Hold the boat, folks! I was very careful wording my first post in order to avoid just this sort of outcome. I really DON'T want this to deteriorate further... I've taken a lot of info from this site, and witnessed what happens to others when members tear each other apart and leave.
I think everyone has had a bit of truth to add so far. GG says that there are no certainties; he's right. I've wounded deer myself, and unfortunately lost a few over the years. But percentage-wise it's a very, very small number. My original question was intended to derive exactly how often this sort of outcome resulted from this type of hunting. It's personal, but 80% was thrown out and that doesn't meet my personal requirements. That's wounding/missing 1 out of 5!! At that rate, I'd screw up twice a year. Not acceptable. I'm new to this too; I want to know what I can expect. If the most skilled in this field make 80% 1st-shot kills at 900 yards, you bet I won't bother trying to go beyond 700-800.
I agree with Gonhuntin that we are not coyotes/lions/subsistence hunters. That was the point of my second point...passing is ALWAYS an option for sport hunters. It doesn't matter how much you spent on the hunt...if you're unsure of your shot or abilities, you have the option to pass. He's also right that we need to use facts and honesty in replying to those who might criticize these methods. Smart people see through BS pretty fast, and it destroys the credibility of anyone who uses it.
As for bedded animals, it's not a matter of honor but angle. Look very carefully at a bedded animal...the angle changes and the vital zone shrinks dramatically. I almost always wait for them to stand or try to urge them into it, just because I had a couple bad experiences trying to hit bedded animals that would have been SIMPLE standing. To each their own, and it's just my opinion, but I do generally avoid it.
Ethics may vary from person to person, but anyone who should have a right to carry a gun should have them! So the fact that we might not agree on the particulars does not exclude them from discussion. Responsible hunters should share some: respect for the animal, intent to kill quickly and with minimal suffering, etc.
As for being the wrong place to be if you aren't comfortable with "testing your limits", I vehemently disagree. The range is the place to test your limits; the hunting field is the place to practice within the limits you defined for youself while punching paper. A deer/elk deserves more respect than to be used as an experiment to test your limits. Responsible hunters should agree with this, I would think. As an example, I put more than 200 rounds downrange between 300-400 yds with my muzzleloader before I started shooting at deer that far out. This experience taught me that while I could often make hits at 400, the number of errant "wounding" shots was unacceptable beyond 350.
I meant no disrespect to GG; I wasn't there, so I am not going to sit behind a keyboard and say exactly what he should have done. I've seen his posts before and he seems to know more than a little about LRH, so I was curious as to what he expects in terms of outcomes at this type of distance. That's it!
I think we all need to be conscious of how LR shooting is perceived. I've defended myself more than a few times for 300 yd+ muzzleloader shots. I always use the same logical argument: If you limit yourself to 100 yds because you're 95% confident you'll make a good shot, why shouldn't I be able to shoot 300 yds if it also results in 95% confidence of a good shot? One person's lack of skill, preparation, or equipment should not constrain someone posessing such extra assets. However, the crux of this argument is that the increased range does not result in a decreased certainty of making the shot. So to me, defending LRH relies upon being able to say I'm not comprimising my "good-shot odds" as a result of increased range. I wouldn't want to be part of it if this were not the case as my argument defending it would put me in the BS category and destroy my credibility. I like a challenge as much as the next guy, but when it results in increasing the number of poor shots I save it for the range.
Goodgrooper posted the original story. His honesty and integrity in posting the truth and the whole truth is there and obvious in the story.
It is to his personal credit that he included the details. He freely admitted that there was a dial error between what the computer said and what he gave Clint.
[/ QUOTE ]
It is because of these details that I gave him the benefit of the doubt...I was only inquiring as to how often this sort of thing happens. Yes, mistakes happen, but if they happen every other time out they are no longer mistakes but the norm. You can't use "mistakes happen" as an excuse until you know that the mistake was, in fact, unusual. Given the tone of GG's post, and a few of the following posts (including one that said essentially "way to show them how it's done"), and my inexperience with LRH, I think it was an honest and respectful question to inquire into exactly how unusual this was.
In fact, rather than picking apart GG's actions during the hunt (he was honest enough to discuss them and handle my question maturely, after all), I think it would be more constructive to hear just how often others honestly achieve 1-shot kills at, say, 800+ yds.
Please go back and read my posts very carefully.....look at exactly what I said, not what you think I said......and, make sure the posts you are reading are MY posts! You are both suggesting that I said something that I did not say.......
I did not criticize any detail of the hunt......I did not question the ethics of what was done.....I don't have a problem with the fact that the elk wasn't killed with one perfect shot......I simply pointed out that GG tried to excuse or rationalize the wounding of an elk through the use of statements that are simply rediculous! We are not "in the same boat" as other predators......we don't have to hunt to survive.......period!
While we may use the game we harvest, killing that game is not a matter of survival as it is with other predators.....claiming otherwise is simply foolish.......
I believe if you review my posts you will find that you are attributing to me, statements that were made by others.......
I did not say he should have tried to get closer, I did not say they should have passed up the shot, I did not say they shouldn't shoot at bedded animals, I did not say the equipment was not up to the task, I did not say there was anything un-ethical about the hunt.....so please don't put words in my mouth! My only beef with GG is that he tried to BS his way through a question instead of just being honest and saying "stuff happens".......
Just so there is NO further misunderstanding......the following quotes are what I have a problem with:
[ QUOTE ]
And that is universal for all predators. Lions make repeated attempts for their prey and are successful less than 20% of the time. Coyotes must live on a variety of insects and mice because they are not guaranteed to get a rabbit every time they stalk one.
We are in the same boat.
[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am glad that you seem to have enough money to eat wherever and whenever you want but believe it or not, there are actually some people that hunt for their subsistance because they have to.
[/ QUOTE ]
The first statement is false and the second is condescending.......now do you understand??
Ok! Maybe 80% was too low Maybe I should’ve said 95 percent, “wound or miss one every 20”, <u>for someone else that might not be acceptable</u> , the point I was trying to make is that we will all have different views and those views will influence our ethics! There is no need to be offended by being compared to predators and then act like predator tearing each other apart disrespectfully. Sure we may disagree with each other but in the process we should conceder other people’s feelings. Clint, the shooter, by now he probably doesn’t want nothing to do with a bunch of people like us!!!
You all excuse me if I have offended anyone, but me my self I’m moving on!
Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.
Our Lord Jesus said that as it was in the days of Noah and
also as it was in the days of Lot so it shall be in the days...
It's happening again!!! God sent to us His prophet, and His Word
to this generation and we once more are rejecting it as was prophesied!!! ---> As promised, God Sent His Prophet to us!
I wasn't trying to get into sticking hard statistics to it...I don't exactly keep a tally and I'm sure you don't, either. Just an generalization to use in making a point. You're right, ethics do vary, but in LRH that is what they will attack us on so it's important to discuss it...civilly.
I'm sure Clint was not a happy camper when his first three shots failed to do their job. It is to his credit that he kept cool enough to fix the problem quickly. I'm sure he learned something from it and will do better in the future as well. As I said, my original post was not meant to draw criticizm or anything to him in the first place.
I was not responding to any of the things that GG posted after the original post .
The things that GG said in response to your questions also are not important to me . I have my own agenda . It is mine , I willl share it with anyone but it would be ineffective, or even counterproductive to try and make someone share the same beliefs .
I would offer that though you may not share GG's philosphy on this subject( although I really believe that if you were able to have a conversation in person that the two of you would probably be more in agreement than at odds ) that he has his and you have yours and that neither of them is why any of us are here .