Podcast on wounding
- Thread starter Big Fin
- Start date
rogerthat
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2015
- Messages
- 3,629
I can sort of agree but there are certain things that can’t be practiced such as the ability of the target to move and how far that movement will be dictated by the time of flight of the arrow/bullet. If we as hunters only took shots that were “slam dunks” wound loss would shrink to minuscule percentages. Just think if a miss or wound meant instant execution or death penalty. How close and how sure would you be before taking that shot? Food for thought
If that was the case, some people’s range would be cut down to 10’. The point I’m trying to make is that we need to stop throwing out arbitrary numbers because it's not always an apples to apples comparison
That’s too bad. People shouldn’t get upset about having a difficult discussion.
I don’t mind going to a system where you punch your tag if you wound an animal. Even if it’s hard to enforce, I think you would have an impact on the resource just from the honest people following the rules. It would be a good thing if people had a reason to think things through and ultimately worked a little harder to get good shots to reduce wounding loss before it even happens.
HSi-ESi
Well-known member
I was able to listen to this one last night - I thought it was a great podcast and discussion around wounding loss. I found it very interesting that Craig has noticed a difference in wounding rates when the initial shot difference goes from 350 to 400. Granted - all animals were recovered (this was at MPG) - and the definition of wounding in this case was if the animal traveled more than 400 yards after the initial shot. This is a great topic to discuss - and is a topic I discuss with my young hunters (my kids) throughout the year.
If I were to summarize the podcast in a couple of points, it would be:
One of my favorite attributes of being a hunter, is that even after 35 or so years I'm still refining and learning. I enjoy getting a rifle to shoot more accurately, whether it's changing something on the rifle (glass-bedding, etc) or tweaking the load I am shooting. I enjoy tweaking my bow, arrows / broadheads / fletching / release / etc in order to get better groups. It is a continual process for me much to my wife's chagrin.
If I were to summarize the podcast in a couple of points, it would be:
- there is some hard data that does show wounding loss ratio's and the upper end of that ratio is higher than I expected.
- Craig and Randy didn't say- don't shoot over X yards for rifle and Y yards for archery.
- The discussion and awareness is very important in the hunting community. It's in our power to be able to decrease the ratio.
I have issues with folks sharing content online of shots on animals at very long distances because it does bring ego into the equation and doesn't promote hunting in a positive light. I find it ironic that a phrase you hear often is "I do this in order to make a more ethical kill" yet we still have high ratio's of wounding loss. I think this mindset gives lip-service to the issue but is quickly glossed over and shadowed by "doing it for the gram".One of my favorite attributes of being a hunter, is that even after 35 or so years I'm still refining and learning. I enjoy getting a rifle to shoot more accurately, whether it's changing something on the rifle (glass-bedding, etc) or tweaking the load I am shooting. I enjoy tweaking my bow, arrows / broadheads / fletching / release / etc in order to get better groups. It is a continual process for me much to my wife's chagrin.
shoots-straight
Well-known member
^^^^^^^^This absolutely.
So this year, while rifle elk hunting, I would hear 12 to 15 shot bursts. Mind you I'm close to deaf now, so without my hearing aids in I most likely missed a bunch more. My son and SIL would meet up and ask if I heard the outburst of 14 shots and I didn't.
Anyway, fast forward to a couple weeks ago dumb stunt on my part. I was going to snowmobile up in the same area I hunted this year with my wife on her sled. As luck would have it, the old thing wouldn't start, so I threw her up on my sled and off we go. I got up above the area I hunted in when,( as luck would have it again), my sled made an offal noise. I shut it down and tipped her over to see what was rolling around. (You flood the engine sometimes),Out rolled a bunch of like 1/2" round wood balls that must of been on a string for some decoration of sorts. Not sure how they got in the motor compartment, (grandkids) but that wasn't the issue. So I rolled her back over, hit the starter again, nothing. Battery shot after 1 season. No big deal, pulled the rope and out it came. The rope pull had wrapped around the fan inside the motor and broke off. So I sat wifey on sled and said I'll be back in 4 or five hours. I had to hike out about 7 miles ( Thigh deep snow) to my truck cross country.
In doing so I ended up in some draws that I usually would walk through during hunting season and noticed a extreme number of coyote tracks. As I proceeded down the draw I found 3 cow elk that must of been lost during hunting season. They weren't winter kill. This was on the 1st of January. They were pretty well feed on by then, but my guess is they were what was left over from all the shooting we heard.
I have had conversations with Craig about this, and totally agree with him, and Randy on this. We can and should do better. I'm guilty as charged and as I've gotten older my range seems to have gotten less, a lot less.
Maybe out of complacency, or laziness, or even cost prohibitive ammo, I've shot a lot less than I should.
Most years I shoot my elk with a bow, but I had a cow tag that was good for this area, so that's what I was after.
Randy, and Craig thanks for bringing this forward. I too felt uncomfortable during the pod cast, because I felt guilty and felt you were addressing me.
We can and should do better.
By the way, I made it back to my wife and brought her home. The old Phazer started up and I got a new battery from a guy in town.
elkantlers
Well-known member
Can we agree that the further away we get from 200 yards (rifle) the more likely things are to go south?
The arbitrary number is shrinking. mtmuley
elkantlers
Well-known member
Pick which ever number you like. The further you get from that arbitrary number; the more likely things are to go south. Even if you are shooting hammers or a 6.5CM. lol
It's not something one can put a number on. It's been discussed to death. mtmuley
elkantlers
Well-known member
I can put a number on it. The number is 200yds. If you can't agree that hitting something at 200yards is easier, and more likely, than hitting something at 300yds and that the likeliness of not hitting the target increases the farther away you get from 200yds, then you don't know how physics works. And, the likeliness of not hitting the target at increasing distances is compounded in hunting situations.
It's really very simple.
BuzzH
Well-known member
The trouble is, those that shoot the least, tend to stretch things the most...
If most hunters are such great shots, practice the most, and the equipment so great...then why do I so rarely hear a single rifle shot anymore?
Not to brag or anything, but the guys I hunt with can almost tell when one of our party kills elk, because its typically a one shot deal...
As an example, several years back I killed a cow elk with one shot, a bull stepped out and I killed it too.
When I got back to camp, George said, "I heard 2 shots so figured it must not have been you."
Then why don’t you set that limit at 50 yards? 200 is further away than 50 and thus you’re less likely to fail….
El Jason
Well-known member
You’re not incorrect, but it’s also not linear either.
Yeah. I didn't know any of that. Looks like I got learnin ta do. mtmuley
Probably a bunch of people that would do better shooting a 6.5 and limiting themselves to closer range than what they’re currently doing with some magnum and trying to shoot stuff way out there
Nicoli7153
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2021
- Messages
- 585
When I was in LE we regularly did training that required us to run then shoot, bail out of a patrol car on a felony stop and shoot etc. or do some complex task then shoot. It makes a big difference!
Think there are a lot of parallels for many of us when hunting that gets the stress and metabolism going and can reduce our effectiveness.
Gotta know our limitations! Practice those situations and they are not strangers to you when the time comes. Was always taught that practice doesn't make perfect ... perfect practice does.
FWIW
Think there are a lot of parallels for many of us when hunting that gets the stress and metabolism going and can reduce our effectiveness.
Gotta know our limitations! Practice those situations and they are not strangers to you when the time comes. Was always taught that practice doesn't make perfect ... perfect practice does.
FWIW
D
Deleted member 52847
Guest
I think that this comes down to the principle and not the letter of the law or the random number people throw out.
Obviously if you dig into the physics of all this, the further you shoot, the more chance things can get squirly.
So for me, I grew up hunting, but the amount of practice we did as a family was limited to day before season started going to the range, shooting at 25 yards and guessing where I'd be at 100, 200, 300, and so on.
Fast forward to 2020, my wife started hunting, and she learned everything she could about hunting, shooting, and ethics. And naturally, when you're teaching someone something, you try to teach them the right way and all the little details to make them successful. So I learned a TON about shots, angles, shot placement, heart rate, the amount of kinetic energy my rifle and round puts out at what distance, and made my principles around those numbers.
So for me, with my 6.5-300, depending on the round, I won't shoot further than 400, maybe 450 depending on if it's a perfect scenario (i.e no wind, heart rate low, smaller animal, etc)
Can't deny the physics. You just can't. So then you have to apply the principles and standards you have and put them side by side with the physics.
These animals deserve respect. And respect means good preparation, good ethics/standards/principles,
.
Obviously if you dig into the physics of all this, the further you shoot, the more chance things can get squirly.
So for me, I grew up hunting, but the amount of practice we did as a family was limited to day before season started going to the range, shooting at 25 yards and guessing where I'd be at 100, 200, 300, and so on.
Fast forward to 2020, my wife started hunting, and she learned everything she could about hunting, shooting, and ethics. And naturally, when you're teaching someone something, you try to teach them the right way and all the little details to make them successful. So I learned a TON about shots, angles, shot placement, heart rate, the amount of kinetic energy my rifle and round puts out at what distance, and made my principles around those numbers.
So for me, with my 6.5-300, depending on the round, I won't shoot further than 400, maybe 450 depending on if it's a perfect scenario (i.e no wind, heart rate low, smaller animal, etc)
Can't deny the physics. You just can't. So then you have to apply the principles and standards you have and put them side by side with the physics.
These animals deserve respect. And respect means good preparation, good ethics/standards/principles,
.
This UK study is probably one of the more scientific. It is about deer hunters, or stalkers as they are called in the study.
The three variables have the greatest impact on shot lethality. Other factors have far less impact.
1) Comfort of the shooting position and situation.
2) Point of aim, such as head, neck, chest, other.
3) Shot distance, with precipitous drops past 150 meters.
Link here - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4198128/
The three variables have the greatest impact on shot lethality. Other factors have far less impact.
1) Comfort of the shooting position and situation.
2) Point of aim, such as head, neck, chest, other.
3) Shot distance, with precipitous drops past 150 meters.
Link here - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4198128/
Similar threads
