosler Partiitons for about 15 yrs now - it plows thru.....nothing like that.

[gdbraham]

Texas heart shot all the way.

Funny!! I too am a fan of the Texas Heart Shot. In fact I had to use one once to down my biggest non-typical whitetail. Not alot of meat left though!

[Lodiman]

I shot a buck that jumped in a marsh very close as it was hopping/running away from me. Hit it as it was coming down, missed the a-s, but lower belly up and out the chest. Did I mention it stopped running.

[jackG]

I should have added that I have used two different loads. With the 7mm-08 I used Remington KorLoct. The velicity in a Remington Model 7 with a 20" barrel was probably around 2800 fps or a bit more. I noticed on some shots that the bullet shed its jacket. It tore up the boiler room pretty thoroughly though.

I used Fed 140 grain Accubond in the 270 WSM. The published velocity is 3200 fps. The bullets all when through and through. The accuracy was a bit better than a MOA. I suspect that the Remington KorLoct might not hold together at those velocities, but that's a guess. Using those load in the WSM resulted in a sticky bolt. So after a couple of shots at targets I quit using them.

I've been experimenting with Fed 130 gr TSX. The accuracy great. With a solid copper bullet there is no jacket to shed. I've found a custom loader who will provide a polymer tipped version at around 3300. At the WSM velocities I prefer bullets that will not explode or do excessive damage. The picture provided in the post above certainly reinforces that notion!

[C. Schutte]

Texas heart shot all the way.



Who started calling that shot the "Texas" heart shot? As far as I know it started up in Minnesota or Wisconsin.

[deadman50]

Head shot, Shoulder shot, whatever drops them in there tracks. Down my way we have to think about property lines. 300 wsm YES!!!

[oldpilot]

Where I hunt property lines can come into play as well...along with those who hunt on public lands. I like heavy bullets and especially like neck/point of the shoulder... shots. Aiming where the neck becomes the shoulder, about mid height, is a great place for bang/flop. Other than those shots, the .35 Whelen is the ONLY caliber that proved to provide the bang/flop solution I most desire with simple lung shots as well. over 15 different calibers and over 30 different animals have taught me this, in the last 10 yrs. Of course, there are some with much more experience and knowledge than I.

[ColtWKnight]

I always take a heart shot on deer. I aim for the top of the heart so I can take out the aorta, and top ventricles. This will also place the shot through both lunds. Of all the deer Ive shot, the heart and lung shots have all ran only about 10 yards. If I just hit the the lungs, they can dart up to 50 yards. Remember, the heart can pump oxygenated blood to they system unless its completely destroyed or you remove the aorta. Even then, the animal can still use lactic acid fermentation to power its muscles a bit which can cause the meat to taste not as good as it should. If you use a caliver with some knockdown power, then most deer will just fall over and die if you put a good heart lung shot on them.


Why? Animals have primitive nerve systems, and they don't understand the concept of being shot. They will run due to a neurological response as far as they can until their body physically gives out on them. If you want to drop one dead in its tracts theres the brain shot, the spine shot, or any shot that will physically restrict its abillity to run away. I know several have mentioned the front shoulder.

[Riverbottom]

I try to shoot a bit high and in front of the heart. My experiance is that if you hit high enough you take out the spine and that is that OR you take out both front sholder bones and legs. They just can't move/run with out their front legs. I don't mean to be primitive in this post but I shoot a .7mm Mag and that gun will without a problem take out both sholder bones and legs (usually with heart damaged as well) and they just do NOT go anywhere....

[oldpilot]

I try to shoot a bit high and in front of the heart. My experiance is that if you hit high enough you take out the spine and that is that OR you take out both front sholder bones and legs. They just can't move/run with out their front legs. I don't mean to be primitive in this post but I shoot a .7mm Mag and that gun will without a problem take out both sholder bones and legs (usually with heart damaged as well) and they just do NOT go anywhere....

I'd agree with your reasoning... several years ago I read that a high shoulder shot is VERY effective in that a shot a tad back hits the lungs and one a tad forward hits the neck, both excellent options. It always made sense to me.

[tddeangelo]

Why? Animals have primitive nerve systems, and they don't understand the concept of being shot. They will run due to a neurological response as far as they can until their body physically gives out on them. If you want to drop one dead in its tracts theres the brain shot, the spine shot, or any shot that will physically restrict its abillity to run away. I know several have mentioned the front shoulder.

Not to be difficult, but the nervous system on a cervid is not "primitive" in the strict sense of the word. They do not have higher order thought processes like humans, but the physiology of their nervous system is pretty similar to ours, really. A primitive nervous system would, in the true sense of that phrase, be found on invertebrates and some more primitive vertebrates.

Deer are funny in that they sometimes give it up easier than you expect, and sometimes they hold it together for far longer than you expect. I sent a three-bladed Thunderhead through both lungs of a doe in a letter perfect "halfway up, tight behind the leg" shot. She went almost 400 yards before piling up. My dad put four .257 Roberts rounds into a buck who then went 200 yards before dropping. I put a 12ga Remington Copper Solid through a small deer's chest at 25 yards and it ran 150yds, up a HUGE hill no less, before cashing it in.

I've also shot a couple through the chest with an arrow and had them simply drop. With very, very, very few exceptions, every deer I've shot with a .30-06 fell where it was hit and stayed there. My dad shot a doe at almost 150 yards with a flintlock and a patched round ball and it dropped on the spot.

There are many theories as to the why's and wherefore's of all of this, but I doubt it will ever really be explained other than to say that living creatures do not come out of a cookie-cutter or a mould. They are unique, and as such will react in unique ways to their environments. Most will fall within a predictable range of behaviors, but the reaction to a mortal wound is not a guarantee. I simply chalk it up to the deer not knowing it was dead yet (somewhat tongue in cheek there), but sometimes they will just run farther than you'd ever think possible. Sometimes they'll take a marginal hit and crumple. Little Sika deer (big ones are 80lbs LIVE weight!) have been known to take multiple 12ga slug hits to the chest, including foreleg skeletal structure, and still run more than a few steps. That's why it's hunting and not shooting.

All that said (sorry for the length), my strong preference for shots on deer is to have the bullet pass through the heart/lung region. Heart is a bonus, lungs a requirement. Liver works, but is not a preferred target. Spinal cord/brain work, but are not preferred targets. My general "landmark" is to shoot for the opposite side's leg. That USUALLY works out to taking a path through the heart and lungs. Usually.

[ColtWKnight]

Not to be difficult, but the nervous system on a cervid is not "primitive" in the strict sense of the word. They do not have higher order thought processes like humans, but the physiology of their nervous system is pretty similar to ours, really. A primitive nervous system would, in the true sense of that phrase, be found on invertebrates and some more primitive vertebrates.

Deer are funny in that they sometimes give it up easier than you expect, and sometimes they hold it together for far longer than you expect. I sent a three-bladed Thunderhead through both lungs of a doe in a letter perfect "halfway up, tight behind the leg" shot. She went almost 400 yards before piling up. My dad put four .257 Roberts rounds into a buck who then went 200 yards before dropping. I put a 12ga Remington Copper Solid through a small deer's chest at 25 yards and it ran 150yds, up a HUGE hill no less, before cashing it in.

I've also shot a couple through the chest with an arrow and had them simply drop. With very, very, very few exceptions, every deer I've shot with a .30-06 fell where it was hit and stayed there. My dad shot a doe at almost 150 yards with a flintlock and a patched round ball and it dropped on the spot.

There are many theories as to the why's and wherefore's of all of this, but I doubt it will ever really be explained other than to say that living creatures do not come out of a cookie-cutter or a mould. They are unique, and as such will react in unique ways to their environments. Most will fall within a predictable range of behaviors, but the reaction to a mortal wound is not a guarantee. I simply chalk it up to the deer not knowing it was dead yet (somewhat tongue in cheek there), but sometimes they will just run farther than you'd ever think possible. Sometimes they'll take a marginal hit and crumple. Little Sika deer (big ones are 80lbs LIVE weight!) have been known to take multiple 12ga slug hits to the chest, including foreleg skeletal structure, and still run more than a few steps. That's why it's hunting and not shooting.

All that said (sorry for the length), my strong preference for shots on deer is to have the bullet pass through the heart/lung region. Heart is a bonus, lungs a requirement. Liver works, but is not a preferred target. Spinal cord/brain work, but are not preferred targets. My general "landmark" is to shoot for the opposite side's leg. That USUALLY works out to taking a path through the heart and lungs. Usually.

I was refering to the primal nature of their instincts, not their nervous system I suppose. I use that term, because its how a neuroscience professor explained it to me without getting into writing a book. Of course their dendrites and axons fire like ours. Neuroscience was able to develop as far as it has today because scientists were able to study the neurons of Giant Squid which basically have the same neurons as every other animal, but they are just larger and visible by the naked eye.

Two things will cause a deer to fall, they either give up, or their body does.

[madoktor1]

30-06, 180 gr. Remington Core-Lokt, M1 Garand. I hit em in the shoulder and they fall like they were hit by a mack truck. I usually use the shoulder meat for stew, jerky, or sausage anyways so I don't worry about the meat. I believe the real answer to shot placement is based on preference and ability. Just my opinion.

[Vaultman]

Jack,

...My least favorite is the head shot which I am forced to use on my favorite hunting grounds when taking a doe. Ranch rule that I must follow.
chs

Why do some camps / land owners require this on a doe? I do not get it?



My general "landmark" is to shoot for the opposite side's leg. That USUALLY works out to taking a path through the heart and lungs. Usually.

I like this TD. I never thought of it this way but from the angles that I am thinking of in my head now this works. I like simple and functional.

[tddeangelo]

30-06, 180 gr. Remington Core-Lokt, M1 Garand. I hit em in the shoulder and they fall like they were hit by a mack truck. I usually use the shoulder meat for stew, jerky, or sausage anyways so I don't worry about the meat. I believe the real answer to shot placement is based on preference and ability. Just my opinion.

Be careful if you're shooting factory Remington Core-Lokt 180gr ammo in the Garand. That will bend an op rod given a steady diet. I've heard of the 150gr. Rem ammo locking up Garands by bending the op rod.

If you're handloading the 180gr. bullet, then as long as you're within acceptable load ranges with appropriate powders, you're fine.

I'm probably going to wind up buying the Hornady loading manual expressly for the section on the M1 Garand. Op rods aren't getting any cheaper.

[tddeangelo]

I like this TD. I never thought of it this way but from the angles that I am thinking of in my head now this works. I like simple and functional.

I can't claim credit for it. Many folks use this method. Just watch out on certain angles, especially when the animal is quartering toward you.

[wranglerdude]

tddeangelo and others have made some very good points. I almost always shoot for the lungs, right behind the front leg. But...the deer almost always run too. They go fron 40 to 100 yards usually regardless of the caliber or bullet used. I don't like to ruin meat. I have hit a few animals high, near the spinal column, and they went down right there. Late in the day, I'll go for a high shoulder shot so I don't have to track in the dark. The head or neck shot is too risky for me. Just a little off, and you have a wounded animal that will probably get away.

[Lodiman]

I was really joking about the texas heart shot. I have always tried to get a shot solid in the chest, or just behind the front leg. The higher shoulder shot is good. I do not think head shots or neck shots are good shots. They are lower percentage. One flinch, one small stick, a bunch of grass or brush can all deflect a bullet enough to make a head shot a beak shot. A slow death for an animal. But under some circumstances they are ok. I think when you are out hunting and you see an animal, and a shot presents itself, you have to decide if you are going to drop the animal or not. If you think you can with some degree of confidence, go for it. I use ballistic tips on deer for this purpose. Their tremendous destruction causes them to be sure deer getters.

[Arnie Oakley]

Personally, I feel that if a person is going to totally destroy an animal just to collect a set of antlers, you don't belong in the woods.

[Perferator]

I like to use NBT's with the .270, hollow points with the 45-70 and GameKings with the .257Roy. Why? Any of those in the shoulder area will drop them on the spot or quickly thereafter. I hate tracking. There have only been two occasions in many seasons of deer where I had to do the pull up and shoot quick (snap-shooting)....both were down in short distance. Waiting for the best shot is the way to go for me.

I'm still looking for the DRT-sure bullet for the .257wby and will probably settle on something that opens quickly yet retaining good integrity.

[Rich M]

I'm with A.O. on that - to just shoot a deer anywhere for the antlers isn't my cup of tea.

My idea of hunting is to hunt for meat. Maybe my fall hunt will change things a bit but I'm looking for a full-size deer more than antlers - even on my pay-for hunt. When I hunt around home, it ends up being the first legal deer or two.

As far as low % shots go - we should only be taking shots we KNOW we can make. That makes all the shots high % shots. Things happen, but not that often.

[C. Schutte]

Personally, I feel that if a person is going to totally destroy an animal just to collect a set of antlers, you don't belong in the woods.



Just to add to this, I have seen people who go to camp, shoot something and leave immediately after. One time the whole camp tracked a wounded doe early one morning that had been shot the night before. We found her but, it was too late and the hunter commented that "at least I killed her." I am hoping that he meant that she did not suffer.

Destroying an animal is one thing. Being out in the woods for the sole sake of killing something is another. It is sad that some hunters just don't hunt for the sake of hunting.

[Lodiman]

I am ameat hunter first and foremost. I like to go out and have a good time and bring home some venison. We hunt hard and generally get every deer we hit. We have not lost a wounded animal for years. So, I am not out to blow things up. I try hard to get theanimal. The Nosler BT's and Siera hp's in my small bore rifle's really do the job. If the naimal is hit in the but, yes you lose a lot of meat, I try to avoid this and have not shot one in the rump for prob. close to 10 years. I will say, if you hit one in the rump with a 3006 and a corelokt and it opens up, you will also lose almost all the hindquarter meat. I really think the 30.06 is more than you need for whitetails b/c it is way more power than it takes to kill a deer. A 243 wil take down any whitetail on this planet along with a 257 robts, 7mm08, 260 rem and so on.

[tddeangelo]

True, but the .260/6.5x55 are often talked about with the .243, they are not simply .020" bigger in diamter. The .264 bullets are a different animal all together with respect to ballistics and on-game performance. Sorry to pick nits, so to speak, but it's thing of mine to delineate between .243/6mm rounds and .260/6.5mm rounds, because they are not as similar as is often thought. I've hunted with both, and I've shot deer with both. They are not the close cousins some think them to be.

[Lodiman]

No they aren't. My son shot a close to 200lb deer two years ago with a 6.5x55, 120 grain bt at 2980 fps. It went through the neck, through the chest, and out the lower groin. When skinned the head fell off. Theheart and lungs and vitals destoyed, and vey little meat damage. I think a 6.5x55 will take anything a .308 will.

[citori]

I pick my shots depending on the need. As some have mentioned, late in the evening and when close to property lines I go for a shoulder shot which is likely to drop the animal right there. If the area is away from property lines with plenty of visibility and/or a good tracking snow in case of need, I have no qualms taking a shot that is less likely to drop an animal right there. The loss of meat in the first case is immaterial as the crossing of the animal into an adjoining property may led to that animal being claimed by those owners. That is a fairly isolated case but the possible disruption to neighbors is also an issue to me and as I get along with them for the most part,
I have kind of a problem with some attitudes regarding the taking of an animal for it antlers. I am one who saves his buck tags (I hunt three different states, all with a separate buck or either *** tag) for as fully mature of a buck as I can. I see it much more of a personal accomplishment to take a fully mature and experienced animal when possible than one that is young and inexperienced. I see no need for me to shoot a young buck "for the meat" as I get at least 12 antlerless only tags in addition to the 2-3 either *** tags and the ability to party hunt in two states. When the end of season comes around, I either fill out the either/or tags with a doe in areas with population issues or eat the tag. With well over 10 big game animals taken per year, I guess I can afford to be choosy.

I also use enough gun that I can take shots other than truly broadside, at least when filling an antlered tag. I generally pick my "buck" cartridges based on a worst case scenario; that is if something goes wrong, such as wounded deer, the cartridge and bullet is capable of putting the animal down from a very poor angle. That it is also able to make a drastic angle very "doable" is only an added bonus if I decide to make an attempt. That is my personal belief and one I do not force nor care if others feel the same or not. I find it amusing how some have little compunction with putting down one type of moral code but are quick to claim hunters need every voice possible, even if some of the "voices" are kind of questionable.

As for some going home shortly after filling their tag, I guess I don't have much problem with that either. Everyone has different pressures placed on their time and it is not up to me to say how an individual should prioritize those issues. I hunt with some who have spouses who are not overly supportive of their hunting activities and do not understand that hunting is not the same as going to the store and that filling tags is not automatic. Going home as soon as possible makes things easier for them on the home front and is not something I can condemn others for. If they go home to avoid chores they find distasteful, such as dragging out the deer of others, then that is different and those get weeded out in short order. We all have different reasons for hunting and I try to not place my values on others too much though it can be very difficult. That is a large reason not everybody gets along with each other though they can be good people.

[Lodiman]

I think if you want to hunt for a big buck more power to you citori. It does not make or break the hunt to me that is all. I generally only can hunt in WI and earn a buck by my farm and we go up north where we can usually shoot either.

[Perferator]

I really think the 30.06 is more than you need for whitetails b/c it is way more power than it takes to kill a deer. A 243 wil take down any whitetail on this planet along with a 257 robts, 7mm08, 260 rem and so on.

Shhhhhhhhhh, dont ruin it for the rest of us that want a new magnum!

[oldpilot]

I pick my shots depending on the need. As some have mentioned, late in the evening and when close to property lines I go for a shoulder shot which is likely to drop the animal right there. If the area is away from property lines with plenty of visibility and/or a good tracking snow in case of need, I have no qualms taking a shot that is less likely to drop an animal right there. The loss of meat in the first case is immaterial as the crossing of the animal into an adjoining property may led to that animal being claimed by those owners. That is a fairly isolated case but the possible disruption to neighbors is also an issue to me and as I get along with them for the most part,
I have kind of a problem with some attitudes regarding the taking of an animal for it antlers. I am one who saves his buck tags (I hunt three different states, all with a separate buck or either *** tag) for as fully mature of a buck as I can. I see it much more of a personal accomplishment to take a fully mature and experienced animal when possible than one that is young and inexperienced. I see no need for me to shoot a young buck "for the meat" as I get at least 12 antlerless only tags in addition to the 2-3 either *** tags and the ability to party hunt in two states. When the end of season comes around, I either fill out the either/or tags with a doe in areas with population issues or eat the tag. With well over 10 big game animals taken per year, I guess I can afford to be choosy.

I also use enough gun that I can take shots other than truly broadside, at least when filling an antlered tag. I generally pick my "buck" cartridges based on a worst case scenario; that is if something goes wrong, such as wounded deer, the cartridge and bullet is capable of putting the animal down from a very poor angle. That it is also able to make a drastic angle very "doable" is only an added bonus if I decide to make an attempt. That is my personal belief and one I do not force nor care if others feel the same or not. I find it amusing how some have little compunction with putting down one type of moral code but are quick to claim hunters need every voice possible, even if some of the "voices" are kind of questionable.

As for some going home shortly after filling their tag, I guess I don't have much problem with that either. Everyone has different pressures placed on their time and it is not up to me to say how an individual should prioritize those issues. I hunt with some who have spouses who are not overly supportive of their hunting activities and do not understand that hunting is not the same as going to the store and that filling tags is not automatic. Going home as soon as possible makes things easier for them on the home front and is not something I can condemn others for. If they go home to avoid chores they find distasteful, such as dragging out the deer of others, then that is different and those get weeded out in short order. We all have different reasons for hunting and I try to not place my values on others too much though it can be very difficult. That is a large reason not everybody gets along with each other though they can be good people.

Nothing Peresonal, I can assure you Mr. Citori, but I have a little problem when one hunter tries to impress his values onto another. In one of the states I hunt every year (I hunt as many as 5) I can harvest as many as three does every day, and in that one state, up to 3 bucks. Last season I harvested 1 doe, after seeing about 200 deer and over 20 bucks. But, if someone else wants to shoot a juvenile buck to take home some horns, I'm fine with that. There are hundreds of thousands of hunters here, in this country, wanting to collect venison, or horns, to satisfy their need to "harvest", whatever that need (legally!!) might be. I'm afraid we scare off WAY TOO MANY young hunters, by making them think we have to LET BUCKS GROW over legal limits before harvesting them!! We all were young hunters once. Think about this fellas, and tell me honestly if this attitude is not counterproductive to what we need to do to keep hunting numbers from falling (the number of hunters!) the way it is!.

[oldpilot]

I pick my shots depending on the need. As some have mentioned, late in the evening and when close to property lines I go for a shoulder shot which is likely to drop the animal right there. If the area is away from property lines with plenty of visibility and/or a good tracking snow in case of need, I have no qualms taking a shot that is less likely to drop an animal right there. The loss of meat in the first case is immaterial as the crossing of the animal into an adjoining property may led to that animal being claimed by those owners. That is a fairly isolated case but the possible disruption to neighbors is also an issue to me and as I get along with them for the most part,
I have kind of a problem with some attitudes regarding the taking of an animal for it antlers. I am one who saves his buck tags (I hunt three different states, all with a separate buck or either *** tag) for as fully mature of a buck as I can. I see it much more of a personal accomplishment to take a fully mature and experienced animal when possible than one that is young and inexperienced. I see no need for me to shoot a young buck "for the meat" as I get at least 12 antlerless only tags in addition to the 2-3 either *** tags and the ability to party hunt in two states. When the end of season comes around, I either fill out the either/or tags with a doe in areas with population issues or eat the tag. With well over 10 big game animals taken per year, I guess I can afford to be choosy.

I also use enough gun that I can take shots other than truly broadside, at least when filling an antlered tag. I generally pick my "buck" cartridges based on a worst case scenario; that is if something goes wrong, such as wounded deer, the cartridge and bullet is capable of putting the animal down from a very poor angle. That it is also able to make a drastic angle very "doable" is only an added bonus if I decide to make an attempt. That is my personal belief and one I do not force nor care if others feel the same or not. I find it amusing how some have little compunction with putting down one type of moral code but are quick to claim hunters need every voice possible, even if some of the "voices" are kind of questionable.

As for some going home shortly after filling their tag, I guess I don't have much problem with that either. Everyone has different pressures placed on their time and it is not up to me to say how an individual should prioritize those issues. I hunt with some who have spouses who are not overly supportive of their hunting activities and do not understand that hunting is not the same as going to the store and that filling tags is not automatic. Going home as soon as possible makes things easier for them on the home front and is not something I can condemn others for. If they go home to avoid chores they find distasteful, such as dragging out the deer of others, then that is different and those get weeded out in short order. We all have different reasons for hunting and I try to not place my values on others too much though it can be very difficult. That is a large reason not everybody gets along with each other though they can be good people.

Nothing Peresonal, I can assure you Mr. Citori, but I have a little problem when one hunter tries to impress his values onto another. In one of the states I hunt every year (I hunt as many as 5) I can harvest as many as three does every day, and in that one state, up to 3 bucks. Last season I harvested 1 doe, after seeing about 200 deer and over 20 bucks. But, if someone else wants to shoot a juvenile buck to take home some horns, I'm fine with that. There are hundreds of thousands of hunters here, in this country, wanting to collect venison, or horns, to satisfy their need to "harvest", whatever that need (legally!!) might be. I'm afraid we scare off WAY TOO MANY young hunters, by making them think we have to LET BUCKS GROW over legal limits before harvesting them!! We all were young hunters once. Think about this fellas, and tell me honestly if this attitude is not counterproductive to what we need to do to keep hunting numbers from falling (the number of hunters!) the way it is!.

[Rich M]

Old Pilot,

I saw Citori's post as referring to himself when talking about shooting young bucks.

Citori's reputation on here would indicate that he would be truly happy for me if I shot a 5 pt that he passed up several days or hours earlier. Especially if I was truly happy with the deer.

He mentions having 12 doe tags - I get none. You also have multiple opportunities - I have few.

Don't take his post wrong - he's not telling everyone to shoot trophies only. Some of us don't know how to do that and don't have the time to do so.

Rich

[oldpilot]

Old Pilot,

I saw Citori's post as referring to himself when talking about shooting young bucks.

Citori's reputation on here would indicate that he would be truly happy for me if I shot a 5 pt that he passed up several days or hours earlier. Especially if I was truly happy with the deer.

He mentions having 12 doe tags - I get none. You also have multiple opportunities - I have few.

Don't take his post wrong - he's not telling everyone to shoot trophies only. Some of us don't know how to do that and don't have the time to do so.

Rich

Rich, I appreciate your explanation and don't want anyone to think I was trying to "one-up" anyone here. I simply would like all of us to be very sensitive about what we put out in "open forum" remembering that not everyone has the opportunities we might have. Been there, done it, never even got a T-shirt. (many years ago) Remember this part; we are only as good/happy as other hunters allow us to be. Always try to recruit those who might have an interest in the outdoors or anyone who might feel a need to understand how our forfathers, years ago, managed to survive. Thanks.

[C. Schutte]

Nothing Peresonal, I can assure you Mr. Citori, but I have a little problem when one hunter tries to impress his values onto another. In one of the states I hunt every year (I hunt as many as 5) I can harvest as many as three does every day, and in that one state, up to 3 bucks. Last season I harvested 1 doe, after seeing about 200 deer and over 20 bucks. But, if someone else wants to shoot a juvenile buck to take home some horns, I'm fine with that. There are hundreds of thousands of hunters here, in this country, wanting to collect venison, or horns, to satisfy their need to "harvest", whatever that need (legally!!) might be. I'm afraid we scare off WAY TOO MANY young hunters, by making them think we have to LET BUCKS GROW over legal limits before harvesting them!! We all were young hunters once. Think about this fellas, and tell me honestly if this attitude is not counterproductive to what we need to do to keep hunting numbers from falling (the number of hunters!) the way it is!.



Oldpilot,

Hopefully I am not sticking my nose where it does not belong here but I can't see what citori said that was offensive. I read his post and all that I gathered was that he did not have a problem hunting for large mature deer and that he also did have a problem with anyone trying to impress on him that he should not be able to. As far as I am concerned I leave young bucks alone too and save my tags for a mature buck. A Doe tastes better so I hunt them for meat.

On impressing values on young hunters I would also think that is not a bad idea. I am not for telling someone that my way is the only way but, I don't mind talking to young hunters and giving some advice on my philosophy. They, (young hunters) should be made aware of the advantages to leaving young bucks alone and the old seasoned trophy hunters should be mindful that every hunter does not have to keep his exact standards. There is room for both and the youngsters should be encouraged to raise their standards when possible. thanks.....chs

[citori]

oldpilot,
Please go back and reread my post, I stated that it is a more rewarding experience "personally" (read that to mean to me) to take a mature buck rather than a younger, less mature one. I do not believe I stated everyone, let alone most, should do so, just that is what works for me. If there is a problem with that, then I guess it comes to an issue of the pot calling the kettle black. As I mentioned, I shoot antlerless deer as "meat" as I have plenty of tags for that purpose. The comparatively limited "buck" tags I get I save for mature deer, those that I (notice I specifically said "I") feel to be worthy of a more limited opportunity. Again, that is my moral beliefs, based upon my personal code of ethics based on my opportunities and one I do not place on others indiscriminately. I say "indiscriminately" as I do place antler and harvest number restrictions on some of the properties I own but that is based in part on the amount of pressure and population dynamics of the area. These restrictions generally do not apply to new or young hunters but instead, to those who have had a few deer under their belts. Other properties are open "as a take what you will" basis, again due to population dynamics.
Now, I wonder if you will take the same tone towards those who demean those that chose to pass on young bucks in the hopes that they, or others, might get a chance at it in the following years where it will hopefully be larger in body and/or antler size. After all, I do not know anyone who would pass up a big bodied buck with a large rack in place of a small one with minimal headgear if placed side by side.

[oldpilot]

Oldpilot,

Hopefully I am not sticking my nose where it does not belong here but I can't see what citori said that was offensive. I read his post and all that I gathered was that he did not have a problem hunting for large mature deer and that he also did have a problem with anyone trying to impress on him that he should not be able to. As far as I am concerned I leave young bucks alone too and save my tags for a mature buck. A Doe tastes better so I hunt them for meat.

On impressing values on young hunters I would also think that is not a bad idea. I am not for telling someone that my way is the only way but, I don't mind talking to young hunters and giving some advice on my philosophy. They, (young hunters) should be made aware of the advantages to leaving young bucks alone and the old seasoned trophy hunters should be mindful that every hunter does not have to keep his exact standards. There is room for both and the youngsters should be encouraged to raise their standards when possible.


I would appreciate you, or anyone else for that matter, explaining to me why we NEED to let small bucks pass. The idea of hunting was NEVER born from the idea that we need... BIG deer, only from the idea that WE needed meat. The modern ideal that only big bucks satisfy a "real" hunter is exactly the same one that will doom our wonderful sport. Think about that, please. We lose thousands of hunters every year. I read all too many times about a young hunter made to feel bad, because he shot a "small" deer. Again, simply think about this in the BIG context, not simply your own.Even one comment about how "only" big deer should be shot, is enough to give our sport a bad reputation and our newest members a bad "ideal" thanks.....

[oldpilot]

****I have kind of a problem with some attitudes regarding the taking of an animal for it antlers. I am one who saves his buck tags (I hunt three different states, all with a separate buck or either *** tag) for as fully mature of a buck as I can. I see it much more of a personal accomplishment to take a fully mature and experienced...*****

If it's a "personal" accomplishment, my opinion is that it doesn't need to be seen here, on open forum. There's my reason, and again, please don't feel this a personal attack, only that I feel anyone SHOULD shoot any deer they see fit. Thanks,

[oldpilot]

****On impressing values on young hunters I would also think that is not a bad idea. I am not for telling someone that my way is the only way but, I don't mind talking to young hunters and giving some advice on my philosophy. They, (young hunters) should be made aware of the advantages to leaving young bucks alone and the old seasoned trophy hunters should be mindful that every hunter does not have to keep his exact standards. There is room for both and the youngsters should be encouraged to raise their standards when possible. thanks.....chs***

Again, I truly feel that the idea that a young hunter "needs" to pass up a deer he or she would normally harvest simply because it "might" be bigger next year, has no sense behind it to me. For ME to pass up that buck, may, and does, at some level, make sense, but to a young hunter, it has none. What might you suggest he hunt at...say... age 60 then? Ever consider that? Will he even want to hunt then, when he's only ever been SO selective, and now his grandson/granddaughter is interested?? What will he explain to them.?? Simply think about what we/you/me are passing on to the NEW hunters!!!

[Arnie Oakley]

I pick my shots depending on the need. As some have mentioned, late in the evening and when close to property lines I go for a shoulder shot which is likely to drop the animal right there. If the area is away from property lines with plenty of visibility and/or a good tracking snow in case of need, I have no qualms taking a shot that is less likely to drop an animal right there. The loss of meat in the first case is immaterial as the crossing of the animal into an adjoining property may led to that animal being claimed by those owners. That is a fairly isolated case but the possible disruption to neighbors is also an issue to me and as I get along with them for the most part,
I have kind of a problem with some attitudes regarding the taking of an animal for it antlers. I am one who saves his buck tags (I hunt three different states, all with a separate buck or either *** tag) for as fully mature of a buck as I can. I see it much more of a personal accomplishment to take a fully mature and experienced animal when possible than one that is young and inexperienced. I see no need for me to shoot a young buck "for the meat" as I get at least 12 antlerless only tags in addition to the 2-3 either *** tags and the ability to party hunt in two states. When the end of season comes around, I either fill out the either/or tags with a doe in areas with population issues or eat the tag. With well over 10 big game animals taken per year, I guess I can afford to be choosy.

I also use enough gun that I can take shots other than truly broadside, at least when filling an antlered tag. I generally pick my "buck" cartridges based on a worst case scenario; that is if something goes wrong, such as wounded deer, the cartridge and bullet is capable of putting the animal down from a very poor angle. That it is also able to make a drastic angle very "doable" is only an added bonus if I decide to make an attempt. That is my personal belief and one I do not force nor care if others feel the same or not. I find it amusing how some have little compunction with putting down one type of moral code but are quick to claim hunters need every voice possible, even if some of the "voices" are kind of questionable.

As for some going home shortly after filling their tag, I guess I don't have much problem with that either. Everyone has different pressures placed on their time and it is not up to me to say how an individual should prioritize those issues. I hunt with some who have spouses who are not overly supportive of their hunting activities and do not understand that hunting is not the same as going to the store and that filling tags is not automatic. Going home as soon as possible makes things easier for them on the home front and is not something I can condemn others for. If they go home to avoid chores they find distasteful, such as dragging out the deer of others, then that is different and those get weeded out in short order. We all have different reasons for hunting and I try to not place my values on others too much though it can be very difficult. That is a large reason not everybody gets along with each other though they can be good people.

If you're refering to my attitude, please reread my post. I have no problem with trophy hunters, but I do have a big problem with anyone who feels they must down that trophy at any cost, and specifically blowing it to pieces. If anyone needs a trophy that bad, maybe they should consider a bowling league.

[Hunter]

I would appreciate you, or anyone else for that matter, explaining to me why we NEED to let small bucks pass.
I can't find where anyone has said anyone needs to let small bucks pass -- where did I miss such a statement? BTW, I agree with Rich and C. Schutte (at post # 40) on this matter.

Simply think about what we/you/me are passing on to the NEW hunters!!!
OP, it's good to know that you know how to turn off that bold font you're fond of using. :)

[oldpilot]

Fellas, make up all the reasons you want...every one of you made comments about hunters being selective about what deer they shoot. My point, for the last time, is that your attitudes when voiced or written will have an effect (negative) on the number and quality of hunters we have here in the future, period. Simply weigh the value of what you think vs what you say or write!

[oldpilot]

I can't find where anyone has said anyone needs to let small bucks pass -- where did I miss such a statement? BTW, I agree with Rich and C. Schutte (at post # 40) on this matter.******


OP, it's good to know that you know how to turn off that bold font you're fond of using. :)


*****Will this suffice?? I like the easier to read heavy print, thanks.

*******They, (young hunters) should be made aware of the advantages to leaving young bucks alone and the old seasoned trophy hunters should be mindful that every hunter does not have to keep his exact standards. There....*******

[Rich M]

A lot happened since I started typing! LOL!

I like to have a glass of wine every now & again. Sometime I go hunting and shoot something - that aint often, so I'll stick with my glass of wine.

LOL!!!

Point me at a meat deer...

[oldpilot]

oldpilot,
Please go back and reread my post, I stated that it is a more rewarding experience "personally" (read that to mean to me) to take a mature buck rather than a younger, less mature one. I do not believe I stated everyone, let alone most, should do so, just that is what works for me. If there is a problem with that, then I guess it comes to an issue of the pot calling the kettle black. As I mentioned, I shoot antlerless deer as "meat" as I have plenty of tags for that purpose. The comparatively limited "buck" tags I get I save for mature deer, those that I (notice I specifically said "I") feel to be worthy of a more limited opportunity. Again, that is my moral beliefs, based upon my personal code of ethics based on my opportunities and one I do not place on others indiscriminately. I say "indiscriminately" as I do place antler and harvest number restrictions on some of the properties I own but that is based in part on the amount of pressure and population dynamics of the area. These restrictions generally do not apply to new or young hunters but instead, to those who have had a few deer under their belts. Other properties are open "as a take what you will" basis, again due to population dynamics.
Now,'''' I wonder if you will take the same tone towards those who demean those that chose to pass on young bucks in the hopes that they, or others, might get a chance at it in the following years where it will hopefully be larger in body and/or antler size. After all, I do not know anyone who would pass up a big bodied buck with a large rack in place of a small one with minimal headgear if placed side by side."""""


""I wonder if you will take the same tone towards those who demean those that chose to pass on young bucks in the hopes that they, or others, might get a chance at it in the following years where it will hopefully be larger in body and/or antler size. After all, I do not know anyone who would pass up a big bodied buck with a large rack in place of a small one with minimal headgear if placed side by side.""[/QUOTE]"""""

Your point here, is completely lost on me, sorry. And, I've tried not to "demean" anyone here. Simply to ask you to look at your words and try to see them through a young hunter's eyes. It's what is truly important, after all.

[citori]

I posted my last comment before realizing there were other responses accurately explaining my first post. Thanks to all. I do feel it is imperative to impress values on young hunters; ideas and concepts such as fair chase, respect for property lines, marksmanship, woodscraft, and a host of others is not imbibed with their mother's milk, they must be taught. As responsible hunters, it is up to us to bring along the young (regardless of age) and I see no problem with explaining why I hunt as I do. I do not insist that a newcomer hunts as I do, I only give them the reasons why I choose to hunt the way I do and with that information, plus any other they chose to heed, make the best decision for themselves. I have no problem if they take a deer I would not have and am glad for them. As I stated, I do have some requirements on certain properties due to biologic and hunter reasons but for the most part they do not affect newcomers, only those who are experienced. I don't see where anyone other than oldpilot is proclaiming newcomers should fore go shooting young bucks, others seem to be saying to give the reasons an individual passes on buck for another and let the newcomer decide for themselves. I do realize there are places that do place restrictions and requirements on all shooters but those are mostly private properties where the owner gets to set the rules, just like one's home or are dictated by state statute, often based on supply and demand (I won't get into Pennsylvania, I hear too many mixed stories from there to know for certain what is true, what is not, and how much locality has a bearing).

We lose thousands a day in about any occupation or advocation you can name, it is a factor of our population demographics. With the increasing urbanization of the populace, it is even more incumbent of us to embed the correct values on those comparative few entering the sport. If all options are not given, how can a newcomer pick the best course? Human nature is to pick the easy one and that is what so many rail against. I'll continue to give the reasons I chose to pass on lesser bucks and if others see it fits them too, that is great. If not, that is fine too.

As for the idea of hunting because we needed meat, that philosophy went out, at least in the lower 48 states, with the advent of modern farming practices, refrigerated trailers, and the modern road system. In fact, as that philosophy resulted in some of the lowest big game populations ever recorded, I would not wish to see a return to those days. With the practically non-existent "need" for the meat, other values become prominent in a sport. Using deer in my home state as an example, in my lifetime we went from "it's brown, it's down", to full season closure, to buck only, to antlerless by permit, to either/or tag, to multiple antlerless plus an either/or tag, to take as many antlerless as you want in some areas. With that attitudes changed from any deer is a good deer, to envy and jubilation if one drew a "doe" tag, to a buck being worth more than mere meat as most have at least one antlerless tag in addition to an either/or tag. As times change, so does the value placed on the game which is not any different than owning a TV set; how many black and white sets do you have and use in your home? I'll continue with my practice of using my buck tag on a mature buck and pass on the younger ones though I'll also continue to be happy for those who wish to fill their tag with a younger buck.

[Hunter]

Will this suffice?? I like the easier to read heavy print, thanks.
OP, sorry, I didn't think about that; if you need to you can adjust the size of your font also. :)

[Rich M]

There are some who have a legitimate need for meat.

I quit deer hunting some 10 years ago and only shot a few out the back windown when the opportunity presented itself.

My wife was diagnosed with Celiacs disease (has to do with intestines and dietary allergies), the Dr. said venison is the best red meat for her.

That's the only reason I hunt deer. been back at it for 2 years and haven't even raised the gun - the rule down here is bucks only and all I've seen is does. Saw 12 this past season - 5 in one day - a record for FL hutning & me.

I can also get into all the stuff they put into the foods you buy at the store. Hunting for meat has never been more important. If my wife hadn't gotten "sick", I would never have known. I refuse to buy much store beef or most of the processed foods. Don't get me going about pesticides and chemical residues on produce. We grow as much of our own produce as possible - no poisons there. I lost 40 pounds since I changed my diet and am still slowly going down. Says alot about the overweight America - it is what, not how much...

I can go all night - arguing for meat hunting. You are in a great place in life where food isn't as big of a concern. I know quite a few people who worry about buying food and 30-50# of venison would go a long ways to ease their pain. BTW, include me in that list.

I'm a minority in this - but have a sincere need for venison.

[C. Schutte]

oldpilot,

I'll do the best that I can to answer both of your questions. For the record I am not offended by your directness so please do not read my answer with any resentment. As a matter of fact, I am happy that we can discuss something other than what is the best gun.

Why do we need to pass up young bucks? For starters I never said that all of us need to pass up young bucks and I never said that only trophies satisfy a real hunter. It sounds to me like you have picked on this bone before. I do pass on young bucks and I understand that it allows bucks to grow up and provide citori and I an oppurtunity to hunt something bigger, wiser and harder to hunt. This is my preference. My statement was only that young hunters should listen to what the old greybeards have to say about it and understand that there are advantages to passing up small bucks. I also mentioned in the same paragraph that seasoned hunters should not hold younger hunters to their standards. In this regard you would fit in this catagory because it seems to me that you are being intolerant of anyone who does not share your opinion. I also mentioned that there is room enough for both schools of thought regarding hunting.

You mentioned that we are loosing too many young hunters each year due to not allowing them to shoot young deer. I really do not agree with that statement nor do I agree that young hunters cannot fathom the reasoning behind allowing bucks to grow. In my opinion I think that young hunters greatly appreciate the advise and experience that experienced hunters can provide and if by chance that you expose them to the advantages of hunting larger and wiser game they might get more out of it. Lets face the fact that not everybody is strictly a meat hunter. Our young ones have way too many avanues of entertainment and what they really need is an older hunter like us to take some interest. By taking interest we can certainly express a little philosopy. By no means does that mean not allowing a youngster to take a buck. Just incourage him to take a better buck next time and explain that we hunt to kill but, we do not need to kill to have hunted. What in Heaven's name is wrong with that?

I also want to address your comment that I am not looking at this in the big context and strictly my own. I would submit to you that I am by not forcing my opinions of hunting down the throats of young hunters but rather, giving them a little credit by doing a little mentoring. Perhaps you are only seeing things as you want them to be.

It seems to me that you have had some bad experience with the fanatic trophy hunter that only sees things his way. I don't agree with that guy either because I will settle for a buck that won't meet his standards so my philosopy is that there is enough room for both schools of thought and that those on each extreme do more to run young hunters away that those of us in the middle. Let me ask you a question. What will you say to your grandson if he wants to pass up a young spike because he wants to hold out for something better? Will you scold him for being a trophy hunter? Will you appreciate the fact that he is willing to hold off until his goals are met? Please think about that.

You asked me to consider what I am passing on to young hunters and I can proudly say that I encourage them to pass the young and hold out for something better. I also express to them that they must set their own standards. This philosopy is used on my own two boys which is that they can be better than average if they choose and that there is more to hunting than just simply shooting the very 1st animal that happens by. We are out there to hunt, not kill. Don't get me wrong. I won't discourage them or belittle them for taking something that I would not. The Key here is to encourage them to see the broader picture by taking little steps whenever possible. Some will and some will not. That's life.

Hey, thanks for adding a little spice around here and hopefully I explained it. chs

[C. Schutte]

Fellas, make up all the reasons you want...every one of you made comments about hunters being selective about what deer they shoot. My point, for the last time, is that your attitudes when voiced or written will have an effect (negative) on the number and quality of hunters we have here in the future, period. Simply weigh the value of what you think vs what you say or write!



We did indeed make comments about being selective. What we did not do was state that everybody must also be selective. You are injecting that. Our written opinions are having a negative effect? Are you serious? In other words, if we disagree with your opinion it is wrong and if we write what we think then that is wrong. I don't agree with any of this my friend. We as hunters should encourage the younger ones to all of the positive aspects to hunting, including meat hunting. We should not be totally one sided and intolerant of those who are not in lock-step. I bet you are fun in camp.

[Lodiman]

I agree with old pilot in so far as trophy hunting can't be used as a reasonable justification for our sport. Hunting for meat is the number one justification and the oldest reason for hunting, the other one is to control animal populations from overpopulation. To most non hunters to say" I hunt for a trophy" is the same as saying I do it to feed my ego. I'm not totally against that but it is a poor reason if that is the only reason you hunt.

[citori]

If you're refering to my attitude, please reread my post. I have no problem with trophy hunters, but I do have a big problem with anyone who feels they must down that trophy at any cost, and specifically blowing it to pieces. If anyone needs a trophy that bad, maybe they should consider a bowling league.

Unless someone is using a howitzer or other similar military arm (and I recall reading of someone doing such in Wisconsin), I don't see how one would "blow to bits" a deer. I've shot deer with cartridges ranging from the .223 Remington on up to a 458 Win mag and found it is a matter f bullet placement and bullet construction that causes meat damage. I've made sharply angled going away shots with a "magnum" class cartridge and stoutly constructed bullet that required only a handful of meat to be discarded while a broadside shot with a Ballistic Tip from a much "lesser" cartridge lead to much more meat loss. It is the idea that one uses a cartridge and bullet combination capable of cleanly taking an animal with more angle than a broadside shot is somehow unethical or at least demonic is what gets my goat. A hit to a large bone or ham with a somewhat frangible bullet (like a Nosler Ballistic Tip) can destroy a lot of meat regardless of the size (or lack) of rack. Are these hunters any less "ethical" (for lack of a better word) than the so called trophy hunter who places a higher value on the rack than the meat? I primarily make my firearm and bullet choice based on a "worst case" scenario and have a great reluctance for using what I consider to be "light for game" cartridge and bullet choices. Others have no compunction with using these cartridges and that is their fine choice. That I choose to use a firearm capable of taking my chosen quarry from any angle I feel comfortable does not mean I have to or even will take a given shot. I just prefer to pass on a shot of my own volition rather than having circumstances dictate it to me. As mentioned by others, one hunts for their own chosen reasons and as long as it is legal and does not intrude on others, who cares?

[madoktor1]

Be careful if you're shooting factory Remington Core-Lokt 180gr ammo in the Garand. That will bend an op rod given a steady diet. I've heard of the 150gr. Rem ammo locking up Garands by bending the op rod.

If you're handloading the 180gr. bullet, then as long as you're within acceptable load ranges with appropriate powders, you're fine.

I'm probably going to wind up buying the Hornady loading manual expressly for the section on the M1 Garand. Op rods aren't getting any cheaper.

Thanks for the info. I usually shoot 165 gr. but the last time I needed ammo, it was not available and I was in a hurry. According to the info I have, the 165 gr. is what Springfield recommends and it does shoot them well. I will purchase more when I shoot the 180's up. Which will probably be soon at the range.

[citori]

I agree with old pilot in so far as trophy hunting can't be used as a reasonable justification for our sport. Hunting for meat is the number one justification and the oldest reason for hunting, the other one is to control animal populations from overpopulation. To most non hunters to say" I hunt for a trophy" is the same as saying I do it to feed my ego. I'm not totally against that but it is a poor reason if that is the only reason you hunt.

I have to disagree with the "meat" stance, as I mentioned in another post the widespread presence of well stocked grocery stores, the relative low expense (compared to the cost of hunting), low harvest rate (40% of all licensed hunters, if one breaks it down to just those who actually harvested deer regardless of how many, the number would be lower) of hunting compared to shopping, and the small amount of meat of the typical 1.5 year old deer (by far the most common age class harvested) negates any justification of feeding oneself with most non-hunters. In today's society there may be an acceptance of shooting animals to control their numbers but hunting is widely seen as a hobby or sport and somehow anathema to what a "civilized" society should support. After all, there is a greater acceptance for "sharpshooters" at public expense to remove excess animals than to open up recreational opportunities to those who would willingly pay for the opportunity. "For the food" reasoning may be more acceptable to non-hunters if those on food stamps were to be the ones partaking in harvesting deer but the typical hunter is not in that economic class. I do not think a "trophy only" stance is any better, a combination of all aspects is the only real justification and those are far greater than just trophy value (and a trophy is in the eye of the beholder in my estimation), food source, and population control. Intangibles such as tradition, comraderie, and others I can't think of off hand but do experience is the reason and are nigh impossible to relate to those not of the same bent. The "civilizing" of the world will kill off hunting as we know it and I do not see a means of stopping it. It will take a change in public perception and the few hunters of today will not be able to do so any more than the larger number by percentage of past years were able to prevent the slide. The pendulum is swinging and we now have to wait for it to change its course. Again, this is only opinion on either of our parts and what seems to be a given in one area can be very different in another. I work and live in a rather rural area with a high percentage of hunters and deer hunters in particular compared to the rest of the state. Even so, the number of non-hunters outnumbers the hunters by a sizable number and they are often ambivalent to hunting at best.

[madoktor1]

I live in a three doe a day unit and three buck state limit. I am also part of a hunting lease with 9 other guys and we use QDMA regulations on the lease. We all have plenty of opportunities to shoot deer and the three doe a day limit is very attainable but that is due to population. For this reason, I pass on many small bucks as I hunt for the freezer and not antlers. Antlers and trophies are secondary to me. If I hunt for antlers, I want it to be a trophy. That's why I am on a lease with others who feel the same way. This is not the only reason for the lease. We also have it so we have control over the hunting and don't have to worry about 200 other people setting up on us. If someone wants to hunt primarily for trophies, I don't have a problem with that. I actually have more of a problem with the "if it's brown, it's down" theory, because of the examples cited by Citori. But that is the great thing about this country, we can agree to disagree, we can have our own opinions, and, for the most part, shoot whatever size deer we want. Just my opinion.

[GreatWhiteNorth517]

Let's be honest here. We hunt for sport, not for meat or necessity. Every person has to decide for themself what they want to fill their tag with. As long as the animal has been legally and humanely taken, there should be no problem. If you have more respect for the guy who shot a wallhanger in the *** than the guy who took a doe or small buck with one clean shot then your world is ***-backwards. Also, IT IS A MORE REWARDING EXPERIENCE PERSONALLY TO EAT JERKY FROM THIS YEAR'S DEER WHILE ICE FISHING THAN TO CHEW ON AN UNFILLED DEER TAG. Interesting that people talk about taking larger bucks as "management". In WI alone the DNR sets a deer kill goal each year and it's usually around 700,000. By holding out and not taking a deer, how exactly are you contributing to the management effort? Also interesting that this issue arose from a discussion of shot placement. Do trophy bucks have different anatomy than does or smaller bucks? No, they don't. The truth is people are more willing to take a lousy shot if the deer has bigger headgear, and that sucks. This includes shots "late in the day", and "near property lines". What do these things have to do with it? Shouldn't you always take the shot that you think will put the deer down the quickest? The person who stated he'd take a different shot late in the day or near a property line is the same guy who stated he prefers to take mature bucks. So let me get this straight. You can keep the gun in your lap on a small deer, but not on a mature buck late in the day and/or near a property line?

[tddeangelo]

Thanks for the info. I usually shoot 165 gr. but the last time I needed ammo, it was not available and I was in a hurry. According to the info I have, the 165 gr. is what Springfield recommends and it does shoot them well. I will purchase more when I shoot the 180's up. Which will probably be soon at the range.

From the accounts I've read, all of it is rough on the op rod (Remington Green Box). The Garand is very particular about port pressure, and I forget which powder they load in that ammo (I can find it, just don't have it at my fingertips), but I know it's a slower burning powder that produces higher port pressures. This makes the op rod cycle fast and hard, potentially bending it or cracking the receiver heal as the bolt slams back into it repeatedly.

Is this a new-production M1 from Springfield Armory, Inc, or is it an original military issue rifle?

Personally, I'd be looking for reloading equipment or a friend who could load rounds to published acceptable loads for the Garand gas system. The Hornady loading manual has a good selection of load data that is safe for use with the Garand. It's your rifle and you can do with it as you please, of course....I'd just hate to see you wind up with a locked up rifle and a bill for a $100-$200 op rod to fix the situation.

[tddeangelo]

.....I won't get into Pennsylvania, I hear too many mixed stories from there to know for certain what is true, what is not, and how much locality has a bearing.

Awwwww, c'mon...........you don't want to get involved in the great deer debate we have going on here in the Keystone State?

=)

[Arnie Oakley]

Let's be honest here. We hunt for sport, not for meat or necessity. Every person has to decide for themself what they want to fill their tag with. As long as the animal has been legally and humanely taken, there should be no problem. If you have more respect for the guy who shot a wallhanger in the *** than the guy who took a doe or small buck with one clean shot then your world is ***-backwards. Also, IT IS A MORE REWARDING EXPERIENCE PERSONALLY TO EAT JERKY FROM THIS YEAR'S DEER WHILE ICE FISHING THAN TO CHEW ON AN UNFILLED DEER TAG. Interesting that people talk about taking larger bucks as "management". In WI alone the DNR sets a deer kill goal each year and it's usually around 700,000. By holding out and not taking a deer, how exactly are you contributing to the management effort? Also interesting that this issue arose from a discussion of shot placement. Do trophy bucks have different anatomy than does or smaller bucks? No, they don't. The truth is people are more willing to take a lousy shot if the deer has bigger headgear, and that sucks. This includes shots "late in the day", and "near property lines". What do these things have to do with it? Shouldn't you always take the shot that you think will put the deer down the quickest? The person who stated he'd take a different shot late in the day or near a property line is the same guy who stated he prefers to take mature bucks. So let me get this straight. You can keep the gun in your lap on a small deer, but not on a mature buck late in the day and/or near a property line?

Thank you GWN. You've expressed my opinion much better than I could have. Well said.

[buckgitter]

I shoot every deer I can right through the shoulders...BANG, FLOP. I have yet to track one shot in this manner. Do I ruin meat? YES about 2 lbs worth. The shoulder of a deer here in Va has virtually no meat on them. Why do I do this? I do not want to have a deer run off the side of the mountain and have to drag it longer than needed. This may sound like I am lazy to some, but thats the way I do it. I have dragged deer all over these mountains and quiet frankly I am tired of it and won't do it for a mere 2 more lbs of meat. So I guess the bottom of the mountain is my "property line". How many times will people argue over something that is done legally in the eyes of the law? We get no where trying to convince other hunters that our way is the right way or whatever. If you hunt legal make a killing shot then who cares what you shoot be it a doe or a B&C class buck......we all have made poor shot choices or will make one someday and to say that you won't well........then you ain't hunting...cause its gonna happen. As far as what this forum teaches the new hunters, kids or adults, about taking a certain caliber deer.....they will make up their own mind anyway. If they know whats legal then you can bet your *** that they will take whats legal!! And build their own standards from that......If they let a forum discussion set their standards then they are in for a rude awakening....

[Lodiman]

GWN517 You put it very well.

[YoungGun22]

As far as what this forum teaches the new hunters, kids or adults, about taking a certain caliber deer.....they will make up their own mind anyway. If they know whats legal then you can bet your *** that they will take whats legal!! And build their own standards from that......If they let a forum discussion set their standards then they are in for a rude awakening....

A very good point.

[Rich M]

Someone once said that each day has enough challenges of its own. I agree.

[madoktor1]

From the accounts I've read, all of it is rough on the op rod (Remington Green Box). The Garand is very particular about port pressure, and I forget which powder they load in that ammo (I can find it, just don't have it at my fingertips), but I know it's a slower burning powder that produces higher port pressures. This makes the op rod cycle fast and hard, potentially bending it or cracking the receiver heal as the bolt slams back into it repeatedly.

Is this a new-production M1 from Springfield Armory, Inc, or is it an original military issue rifle?

Personally, I'd be looking for reloading equipment or a friend who could load rounds to published acceptable loads for the Garand gas system. The Hornady loading manual has a good selection of load data that is safe for use with the Garand. It's your rifle and you can do with it as you please, of course....I'd just hate to see you wind up with a locked up rifle and a bill for a $100-$200 op rod to fix the situation.


It is military issue. It was purchased while in the military. I do have a friend that reloads so I will get with him. He also has the Hornady manual. Thanks for the info.

[3 1/2" magnum]

Between the eyes absolutely no loss of meat and no tracking

[buckgitter]

Between the eyes absolutely no loss of meat and no tracking

I shot a doe one day looking straight at me over a log....wanted the meat so I tried the between the eyes shot....I pulled the trigger she disappeared. Went over to get her only to find she wasn't there. The shot was from a 280 150 gr nosler partition bullet. I tracked what few blood specks I could find and saw her standing down the ridge. Next shot took her out. I had shot a little low and took off her lower jaw...I still believe she would have survived or at the least died a miserable death after ganggreen set in..I no longer take the straight on head shots....to easy to pull off and not get the job done. Just my .02 on that type of shot...

[3 1/2" magnum]

I shot a doe one day looking straight at me over a log....wanted the meat so I tried the between the eyes shot....I pulled the trigger she disappeared. Went over to get her only to find she wasn't there. The shot was from a 280 150 gr nosler partition bullet. I tracked what few blood specks I could find and saw her standing down the ridge. Next shot took her out. I had shot a little low and took off her lower jaw...I still believe she would have survived or at the least died a miserable death after ganggreen set in..I no longer take the straight on head shots....to easy to pull off and not get the job done. Just my .02 on that type of shot...
I agree totally, I was just having some fun.

[tjen]

Some areas have more bigger bucks as well as more smaller ones like texas. This is not because of a law just because its in the hunting culture not to shot them untill they grow up. One conversation I had in the Lerado airport somes it up. " We have bigger bucks here because anyone here would be embrassed to shoot what you guys in Michigan concider a thorphy".

What I have found to be ture in most aspects of life seems true here. When encoutering someone else with higher standards, ethics, etc... we can learn from it, give it more thought to see its merit, or just be offened and blow it off. The last is not the wisest choice and worse yet is to be hostle and aggesivly negitive thats just a defence to our own conscience.

Is there something wrong with taking a small deer? No but I sure think there is an issue when the over welming hunting culture in an area is to shoot so many imature deer. Our harvest should reflect a crossection of the deer heard at the least. Consevation first that is what will support a healty and endering deer heard. NOT EVERY THING THAT IS LEGAL IS GOOD, NOR DOSE BIENG LEGAL MAKE IT RIGHT!
We have to use better judgement than the legal test.

[jackG]

Back to the original topic. I've only hunted deer for two years. I'd hunted smaller stuff as a kid and instinctively took boiler room shots, whether on rabbits squirrels or vermin. My inclination now is take the same shot on deer.

What futher encourages that target area is a couple of events I witnessed from other hunters in the group. One involved a shot at an animal walking away. It turned its head to look back, as mulies are wont to do, and the hunter, using a 300 WSM took a crack at the head. He's a good shot. The range was very reasonable, the rest was sound, he had good equipment, a Browning A bolt topped with a VX-III 3-9, and he shoots a lot. The deer moved it's head a bit at the instant of the shot. He hit it but not well, with disastrous results. Following that I read that deer move their heads perhaps more than another part of their bodies. Subsequent to that I've seen others in the group successfully clobber a couple of animals right between the running lights. There is no doubt that if that apple sized brain is hit with a modern rifle bullet, the outcome is inevitable. But it's the miss, or the chance of it that bothers me. I just don't feel comfortable with that shot.

The second event was a 200 yard shot on a cow elk using a 300 Win Mag. This guy is an excellent shot and hunts a lot. He went for a neck shot. The elk took off like a scalded cat and despite a couple of more hits before it got out of sight, it really convered some ground. It had to be diced up to drag it out of the ravine it had gotten into. He could not explain the lack of effect. But I recall in his exasperation he declared, "The .300 isn't enough gun for elk!" Post event autopsy showed the first shot missed the major artiers and the spine. That suggests that there are substantial gaps between critical stuff in the neck.

While watching all this I continued to habitually took my boiler room shots. It just does not seem appropriate for me to aim anywhere else at that moment of truth. What inspires confidence in the boiler room is a kill zone of about 9 or 10" in diameter. The deer can't flick that part of its body around like the head, and unlike the neck, which won't do much if you miss major arteries or the spine, when you punch the aorta above the heart, get both lung lobes or the heart itself, the animal is dead. Perhaps it won't get the bad news for a few second and few paces, but it is a done deal.

I recall a quote by and African PH who says he tells his clients, "shoot for the brown," which he explained is the center of mass. Screw the peripheral stuff. Get to the machinery that permits the animal to live. So, back to the shoulder shot. How big is the "anchoring zone" for that target area? Is it about the same as the heart/lung? The above posts suggest that there is not much meat loss and the shot will break the shoulders, and most likely damage the spine, which ensures they are planted on the spot.

On ESPN outdoors, showing a Wyoming deer hunt, that shot was taken on large white tail right at the edge of an open field. The point of impact was visible at the shot. It was perhaps 6 or 8" below the line of the animal's back and right in line with the shoulder. It went down so quickly it bounced, and never moved a muscle. I'll have several tags to fill in November, so if the opportunity is there, I'll put one in that spot I think. The results will be reported.

[Arnie Oakley]

On ESPN outdoors, showing a Wyoming deer hunt, that shot was taken on large white tail right at the edge of an open field. The point of impact was visible at the shot. It was perhaps 6 or 8" below the line of the animal's back and right in line with the shoulder. It went down so quickly it bounced, and never moved a muscle. I'll have several tags to fill in November, so if the opportunity is there, I'll put one in that spot I think. The results will be reported.[/QUOTE]

Why would you want to do that? Because you have several tags and feel you can gamble one away if the results aren't what you're looking for? I really don't get what you're getting at. You've talked so much about "boiler room" shots and how effective they've been for you. So why not stick with a sure thing?

[lovestohunt]

I pick my shots depending on the need. As some have mentioned, late in the evening and when close to property lines I go for a shoulder shot which is likely to drop the animal right there. If the area is away from property lines with plenty of visibility and/or a good tracking snow in case of need, I have no qualms taking a shot that is less likely to drop an animal right there. The loss of meat in the first case is immaterial as the crossing of the animal into an adjoining property may led to that animal being claimed by those owners. That is a fairly isolated case but the possible disruption to neighbors is also an issue to me and as I get along with them for the most part,
I have kind of a problem with some attitudes regarding the taking of an animal for it antlers. I am one who saves his buck tags (I hunt three different states, all with a separate buck or either *** tag) for as fully mature of a buck as I can. I see it much more of a personal accomplishment to take a fully mature and experienced animal when possible than one that is young and inexperienced. I see no need for me to shoot a young buck "for the meat" as I get at least 12 antlerless only tags in addition to the 2-3 either *** tags and the ability to party hunt in two states. When the end of season comes around, I either fill out the either/or tags with a doe in areas with population issues or eat the tag. With well over 10 big game animals taken per year, I guess I can afford to be choosy.

I also use enough gun that I can take shots other than truly broadside, at least when filling an antlered tag. I generally pick my "buck" cartridges based on a worst case scenario; that is if something goes wrong, such as wounded deer, the cartridge and bullet is capable of putting the animal down from a very poor angle. That it is also able to make a drastic angle very "doable" is only an added bonus if I decide to make an attempt. That is my personal belief and one I do not force nor care if others feel the same or not. I find it amusing how some have little compunction with putting down one type of moral code but are quick to claim hunters need every voice possible, even if some of the "voices" are kind of questionable.

As for some going home shortly after filling their tag, I guess I don't have much problem with that either. Everyone has different pressures placed on their time and it is not up to me to say how an individual should prioritize those issues. I hunt with some who have spouses who are not overly supportive of their hunting activities and do not understand that hunting is not the same as going to the store and that filling tags is not automatic. Going home as soon as possible makes things easier for them on the home front and is not something I can condemn others for. If they go home to avoid chores they find distasteful, such as dragging out the deer of others, then that is different and those get weeded out in short order. We all have different reasons for hunting and I try to not place my values on others too much though it can be very difficult. That is a large reason not everybody gets along with each other though they can be good people.


Citori,

You said that you try not to place your values on others too much. With over 1200 posts credited to your name and not one thread started by you, it would seem to me that you do try very hard to place your values on everyone here. Whether its your advice, your choice of equipment, or your hunting strategies, its still your values. Some might take that as very arrogant, know it all, or like I said, very persuasive for what you believe in, especially when the length of your value borders on a doctoral thesis.

[oldpilot]

Citori,

You said that you try not to place your values on others too much. With over 1200 posts credited to your name and not one thread started by you, it would seem to me that you do try very hard to place your values on everyone here. Whether its your advice, your choice of equipment, or your hunting strategies, its still your values. Some might take that as very arrogant, know it all, or like I said, very persuassive for what you believe in.

I might have noticed that...myself.

[oneshot 1]

Ok not reading all the Post.I use Muzzleloader anymore.We can takeas many Antlerless Deer as we have Tags for.I've killed several Deer at one time by making the High Shoulder Shot breaking the Deer down on the spot.Reload do the same.The other Deer don't see a Deer run,they are curious as to what is going on but don't ,seeno reason to run.

My wife has learned not to count on an easy day durring Deer season.

oneshot

[citori]

Let's be honest here. We hunt for sport, not for meat or necessity. Every person has to decide for themself what they want to fill their tag with. As long as the animal has been legally and humanely taken, there should be no problem. If you have more respect for the guy who shot a wallhanger in the *** than the guy who took a doe or small buck with one clean shot then your world is ***-backwards.

I do not recall ever making any comment that I had more respect (or any if one really wants to pick at nits) for someone who bagged one type/class of deer over that bagged by someone else, regardless of where it was shot or how. I have "respect" for the person who is happy and proud of the animal they have taken, I am just as happy for a new/inexperienced hunter that has taken a fawn as someone who has taken a "record book" animal. I have the greatest appreciation for any deer the newest member of a nearby camp takes; they dole out stand assignments based on seniority with the oldest members getting the best stands and the newest getting the leftovers. Many have only a couple of sightings in a season with opportunities being even fewer. Someone who toughs out those conditions to eventually bag any deer has my respect for their grit and determination if for nothing else.

Also, IT IS A MORE REWARDING EXPERIENCE PERSONALLY TO EAT JERKY FROM THIS YEAR'S DEER WHILE ICE FISHING THAN TO CHEW ON AN UNFILLED DEER TAG.

Not really, at least for me. I am not much of a jerky eater nor do I care for fish other than halibut all that much. I'll ice fish a couple times a year with some buddies for "old times sake" but that is about it for me. What fishing I do I prefer to do on open water rather than through a hole in the ice. I do love venison though, which is why I fill as many antlerless tags as I do. Unless the freezers quit or I loose power and the back up generator does not kick in, I do not see much likelihood of having to eat an unused tag.

Interesting that people talk about taking larger bucks as "management". In WI alone the DNR sets a deer kill goal each year and it's usually around 700,000. By holding out and not taking a deer, how exactly are you contributing to the management effort? [QUOTE]

By taking as many antlerless deer as I can or am allowed, I feel I am contributing much more to controlling the deer population than taking a buck of any size. The majority of my "antlerless" tags are filled with yearling does as that has the greatest affect on future populations and it is easier to differentiate between does (greatest effect to control populations) and bucks. Shooting fawns statistically leads to half of them being fawn bucks which qualify as being "antlerless" but have slight long term affects on populations and I have a personal code against shooting does with fawns. If I have a buck only tag I'll save it for a deer I feel like taking or for someone else in the party if they have an opportunity but if it is an either/or tag, I'll fill it with an antlerless at season end if the opportunity arises and I feel like doing so.

[QUOTE=GreatWhiteNorth517;106655]Also interesting that this issue arose from a discussion of shot placement. Do trophy bucks have different anatomy than does or smaller bucks? No, they don't. The truth is people are more willing to take a lousy shot if the deer has bigger headgear, and that sucks.[QUOTE}

If the cartridge, bullet, and hunter are all capable of making a clean kill and do so on a sharply angled shot, how is that a "lousy shot?" As I define it, a "lousy shot" is one that does not lead to a readily harvested animal. Whether that occurs from a bullet that is incapable of making it to the vitals due to design or energy levels or a poorly placed shot is of no difference. As for "raking" shots, I do not see any more unusable meat with a shot that enters near the last rib, angles forward into the chest cavity, and what is typical in my case, exits the chest than a shot that enters behind the front leg and exits the other side. But then I use cartridges a little on the larger side for the expected quarry size firing moderately heavy for caliber bullets of at least standard construction so penetration is very good and expansion not overly aggressive compared so some other designs. I agree that a "Texas heart shot" on an unwounded animal is not an ethical (for me) shot as the possibility for what I consider to be unacceptable amounts of ruined meat is too great but on a wounded animal, I feel it is my duty to take any safe opportunity to put the animal down, regardless of angle.

[Quote=GreatWhiteNorth517,106655]This includes shots "late in the day", and "near property lines". What do these things have to do with it? Shouldn't you always take the shot that you think will put the deer down the quickest? The person who stated he'd take a different shot late in the day or near a property line is the same guy who stated he prefers to take mature bucks. So let me get this straight. You can keep the gun in your lap on a small deer, but not on a mature buck late in the day and/or near a property line?

I detest tracking in the dark as a heart or lung shot deer can cover a fair bit of ground before keeling over. They do not always drop right there with these shots nor do they always bleed out copious amounts of blood and lately there has not always been a fresh "tracking snow" which can make it difficult to stay on the correct track as the skies darken. I do have dogs that will follow a blood trail but as it is not legal in the states I hunt, I do not like to ask the wardens for permission to use this resource though they are very open and intrigued to the concept when it has been discussed. As pressured deer move more as light levels decrease than in the middle of the day and I do appreciate eating venison, I will shoot deer up to near the end of legal shooting hours. In many places, including most of those I hunt, it is cool enough that the meat will not become rank if left overnight but in my favorite and most hunted areas there are wolves to consider. I personally dislike tagging what remains of a deer the wolves left me and feel up to a possible a couple handfuls of bloodshot meat is worth possibly not losing the whole animal.
In a similar vein, my definition of "close to property lines" is that distance a fatally shot deer can travel. As it is not unheard of for lung shot deer to go 100 yards before dropping and a heart shot deer to run well over 100 yards, I feel anything around 100 yards or so as being "near property lines." I have a real hang up regarding me crossing my property lines for any reason, even if I have the blessing of the other owner or the people using it to retrieve deer from there. As this area is rapidly changing from working farms of 180+ acres to hobby farms commonly around 20 acres in size, the opportunity to be more than 100 yards from a property line is pretty remote. Same for other properties, topography and other features sometimes dictates where one can place a stand, and I have the same feeling regarding property lines there even though much of the bordering lands are open to the public. Again, that is my peculiarity though I mostly do not have a problem with others that do not hold themselves to the same "standard" as I recognize it is kind of **** on my part.
As for the deer, I can keep the gun on my lap just as easily on a large deer as a small deer if I choose not to take the shot. Nowhere have I stated I must shoot any mature deer that crosses my path, just that I wish the determination to shoot or not is of my personal choice (naturally providing it is safe). On the same token, I can and regularly do take "small" (I actually would use antlerless, mostly meaning yearling does, instead of "small" as I do not wish to shoot any more young bucks) near the end of legal shooting times. As I already mentioned, deer seem to move more frequently at that time than noon.

Hopefully this rather long dissertation has helped clear up any misunderstandings caused by different ideas and/or definitions between individuals. If they have increased the rift, it was not my intention and for that I apologize. For me, I am very strong and adamant in my beliefs and as seen, have little hesitation in defending them. I do my best, and I do realize I am not perfect, in not projecting those beliefs onto others and do, what I feel to be, a pretty good job of walking this line.

[GreatWhiteNorth517]

I don't have a problem with people taking larger, more mature bucks. Of course we all would take such a deer rather than a small one given the choice. That being said, I do have a problem when the rack becomes the endpoint and people start changing the rules in order to accomplish it. We joked about the "Texas heart shot" but the sad truth is a surprising number of record book deer are taken this way. That conveys the message that it's OK to take a bad shot from a bad angle as long as you (maybe) have a great trophy to show for it. On the same token, shots taken from unrealistic distances, in poor lighting, in thick brush, on running animals, near or on property lines are now OK because the deer is big. I highly doubt those shots would be taken on 80 lb does. I think we can be better than that, out of respect for our sport and the animals we hunt. Sometimes the "right shot" is the one you don't take.
In this day and age, it is possible for someone with little experience and skill but enough money and time to go to a ranch somewhere and come home with a monster buck. I know the world isn't fair and business is business, but I still find this disappointing as well.
For the folks who are commited to only taking larger, more mature deer, I respect your choice but disagree with it. I also don't want to hear about it. Not everyone has the time, money, or land access to make that kind of committment. Many place value on filling their tag, having some venison in the freezer, and contibuting to the management effort by harvesting an animal. And no matter how nicely you say it, it sounds a lot like "That suit's OK for you, but I wouldn't wear it." You disagree with the taking of less mature deer and does, but that is exactly what management is about. What if everybody was that selective? Very few deer would be harvested and we'd have a mess. The people who "meat hunt" and fill tags with smaller deer are doing the bulk of the work of deer management and the thanks they get is your criticism. They're the ones that make your trophy possible. You should be saying thank you! As I said before-unfilled tags don't manage anything!
I also hear the words "Quality Deer Management" a lot. Basic concept-take bigger deer so we can continue to take bigger deer. I doubt if this strategy is effective at managing deer. I'm sure it's a great way to manage a trophy room.

[citori]

Citori,

You said that you try not to place your values on others too much. With over 1200 posts credited to your name and not one thread started by you, it would seem to me that you do try very hard to place your values on everyone here. Whether its your advice, your choice of equipment, or your hunting strategies, its still your values. Some might take that as very arrogant, know it all, or like I said, very persuasive for what you believe in, especially when the length of your value borders on a doctoral thesis.

This is going to sound quite arrogant intentionally: I didn't realize there was a requirement that one had to start a thread though it surprises me I have not started one here, especially considering my loquaciousness. I'm sorry I missed that as I did not fully read the thread regarding appropriate posting conduct. I'll go back and read that more carefully and try to do better from now on. I'll also try to post more on things I agree with along with those I don't though I think it is redundant (and this from a person who writes a thesis!!) to do so.

Now that that is done, I guess I am left unsure what the purpose of not only this site, but any other site in which there is interaction between members. I always thought it was for the exchange of experiences and opinions and, yes, values which are a summation of of the above and other factors. I guess I have confused what I thought to be offering my opinions (and I guess values) up for contemplation with forcing them onto others. I also realize I am rather "talkative" in print, I feel I have to thoroughly explain myself when writing anything down, when actually talking to someone in person or on the phone I am quite the opposite. It probably has to do with my schooling, I come from an place and era where one was graded on the quantity of work more so than the quality in grades 7-12 with quality and quantity the goal in college. My job and the requirements required are also not overly conducive to brevity; everything done, seen, or often felt needs to be recorded. I won't even attempt to promise something in this regard.

[GreatWhiteNorth517]

Citori-
I'd be the first to admit that brevity is not your strong suit (I sometime find myself daydreaming when reading your posts), and that you have what we refer to in my line of work as a "strong personality." I also don't agree with you on every topic.
However I also don't like seeing you so gun-shy like in your last posts. Not every statement that disagrees with your view is an attack directed against you personally. Every single nuance needn't be addressed (the jerky/ice fishing thing was an attempt at humor on my part, fish how you want).
I would think it would be exhausting to feel the need to continually defend yourself, especially with that level of detail. Relax and know that we can disagree but we're still all friends here.
-Jeff

[Lodiman]

No one on here can call me the long winded one, that's for sure.

[C. Schutte]

Citori,

You said that you try not to place your values on others too much. With over 1200 posts credited to your name and not one thread started by you, it would seem to me that you do try very hard to place your values on everyone here. Whether its your advice, your choice of equipment, or your hunting strategies, its still your values. Some might take that as very arrogant, know it all, or like I said, very persuasive for what you believe in, especially when the length of your value borders on a doctoral thesis.



lovestohunt,

I do not agree with the implication of this post. This is all subjective so I guess I interpet these posts as I want to but, I always find anything Citori posts to be interesting, informative, opinionated, thorough (OK, very thorough) but never out of line. We all have opinions here and this is the place to express them. The difference is in my opioion Citori always tells what he would do without ever demanding that we all do the same like some here. (please note that I am not implying that you do) To say that he is arrogant or a know-it-all is a little over the top when you take in mind that this is the place to express your opinions.

I feel free to express mine and I would submit that you also expresse yours from time to time. This place would be boring indeed if we did nothing but agree with one another. There is however, a difference between expressing one's opioion and implying that the view of only one member is the only way to go, big difference. (again, you have never suggested that your way was the only way) I would hope that both you and Citori continue to express their opinions without feeling the need to be overly agreeable. I can remember discussions where you and I have not agreed and you explained in great detail those differences. It is in those discussions where real truth and honesty come out and as far as I am concerned, some of your best work on this forum. I expect you to always feel free to tell it like it is and we should not ask Citori to do otherwise. thanks.....chs

[lovestohunt]

lovestohunt,

I do not agree with the implication of this post. This is all subjective so I guess I interpet these posts as I want to but, I always find anything Citori posts to be interesting, informative, opinionated, thorough (OK, very thorough) but never out of line. We all have opinions here and this is the place to express them. The difference is in my opioion Citori always tells what he would do without ever demanding that we all do the same like some here. (please note that I am not implying that you do) To say that he is arrogant or a know-it-all is a little over the top when you take in mind that this is the place to express your opinions.

I feel free to express mine and I would submit that you also expresse yours from time to time. This place would be boring indeed if we did nothing but agree with one another. There is however, a difference between expressing one's opioion and implying that the view of only one member is the only way to go, big difference. (again, you have never suggested that your way was the only way) I would hope that both you and Citori continue to express their opinions without feeling the need to be overly agreeable. I can remember discussions where you and I have not agreed and you explained in great detail those differences. It is in those discussions where real truth and honesty come out and as far as I am concerned, some of your best work on this forum. I expect you to always feel free to tell it like it is and we should not ask Citori to do otherwise. thanks.....chs



Thats exactly what I did....told it like it was.

[Arnie Oakley]

Like so many other threads, this one has taken a turn for the worse and has gotten way off subject, with personal attacks seeming to be the order of the day.

Take the best shot you can take, and if there's any doubt as to the outcome, don't shoot at all. It's that simple.

[C. Schutte]

Like so many other threads, this one has taken a turn for the worse and has gotten way off subject, with personal attacks seeming to be the order of the day.

Take the best shot you can take, and if there's any doubt as to the outcome, don't shoot at all. It's that simple.



We wern't fussing that much. I can count on Jess for his honesty so his answer does not offend me at all. As usual, your perspective comes from one who usually knows best. Have a good one.........chs

[Arnie Oakley]

We wern't fussing that much. I can count on Jess for his honesty so his answer does not offend me at all. As usual, your perspective comes from one who usually knows best. Have a good one.........chs

Sorry for the misunderstanding C-man. I wasn't refering to you. You know what I say about you........always the gentleman!!!

AO

[CannedHeat]

Let's be honest here. We hunt for sport, not for meat or necessity. Every person has to decide for themself what they want to fill their tag with. As long as the animal has been legally and humanely taken, there should be no problem. If you have more respect for the guy who shot a wallhanger in the *** than the guy who took a doe or small buck with one clean shot then your world is ***-backwards. Also, IT IS A MORE REWARDING EXPERIENCE PERSONALLY TO EAT JERKY FROM THIS YEAR'S DEER WHILE ICE FISHING THAN TO CHEW ON AN UNFILLED DEER TAG. Interesting that people talk about taking larger bucks as "management". In WI alone the DNR sets a deer kill goal each year and it's usually around 700,000. By holding out and not taking a deer, how exactly are you contributing to the management effort? Also interesting that this issue arose from a discussion of shot placement. Do trophy bucks have different anatomy than does or smaller bucks? No, they don't. The truth is people are more willing to take a lousy shot if the deer has bigger headgear, and that sucks. This includes shots "late in the day", and "near property lines". What do these things have to do with it? Shouldn't you always take the shot that you think will put the deer down the quickest? The person who stated he'd take a different shot late in the day or near a property line is the same guy who stated he prefers to take mature bucks. So let me get this straight. You can keep the gun in your lap on a small deer, but not on a mature buck late in the day and/or near a property line?


As a resident cheddarhead myself, I agree with every word of that.

Good work.

[Arnie Oakley]

As another cheesehead, I do too, except I do hunt for meat. Venison is one of my favorite meals and I've yet to see it at the market!

[C. Schutte]

Sorry for the misunderstanding C-man. I wasn't refering to you. You know what I say about you........always the gentleman!!!

AO



No misunderstanding on this side Long tooth! You will know when my feeling are hurt, I start pouting and sticking out my lower lip...................................chs

[ColtWKnight]

I take any shot I feel comfortable with, and by that I mean not putting the animal through any undue suffering.

[buckgitter]

Some areas have more bigger bucks as well as more smaller ones like texas. This is not because of a law just because its in the hunting culture not to shot them untill they grow up. One conversation I had in the Lerado airport somes it up. " We have bigger bucks here because anyone here would be embrassed to shoot what you guys in Michigan concider a thorphy".

What I have found to be ture in most aspects of life seems true here. When encoutering someone else with higher standards, ethics, etc... we can learn from it, give it more thought to see its merit, or just be offened and blow it off. The last is not the wisest choice and worse yet is to be hostle and aggesivly negitive thats just a defence to our own conscience.

Is there something wrong with taking a small deer? No but I sure think there is an issue when the over welming hunting culture in an area is to shoot so many imature deer. Our harvest should reflect a crossection of the deer heard at the least. Consevation first that is what will support a healty and endering deer heard. NOT EVERY THING THAT IS LEGAL IS GOOD, NOR DOSE BIENG LEGAL MAKE IT RIGHT!
We have to use better judgement than the legal test.


This makes no sense at all to me....We don't set our standards by someone elses!!! Just because they have higher standards or ethics doesn't mean everyone else should follow suit. And yes being legal makes it right! Illegal makes it wrong! Most hunters don't get more than 1 hour from their home to hunt much less in another state....so who cares what other peoples standard or ethics are half way across the country. Deer vary in size in every state and region......not because of hunting culture but because of genetics!
So being legal is not good judgment??????

[tjen]

Buckgitter If you disagree fine , BUT you missed every single point I made, Please reread it and give it some thought.

We can learn alot from past conservationist and yes hunters form any state if what they do is better from a biolodgical stand point for the betterment of a deer heard.

There are alot of things that were once illegal that are now legal, and things that were legal are now illegal and for some of these things the ethical or moral circumstances haven't change just the law.

For harvesting deer what is best to maintain a healthy deer heard OUT WAYS WHAT is mirrly legal when the two do not have the same out come.

For the oridginal post only center of the vitals because it allows for the most error.

[buckgitter]

Buckgitter If you disagree fine , BUT you missed every single point I made, Please reread it and give it some thought.

We can learn alot from past conservationist and yes hunters form any state if what they do is better from a biolodgical stand point for the betterment of a deer heard.

There are alot of things that were once illegal that are now legal, and things that were legal are now illegal and for some of these things the ethical or moral circumstances haven't change just the law.

For harvesting deer what is best to maintain a healthy deer heard OUT WAYS WHAT is mirrly legal when the two do not have the same out come.

For the oridginal post only center of the vitals because it allows for the most error.

What determines that their way is better? I will trust my state biologist before I will trust a hunter who puts in 3-4 weeks a year from another state. Maybe it all comes down to how your state has handled the situation in the past. The herd here is in check and very healthy...we don't have cwd only a few cases of ehd and some very nice bucks roaming around. As far as legal and illegal I don't understand your point. What is legal about hunting that you don't like? That a 1st time hunter or a teenager can go out and shoot a 4 pointer or a spike or a doe????? Please elaborate...
As I mentioned before not all regions and states have the same potential because of genetics. So if a hunter wants to shoot a 1.5 yr old 4 pointer then thats his/her choice.....They paid for their tag just like you and I.
I understand what you are saying about learning from the past conservationist but just because they have been there and done it doesn't always make their method right either....
And I still do not believe that we should try and live up to someone elses standards and ethics...Heck if I lived up to someones ethics and standards in Canada or Texas or Illinois or Kalamazoo then I may never shoot a deer.
I am not trying to get in an argument, just trying to understand your position....

[jcat]

I would appreciate you, or anyone else for that matter, explaining to me why we NEED to let small bucks pass. The idea of hunting was NEVER born from the idea that we need... BIG deer, only from the idea that WE needed meat. The modern ideal that only big bucks satisfy a "real" hunter is exactly the same one that will doom our wonderful sport. Think about that, please. We lose thousands of hunters every year. I read all too many times about a young hunter made to feel bad, because he shot a "small" deer. Again, simply think about this in the BIG context, not simply your own.Even one comment about how "only" big deer should be shot, is enough to give our sport a bad reputation and our newest members a bad "ideal" thanks.....



Shot Placement,(Iwill answer the above question in a last).

I have always tried to shoot the animal in the vital area as that is how I was taught at the age of 12 when I started hunting. Since archery is my main means to hunting this concept becomes more important. I have seen tons of film where animals where shot in the high shoulder and the devastation is indeed impressive, up to this point I just have not had the opportunity to take this shot. If I were in a situation where I was greatly concerned about anchoring the animal asap(thus far this has never happened in my career) then I may do so.

To answer this question above,
Population dynamics is a constant and ongoing challenge like many species to manage and becomes more challenging with the advent of economics in the equation. I do not have enough space to provide every states management plan according to revenue but I will tell you that over 90% of North Americas deer populations are out of balance for proper herd densities and health. The role a mature deer has in a population is very crucial in the passing of strong genes to the doe pops. In conjunction with numbers another key element is to have proper buck doe ratios for strong healthy herd dynamics. "In most" areas the only way to effectively keep not only the numbers in check, ratios in check, as well as the health in check, is indeed to shoot does and let "all" bucks go. In most of the areas in this country the need for the removal of huge numbers of does is necessary in order to have the most optimal balance in all three categories. Now one thing I would like to add is that the area and habitat that is available are also factors that also would come into play, but I am speaking of the majority of areas need a huge doe reduction. Now, since most guys do feel good about shooting antlers, the only logical answer is if one is to shoot a buck, the answer it to cull a large mature buck and leave the immature bucks around so they grow into the resource needed for the herd. In the meantime, shoot as many does as you need, can, or are limited to.

I hope this kind of makes sense. I also hope that you do not find it offensive if I choose to hunt for mature deer as well as removing as many does as possible to only enhance the herds where I hunt. I do not shun anyone for taking any animal that in their eyes was an accomplishment. We all can learn from each other, we can debate as this is what this forum is about, but we do need to remember the future of our sport is in the hands of us sticking together and teaching it to youngsters. I also believe that most hunters would have a better understanding of why things are done the way they are if they had a basic understanding of the biology behind the quarry they pursue.



J

[jcat]

What determines that their way is better? I will trust my state biologist before I will trust a hunter who puts in 3-4 weeks a year from another state. Maybe it all comes down to how your state has handled the situation in the past. The herd here is in check and very healthy...we don't have cwd only a few cases of ehd and some very nice bucks roaming around. As far as legal and illegal I don't understand your point. What is legal about hunting that you don't like? That a 1st time hunter or a teenager can go out and shoot a 4 pointer or a spike or a doe????? Please elaborate...
As I mentioned before not all regions and states have the same potential because of genetics. So if a hunter wants to shoot a 1.5 yr old 4 pointer then thats his/her choice.....They paid for their tag just like you and I.
I understand what you are saying about learning from the past conservationist but just because they have been there and done it doesn't always make their method right either....
And I still do not believe that we should try and live up to someone elses standards and ethics...Heck if I lived up to someones ethics and standards in Canada or Texas or Illinois or Kalamazoo then I may never shoot a deer.
I am not trying to get in an argument, just trying to understand your position....

Chris,

Many states fight managing the herd for the herd, the hunters, and the revenue. All of these are not ideal for eachother. My answer is for the herd, because that is what the question was for.

J

[buckgitter]

Chris,

Many states fight managing the herd for the herd, the hunters, and the revenue. All of these are not ideal for eachother. My answer is for the herd, because that is what the question was for.

J

I am a firm believer of QDM.....I think you already know that. What I don't get is putting a restriction on young hunters or new hunters as to what they can or can't shoot. I practice firm management on the lands I have control over and yes it works to some degree. Will I have a B&C record...someday maybe but not likely. The genetics are just not there. Will the young hunters have the chance to kill a young buck..yes. If they kill a monster to start with I believe they will get discouraged when its not done everytime they hunt. The state will manage as they see fit and usually its with a lot of pressure from various groups. It is our own choice to take it further if we so choose to do so. Which comes back to the point I made earlier if its legal and with in the law then yes let the young and new hunters kill young bucks. This is just my opinion and the only place that I can enforce it is on the land I control. I am in no way trying to convince any one otherwise.

I have high jacked this thread enough so I am done....

[jackG]

On ESPN outdoors, showing a Wyoming deer hunt, that shot was taken on large white tail right at the edge of an open field. The point of impact was visible at the shot. It was perhaps 6 or 8" below the line of the animal's back and right in line with the shoulder. It went down so quickly it bounced, and never moved a muscle. I'll have several tags to fill in November, so if the opportunity is there, I'll put one in that spot I think. The results will be reported.

Why would you want to do that? Because you have several tags and feel you can gamble one away if the results aren't what you're looking for? I really don't get what you're getting at. You've talked so much about "boiler room" shots and how effective they've been for you. So why not stick with a sure thing?[/QUOTE]

Arnie - My question did not revolve around gambling by targeting a different part of the animal. I don't see the high shoulder shot as a risky, unless the target zone for an effective hit is substanially smaller than the heart/lung area. The trade off is meat damage in the shoulder shot in one case, Vs very nearly zero damage in the other. There's not much of table value in the ribs. It appears that there may only be a couple lbs lost in the shoulder shot.

I shoot a 270 WSM reasonably well and use either 140 gr Accubonds or, for this season, 130 gr ballistic tip barns TSX, custom loads. So I'm as confident as one can be that I'll hit pretty much where I'm aiming. If there is minimual meat damage with a high shoulder shot, and the kill zone is comensurate with the hear/lung shot in size, it would seem to be an acceptable option . After watching a pronghorn run twenty or thirty yards with no lungs, the shoulder shot appears to be worth a try. As to the number of tags, it gives me some options to compare the effect of the two different target areas. Bagging half a dozen animals in a week provides a lot of hunting experience and data in a very short period of time.

[jcat]

I am a firm believer of QDM.....I think you already know that. What I don't get is putting a restriction on young hunters or new hunters as to what they can or can't shoot. I practice firm management on the lands I have control over and yes it works to some degree. Will I have a B&C record...someday maybe but not likely. The genetics are just not there. Will the young hunters have the chance to kill a young buck..yes. If they kill a monster to start with I believe they will get discouraged when its not done everytime they hunt. The state will manage as they see fit and usually its with a lot of pressure from various groups. It is our own choice to take it further if we so choose to do so. Which comes back to the point I made earlier if its legal and with in the law then yes let the young and new hunters kill young bucks. This is just my opinion and the only place that I can enforce it is on the land I control. I am in no way trying to convince any one otherwise.

I have high jacked this thread enough so I am done....


I know where you stand, education is the key not regulation,,,sometimes it seems many are not open enough to look at the truth. That is life.

BTW,,By no means does a deer have to measure up to a Boone and Crockett. I have shot mature whitetails(largest at 248lbs dressed) that did not score any where near B and C. Do not measure score by the bar of a mature whitetail. However, with proper herd management antler growth will improve.

I am sorry to get off topic! Something I want to add is that I always take the first shot that provides an opportunity to kill the animal. My focus is to kill the animal humanely and worry about meat second. Of course sometimes some damage is done and other times it is not. "KILL the animal, then worry about the rest."

[Rich M]

Why do some guys get their panties in a wad over "mature deer"?

I'm tired of everyone telling me I'm wrong just to shoot them to eat and get back to living life. You're getting my panties in a wad with your over-enthusiastic desire to push your agenda and morals on the rest of us. Do it on your lease with your equally enthusisatic buddies, argue over who's deer is more worthy and be happy.

Let the legal hunters shoot legal deer.

My preference is to take out a shoulder while obtaining next year's jerky. They don't go anywhere.

[tddeangelo]

Here's a question:

Everyone has mentioned "healthy herds" and "optimal population ratios" and the like.

But how are those concepts defined?

I would submit that a trophy hunter would define herd healthy by age/maturity and buck:doe ratios. A meat hunter would do so by head-count. What is "optimal"?

PA, for all its controversy, has studies showing that even in the presence of mature males, ALL males are participating in breeding the does. ALL of them. Yes, ratios and more details are important to know more about the situation and I don't have the info at my fingertips right this moment. I think it's telling though, because PA has clobbered the doe herd pretty thoroughly in the last 6 or 7 years, and in areas where doe hunting has been curtailed to allow a population increase, they are STILL seeing juvenile bucks basically breeding at will.

Also- a buck's genetics are constant, so it matters not one bit WHEN that buck breeds. If he breeds as a 1.5 year old, he's sending the same genes forward as he will if he breeds as a 5.5 year old. PA has argued that this eliminates the "high grading" argument against point restrictions, and while some of their propaganda is not believable to me, I think they're on the mark on this one. If all bucks are breeding seemingly regardless of ratios/population densities, then the argument to hold off on deer who are younger so they can pass on their genetic material kinda falters a bit.

If the desire is to manage a herd such that there are so many bucks that the competition for does is fierce enough to effectively eliminate juvenile bucks from breeding, and if those juvenile bucks are breeding in areas in PA were deer densities flirt with single digits per square mile, then I submit that those management practices are SOLELY for the purpose of producing trophy deer, which is no more "optimal" for the deer herd than managing for large numbers of deer. Both are opposite extremes, and neither is intended to be for "healthy herds".

Nature is cyclic, not static. Populations of ANY species are never naturally stable EVER. Populations increase, peak, then decrease till they bottom out and begin to increase again. This is the natural order of things. By trying to force deer into a stable population, we are doing anything BUT providing a natural balance to the population. We are forcing it into a status it doesn't want to be in. Anyone ever wonder why the herds are so skewed one way or another in population? Much has to do with how they're "managed", but everyone talks about having to reduce the doe populations so much and severely curtail buck harvest. Ever wonder what caused the natural order of things to be such that does are more populous than bucks? Ever wonder why, if the "optimal" condition of a deer herd is a low buck:doe ratio, why isn't that the natural order of things for the deer herd?

That is optimal for a "stable" population. It is not how things have ever been, or likely ever will be except in small areas of highly controlled environments. "Management" to me implies the notion that man is capable of control over other organisms and their dynamic interactions with a living world. I don't think we'll ever be successful in that endeavor. Especially when I don't think we'll ever agree on what it means to have an "optimal" herd.

[Kellyelk]

For informational purposes, CO manages most of the state based on carrying capacity of the land. How they go about this I don't know, but that is how they say they manage the herds.

As for the shot placement debate, I learned thru Hunters Safety and my dad that a hunters most important action is to put a bullet into an animal to kill as humanely and quickly as possible. To me, this means the vitals first and foremost. Heart, lungs, liver. SO this is what I do on every shot. Not once has it ever crossed my mind while lining up a shot to try and incapacitate an animals means to escape. Such as taking a leg out or shoulder blade. Its happened as result of putting a bullet in the vitals but not because I decided to do so.

What I've seen mentioned by a few is that they change their mindset dependent upon the maturity of their quarry. Where many will take higher risk shots for a bigger and more mature animal. I only disagree with this to the point that we owe any game animal the same quick and decisive end whether its big or small. Killing quickly should be the first thought. Just my take on this great debate.

Kelly

[tddeangelo]

Kelly,

I have taken shots solely to disable the animal's ability to move, but they have been in situations where the animal was already wounded by another hunter and my reasoning was that if I didn't have a "boiler room" shot, a shot through the hips would at least stop the horror show that was unfolding and allow things to be finished off in a more expedient fashion than continuing to track and trail in hopes of a good killing shot in and of itself.

As far as a herd capacity, even that can be nebulous. For example, is carrying capacity defined as the maximum number of individuals the given area of land can support, or is it the maximum number of individuals that can be tolerated with minimal impact to coexisting species? If the latter, what amount of impact is tolerable? What amount is necessary for the ongoing survival/and or thriving of other species? Deer don't exist in isolation. Their activities have both positive and negative effects on the species that exist in the same biome as the deer. These are rhetorical questions, of course, but my point is that the "benchmarks" which define the "carrying capacity" or "healthy herd" are not able to be well-defined, making "management" even more difficult to define, making "management decisions" somewhat fuzzy as well.

I think my point also is that while it gives us a warm and fuzzy feeling to say we're managing the deer herd, we can really have no more surety of our management decisions than any other predator. The only difference is that when a predator "over-harvests" a prey species, the correlated effect is that when the prey species declines, shortly after that so will the predator species decline in numbers.

Human hunting is a wholly different dynamic because of the restraints we place on our predation in accordance with fair chase, the limitations of harvest and times at which animals may be harvested, and the fact that our "population" does not have a direct tie to the population of the species which we hunt.

To be selective in which animals are harvested in order to effect the over all health of the herd would really mean that we SHOULD be removing sick, malformed, or otherwise "not normal" deer out of the herd and LEAVING the healthy, prime specimens. Young of the year should be "thinned" by likelihood of adult health, thus leaving only those physically most likely to thrive and removing others that would compete with them for resources such as food and cover.

Sport hunting does exactly the opposite. Even when you hear of the taking of "management bucks" or "cull bucks", the point is to provide for better growth of the prime examples of the species for later harvest. That is not the point of a "healthy herd", that's growing deer to be harvested later, not dissimilar to thinning an apple tree so you can pick bigger, better apples later in the year. The intended end result is still picking the apple, not a concern for its overall well-being. As far as the apple's concerned, you could have picked it in June or September alike, the end result is that it is still being picked and eaten.

[Kellyelk]

Kelly,

I have taken shots solely to disable the animal's ability to move, but they have been in situations where the animal was already wounded by another hunter and my reasoning was that if I didn't have a "boiler room" shot, a shot through the hips would at least stop the horror show that was unfolding and allow things to be finished off in a more expedient fashion than continuing to track and trail in hopes of a good killing shot in and of itself.

As far as a herd capacity, even that can be nebulous. For example, is carrying capacity defined as the maximum number of individuals the given area of land can support, or is it the maximum number of individuals that can be tolerated with minimal impact to coexisting species? If the latter, what amount of impact is tolerable? What amount is necessary for the ongoing survival/and or thriving of other species? Deer don't exist in isolation. Their activities have both positive and negative effects on the species that exist in the same biome as the deer. These are rhetorical questions, of course, but my point is that the "benchmarks" which define the "carrying capacity" or "healthy herd" are not able to be well-defined, making "management" even more difficult to define, making "management decisions" somewhat fuzzy as well.

I think my point also is that while it gives us a warm and fuzzy feeling to say we're managing the deer herd, we can really have no more surety of our management decisions than any other predator. The only difference is that when a predator "over-harvests" a prey species, the correlated effect is that when the prey species declines, shortly after that so will the predator species decline in numbers.

Human hunting is a wholly different dynamic because of the restraints we place on our predation in accordance with fair chase, the limitations of harvest and times at which animals may be harvested, and the fact that our "population" does not have a direct tie to the population of the species which we hunt.

To be selective in which animals are harvested in order to effect the over all health of the herd would really mean that we SHOULD be removing sick, malformed, or otherwise "not normal" deer out of the herd and LEAVING the healthy, prime specimens. Young of the year should be "thinned" by likelihood of adult health, thus leaving only those physically most likely to thrive and removing others that would compete with them for resources such as food and cover.

Sport hunting does exactly the opposite. Even when you hear of the taking of "management bucks" or "cull bucks", the point is to provide for better growth of the prime examples of the species for later harvest. That is not the point of a "healthy herd", that's growing deer to be harvested later, not dissimilar to thinning an apple tree so you can pick bigger, better apples later in the year. The intended end result is still picking the apple, not a concern for its overall well-being. As far as the apple's concerned, you could have picked it in June or September alike, the end result is that it is still being picked and eaten.Thanks for the very informative post. Like I said, I am not sure how the define nor identify herd objectives. I do know that the states management of the elk herds had some direct effect on the decline of the deer herds here. So I believe there is some truth to your statement on how they manage things.

Good point on the shooting to anchor and animal that has been previously wounded. I too should have included that in my post. Once blood is drawn all bets are off and putting the animal down for the count is the only objective. My point was more towards the idea that some would willingly anchor a trophy class animal first, so as not to escape, over the killing shot being first and foremost. I know there are many situations where hunters feel this is their only option as hunting pressure is high and competition fierce. I hunt conditions like this every year and have lost an animal due to a killing shot that let the animal travel a little too far and out of sight. Other hunters got my animal due to time and space. However, I did my job and it was dead on its feet, just didn't know it yet. However, back on track here, your points are well taken and something for everyone to ponder. Thanks for the insightful post.

Kelly

[Rich M]

An anchoring shot is very beneficial in areas of high pressure and also in areas where the animal may run off into exremely thick vegetation or perhaps down a mountain and create a lot of work.

It all depends on the shot as presented. I have not lost a deer shot with a rifle and pray that it never happens (can't say that for a bow - I no longer bow hunt for that very reason). The furthest I've had one go was about 60 yards. All the others fell where they were.

I've only seen a few hunting shows (don't have cable) - the ones I've seen have always amazed me at the deer running off after the shot. It never happened like that to me...

[Kellyelk]

An anchoring shot is very beneficial in areas of high pressure and also in areas where the animal may run off into exremely thick vegetation or perhaps down a mountain and create a lot of work.

It all depends on the shot as presented. I have not lost a deer shot with a rifle and pray that it never happens (can't say that for a bow - I no longer bow hunt for that very reason). The furthest I've had one go was about 60 yards. All the others fell where they were.

I've only seen a few hunting shows (don't have cable) - the ones I've seen have always amazed me at the deer running off after the shot. It never happened like that to me...I've seen much more on the opposite side of the coin. Most animals, especially elk, don't ever seem to drop at the shot. I've seen it a few times, but not many. They almost always run, trot, walk for several yards or quite a ways with fatal hits. Whether thats one or more it just depends. I attribute this to adrenaline, and the will to live.

Each of us has our own decisions to make in the field and we will all do what we feel is right.

[JimT]

30-06, 180 gr. Remington Core-Lokt, M1 Garand. I hit em in the shoulder and they fall like they were hit by a mack truck. I usually use the shoulder meat for stew, jerky, or sausage anyways so I don't worry about the meat. I believe the real answer to shot placement is based on preference and ability. Just my opinion.

Ditto, except I use a Rem 700. Ability is also a key word. Alot of deer are missed or mamed when people try and shoot them in the head. Jaws shot off. Antlers shot off, etc. Just aim for the biggest target. The shoulder/boiler room area.

[GreatWhiteNorth517]

[QUOTE=Rich M;107313]An anchoring shot is very beneficial in areas of high pressure and also in areas where the animal may run off into exremely thick vegetation or perhaps down a mountain and create a lot of work.

I grasp the concept but disagree with the idea as you may be increasing an animal's suffering to save yourself work. Sometimes hunting does involve some work. One of my pet peeves are "sportsmen" that aren't willing to put forth a little effort or physical exertion and will do just about anything to avoid it. If hunting is too much "work" for you, perhaps you should only shoot the animals that are standing right next to your truck.

[Lodiman]

I think it's fine if you can hit them hard enough withthe anchor.

[hardisk]

Well now....I am a meat hunter. I am a youngster(being 17) and only hunted 2 years now. I dont find that the deer with the biggest antlers is the one to shoot. I am by far not a trophy hunter. I start off my season looking for the big one only because season is long. As the last few weeks of deer season set in I move to looking at game that are legal. That way i can atleast fill the tag and get meat for family(better than groceries now a days). I didnt find any of the text that the litle argument got started with as a way of telling me that i should pass up the little bucks and only look for the "trophies".

As for the original question I shoot for the boiler(always) i find its the best shot I can take that can gaurantee a kill in most circumstances. If i aim for the back i could either over adjust and miss the deer or under adjust and possibly hit somewere i dont want to. I never take the texas heart shot nor headshots. too many things could go wrong. could hit the deer and it end up getting away injured and dying of diseases and stuff. And i dont want to be the reason why the deer suffered a painful death. I prefer kills not injuries.

[GreatWhiteNorth517]

You bring up an interesting question Lodiman. What does "hard enough" mean. I guess my mental picture of the "anchoring shot" is a shoulder, spine, or hindquarter shot where the animal is flopping around for a minute or two before it expires, or doesn't expire and requires a finishing shot. For me that is the longest 2 minutes of my life-I can't stand it. I guess there are a lot of guys who can...

[Rich M]

I'm actually confused now. I would not shoot a deer anywhere but where it would die immediately - or at least ASAP. I guess there are guys aout there who like to shoot the deer in the butt - I only did that once by accident - that bullet went thru the liver, lungs, and shoulder as well.

If you shoot a deer where it gets the shoulder and the vitals - it is an anchoring shot, it drops. A neck, shoulder/spine, or head shot anchors them. I agree with shooting for the biggest target (or at least knowing where your bullet will hit so you can make the head shot - its a big enough target if you have a rest).

[GreatWhiteNorth517]

Never had one run out of sight. Most deer I have shot have not taken a single step. The shots that have gone bad for me (which have have been few and far between, and I am proud of that) have been right on the shoulder or in the spine. We can agree to disagree. Based on my personal experience I will not take that shot on purpose.

Changing gears now...did anyone else notice that the posters that admitted to being younger or less experienced were committed to the vital area/"boiler room" shot? It seems that the more experienced folks are the ones taking the other types of shots...interesting...

[GreatWhiteNorth517]

I have witnessed a 1 oz slug hit a deer dead-on the shoulder at less than 5 yds and the deer nearly dug itself into the ground during the last minute-plus of his life. You guys say what you want...I will not purposely shoot at bone when I can shoot at vital organs.

[.30 HART]

Glad to see another southern guy making a good point about the number of deer he has been fortunate enough to take. As I told a poster on the phone the other day that a lot of you guys need to understand is that a lot of us down in this neck of the woods will have killed more deer by the time we are a teenager than a lot of you can legally kill in your lifetime in your state. That is not to brag at all but rather to say that a guy that has several hundred deer kills under his belt can usually say with a little more authority which shot seems to work best for dispatching a whitetail. If you are 60 years old with 20 deer harvest or you are 20 years old with 150 deer kills who is the more experienced hunter?
Our season comes in August 15 and runs though Jan 1st with no limit on bucks and you can legally take 40 does.
All this being said I would have no way of knowing how many deer I have taken in my lifetime but between culling and just hunting it has been A LOT.
My favorite sure shot is the high shoulder as it seems to dump them right where they stand will little or no suffering. I will take a head shot as long as the deer is under 150 yds and the conditions are perfect. Neck shots are my least favorite as I have had to trail to many hit there and usually ended up finding the deer some time later.
If you shoot a fragile bullet then stay away from bone unless the deer is quite a distance away and the bullet has had time to slow down and penetrate without blowing up ex. a 150 gr nosler ballistic tip will do much better on the shoulder at 200yds versus 50 yds.
In the end take whatever shot you are comfortable with and enjoy your upcoming season.

[buckgitter]

Glad to see another southern guy making a good point about the number of deer he has been fortunate enough to take. As I told a poster on the phone the other day that a lot of you guys need to understand is that a lot of us down in this neck of the woods will have killed more deer by the time we are a teenager than a lot of you can legally kill in your lifetime in your state. That is not to brag at all but rather to say that a guy that has several hundred deer kills under his belt can usually say with a little more authority which shot seems to work best for dispatching a whitetail. If you are 60 years old with 20 deer harvest or you are 20 years old with 150 deer kills who is the more experienced hunter?
Our season comes in August 15 and runs though Jan 1st with no limit on bucks and you can legally take 40 does.
All this being said I would have no way of knowing how many deer I have taken in my lifetime but between culling and just hunting it has been A LOT.
My favorite sure shot is the high shoulder as it seems to dump them right where they stand will little or no suffering. I will take a head shot as long as the deer is under 150 yds and the conditions are perfect. Neck shots are my least favorite as I have had to trail to many hit there and usually ended up finding the deer some time later.
If you shoot a fragile bullet then stay away from bone unless the deer is quite a distance away and the bullet has had time to slow down and penetrate without blowing up ex. a 150 gr nosler ballistic tip will do much better on the shoulder at 200yds versus 50 yds.
In the end take whatever shot you are comfortable with and enjoy your upcoming season.


I sure would like to give some South Carolina whitetails a taste of my medicine.....still waiting on that email!!!! LOL

[.30 HART]

Its coming soon

[BoHogGrind]

hey fellas,i'm new here and i would like to say that i bow-hunt alot but i gun hunt to.unfortunately i have made a few bad shots, everybody does all that we can do is make the best ethical shot we can..lets all get along

[.30 HART]

You say you're "done" but then throw out two more shots before you stop typing. You fight like my wife.
There's an incredible difference between "feeling sorry for the deer" and having the maturity to pass on a shot or shoot in a way to attempt to avoid an inhumane kill. And, yes I do feel badly when a shot goes wrong. I do everything in my power to avoid it ever happening again. IMHO, if it doesn't bother you, then you aren't a hunter, or a sportsman. You're just a d*******g with a gun-I don't care how many deer you've shot.
Incidentally, a bow versus a gun is a completely different mechanism at a completely different velocity and completely different level of force. There is no reason for a gunshot deer to die the way a bowshot deer does. The same concepts also apply...a poorly shot bow deer will travel much further than a well shot one...etc,etc...
I was hoping that even though we disagreed that you could at least respect my ethics...

Im with Bo on this one. IF you dont agree with someones shot placement ethics etc just be quiet and not resort to judging each other. Im an advocate of high shoulder shots as they have always produced instant kills for me......(several hundred in my lifetime) This being said it works for me. If someone doesnt like shoulder shots then so be it take whatever shot you want as I am going to continue to hunt my way whether everyone agrees with me or not.
Name calling is childish and we need not have it on here as it makes for unpleasant forum experiences.

[GreatWhiteNorth517]

If you recall, I was the one who first suggested we agree to disagree. I was ready to be done with this but found it in poor taste that someone would say they were "done" and then take parting shots. Was that not childish? There also was the insinuation that "I shouldn't pull the trigger" "if I feel sorry for the deer"which in my opinion painted me as some kind of bleeding heart rather than the responsible, ethical hunter I am. These statements really ticked me off and I let my anger get the best of me. I apologize for that. I will have to get over how offended I am.

[.30 HART]

Fair enough ...it takes a good man to admit he was wrong. I have learned the hard way that we arent always going to get along on here or agree with each other but we CAN be civil. If someone chooses not to be just ignore them and move on ...there are plenty of things to talk about on here so just go to another subject
Thanks for being a good guy and it speaks volumes about your character.

[GreatWhiteNorth517]

Thanks for the kind words. I'm embarrassed that someone had to correct me. I always try to do the right thing-sorry you had to see me at a low point.

[jackG]

I certainly had not intended peel the lid of this worm can with my original question. However, the substance of the comments is useful. As I understand it, the high shoulder shot accomplishes a couple of things. One, it breaks the shoulder blades taking out that source of mechanical support. Second, and this is the part I've observed first hand, it takes out the portion of the spine immediately above the shoulder, shutting down the essential functions of the nervous system from that point back. That would include locomotion, respiration and pulse. Shutting down the latter two produces almost instant loss of the main switchboard for lack of oxygen, and that is pretty much it.

I'm comparing that to a behind the shoulder shot, taking out the lungs and or heart. As I noted earlier I've made that shot on a several deer as well as two pronghorn at 125 to 320 yards, shooting a 270 wsm, 140 gr Accubond, at 3200 fps. The animals behaved as if untouched in all but one case. I knew I had hit right where I had aimed but they stood and then casually took a few steps, looking around as deer can do, not much concerned about anything. I was chambering another cartidge in case they ran. They surely looked capable of it. After several seconds, they folded up. Field dressing revealed the lungs were reduced to pulp.

I'm suggesting that a high shoulder shot, while no more lethal than the behind the shoulder area, is quicker, and perhaps more humane. Where I've seen it used the animals flopped instantly and never moved. I'll test it this autumn as planned.

[GreatWhiteNorth517]

jackG-
You make several good points, and I'm not trying to pick a fight, especially after all we've been through.
However, I believe some of your info isn't quite correct. The control center for pulse and respirations on almost any mammal is in the brainstem, not the spine. Severing the spine CAN interupt innervation of the muscles that make respiration possible (diaphragm and intercostals) but that would need to be done much closer to the head than the shoulder-on a human it's at the level of the 1st or 2nd cervical vertebrae which is high in the neck just below the base of the skull. Severing the spine at the level of the shoulders would only impair mobility.

[wranglerdude]

Is it reasonable to assume that while the high shoulder shot may not shut down the control center, it does immobilize the animal for a short time while the lung damage causes death? The lung shot causes death the same way but the animal usually runs for those last few seconds and covers a lot of ground.

That's the way I see the difference. Every time I've shot an animal close the spine, it went down and never ran.

[Arnie Oakley]

I guess dead is dead no matter how you look at it. I personally don't like seeing shoulder shot game struggling to regain an impossible footing with broken shoulders, and I've seen it several times on T.V.

[GreatWhiteNorth517]

Arnie, I agree with you 100%. That's what I'd been trying to say all along. Wrangler dude, wasn't looking for a fight, I just have a pretty good grasp on anatomy and physiology and didn't want there to be any confusion. Direct damage to the lungs works, but does take longer than shutting things off at the "switchboard." I just wanted everybody to know where the switchboard is located.

[iduckhunt]

Last years deer and shot placements both deer taken with 130 gr Nosler BT in 270 Win

First deer 178 yds I picked the shoulder to drop him quickly, His only movement was straight down. It was raining and I wanted to minimize any tracking in the rain if possible. It was a good shot in that I was zeroed in at 200 yds and I had previously laser ranged where I anticipated the deer to cross and sure enough he stepped out 12 yds shy of the 190 yds where I expected him to cross.

second deer was maybe 40 yds broadside and in the open, I took a heart shot, deer managed to run about 30 yds.

Shot placement with me depends on vantage point and the likelyhood of game recovery. By that I mean if I am taking a shot at a deer where I want them to drop quickly I'd rather ruin a little meat and go for the shoulder. When a heart shot presents itself and I will have a good blood trail to follow if anything goes a miss, i'll take the heart shot. Does that make sense?

Bob

[Arnie Oakley]

Last years deer and shot placements both deer taken with 130 gr Nosler BT in 270 Win

First deer 178 yds I picked the shoulder to drop him quickly, His only movement was straight down. It was raining and I wanted to minimize any tracking in the rain if possible. It was a good shot in that I was zeroed in at 200 yds and I had previously laser ranged where I anticipated the deer to cross and sure enough he stepped out 12 yds shy of the 190 yds where I expected him to cross.

second deer was maybe 40 yds broadside and in the open, I took a heart shot, deer managed to run about 30 yds.

Shot placement with me depends on vantage point and the likelyhood of game recovery. By that I mean if I am taking a shot at a deer where I want them to drop quickly I'd rather ruin a little meat and go for the shoulder. When a heart shot presents itself and I will have a good blood trail to follow if anything goes a miss, i'll take the heart shot. Does that make sense?

Bob

A lot of sense. If it's poor tracking conditions, I can go along with the shoulder shot.

[tddeangelo]

The brain is where the "life" of the animal needs to be turned off. Taking out the heart and lungs is done not as an end unto itself, but rather it shuts off the supply of oxygen and energy to the brain along with the mechanism to remove waste byproducts. Because this is the case, the brain will lose its ability to function and shut down, causing death.

If you impact the CNS (central nervous system...brain and spinal colum), you can cause sufficient damage to these structures to force the brain to cease function. This has different results from an arrow to a bullet. My personal observations have been that a bullet impact almost anywhere on the spinal column will turn out the lights instantly or close to it. An arrow impact, however, will remove the animal's ability to move or stand, but will not kill it, or won't kill it quickly. A second arrow to cause the hemorrhaging (i.e. blood loss) is generally necessary, and it generally has to be delivered into a flopping, wailing deer that will rattle even the most hardened of us. I've seen this over a few animals of my own, plus others I've been witness to from hunting companions, and it seems pretty consistent.

I'm not a huge fan of shooting too high on the shoulder simply because if you move up too high, you'll actually hit ABOVE the shoulder and hit ABOVE the spine. This leads to a yucky wound that likely is not going to be fatal in and of itself. It may lead to fatal infection or other problems, but it doesn't end with a filled tag, that's for sure.

I've also noticed that deer hit through the shoulderblades can still move quite well. To STOP their ability to use the front legs, you must hit them very low, almost at the "elbow" joint, which will then disrupt the structure at a more critical point where it is more "load-bearing" than the scapula.

Personally, I've put enough 150gr. .30cal rounds through deer's chests and watched them crumple to have full faith in shooting right behind the leg, middleway from top to bottom. At 100-200 yards, this has consistently piled up deer big and small in their tracks for me with my .30-06. Other calibers have not produced that result nearly as reliably for me. The other rifle rounds i've used have been the 6.5x55, .257 Roberts, .35 Remington, and .270 Winchester.

[wranglerdude]

tddeangelo, That is some useful information. What 150 308 bullet works best for you? What is your muzzle velocity? I used a 308 with a 150 Hornady on a 60 yard double lung shot and the deer ran about 95 yards. My impression was that a softer, faster expanding bullet, maybe a Sierra, would have been better.

[tddeangelo]

I shoot a few different ones. Most have been witha Hornady 150gr. Spire Point from an '06. MV has been between 2750 and 3100, depending on load (the 3100fps is from Light Mag factory loads).

I've used 165gr BTSP from Light Mag loads with similar results, and 165gr Interbonds from Light Mag loads....same results.

When the '06 hits them in the chest, they go down then and there probably 80-90% of the time. I've not had the same experience with the other rounds I've used. Not to say they're bad, just haven't provided me with the same authoritative punch as the '06 has. I'm sure many people have the opposite experience to mine, but that's what I've seen.

[Lodiman]

I prefer balistic tips and hollow points for deer. The explosive effect of both and widespread tissue and organ damage bring them down better than any so called premium bullet. The premium bullets if not encountering large bones have a tendency to pass through. Core lokt's which have a soft tip and the old winchester silver tips both have excellent expansion too.

[jackG]

You're correct. The main switch board is certainly the brain. My recommendation is that if the cable from the switch board is servered, all messages are perminently on hold. Everything even with, or aft of the interruption is waiting for commands that never come. To move, to pump blood, to breath.

Having worked as a safety engineer for the US Navy, one of the hazards is entering formerly secured shipboard spaces where oxygen may have been consumed by rusting iron. The rule of thumb is, one breath taken without oxygen, and down you go. In the case of interrupting the spinal cord with a shot, the breathing is shut down forever.

All the shots I've seen strike high on the shoulder broke the spine at that point. The animals dropped so hard they bounced. A within the few second taken to walk over the them, they were dead.

The variable in all this is the shooters opportunity. How is the animal standing? Is it facing, broadside, quartering way, or what? I've seen a shot taken with the animal walking away at a slight angle and turning its head to look back. The shot was placed high on the shoulder and the result was dramatic and instanteous. In that case it was the only shot available without taking a TX heart shot.

I agree that with all lung shots that get both lobes, the animal is dead on impact, but the news just hasn't caught up with recipient yet in some cases. I'm hunting open country so running off after a hit and hiding is unlikely. But near coulees with some cover such as deep grass or willows, a white tail can cover some serious ground before parking it. In those cases, the shoulder shot may be preferred. The bottom line is, kill the animal. The quicker and more humanely that can be accomplished, the better. Use enough gun, hit where you intend, and choose a target area that gets it done.