One shot, One kill

golok

golok

Joined
Oct 20, 2000
Messages
4,453
On hunting trips, is it generally a rule to bring down an animal with a single shot?

What prompted me to ask this was a remark by a colleague who went on a hunting trip where the rifleman consistently brought down his kills with a single shot.

I was wondering if there's an unwritten rule to get that deer or any other animal with a single shot. In a way, it's less troublesome. A wounded animal would simply mean tracking it for miles before it can be put out of its misery.

Of course, not all hunters are marksmen but one shot one kill seems to be a pretty good hunting policy to me.

Anybody knows better?
 
Hunting should not be a practice in cruelty. Also, wounded game tends to run off and require tracking. To minimize suffering, a hunter wants a well placed shot to incapacitate and hopefully kill the animal. Such a shot also saves a hunter the time and energy (sometimes miles and hours) of tracking his prey.
 
To practice the concept of "one shot, one kill" a hunter needs to be proficient in two things.

1. Anatomy of ones prey. A perfect shot, just as planned, to the wrong spot will often wound game, rather than kill. The idea of always going for the head is not a good idea. The head is small, and if the shot is not placed properly (brain or spine in the neck) you are likely going to watch a very messed up deer go over the hill. A heart or heart/lung shot is normally the best. Know where these organs are with each different angle you are likely to encounter.

2. Marksmanship. You must be able to place the shot where you intend, at "appropriate" ranges, with sufficient rifle, a good bullet, using good "line of signt." I say "sufficient rifle" because one can use too small a caliber but large magnums will not make up for poor shot placement. Make sure your eyesight is up to par. If you haven't had a change of eyeglass prescription in a while, this could influence how accurate you are.

Bruce
 
It's about Ethics and nothing more. Not bragging rights, Not damaging the hide, Not ruining the meat, Just Ethics. That animal is another life. It has been given to us to take care of and use for food, but we owe it everything to honor that by keeping the taking of it's life clean and quick.

Gadget54
 
the answer is YES. That's the Davy Crockett way.
It developed out of several things:
1. Shot and powder cost money and money was scarce.
2. Shot and powder were at times scarce money or no money.
3. Black powder weapons are limited to one shot.
4. If you have to kill something make it as quick and as painless as possible.

Nowadays it is considered good hunter ethics that if you cannot make a killing shot, pass up on the shot.
Also # 4 above is still in effect.
When I grew up # 1 was also in effect, but not really today. If a deer or any animal is still moving/breathing I will take the second shot to its head to put it out of its misery immediately rather than wait for 3-4 minutes.
 
Gadget54, how do you separate "ethics" from it's parts, including saved meat, saved hide, humane (as possible) treatment, etc?
 
In fact, I would say it's almost a "written rule" because the hunter course handbooks I've seen emphasize in writing the importance of not taking a shot unless the hunter is confident that shot will effect a clean kill. I'll bet it's also in some states' game regs and/or hunting literature.
 
The original question refered to the "shot" not the total debate of hunting. The Ethics of the "shot" are just as I said. The rest is another thread.

I hunted this year on land adjacent to a "group" that hunts Deer like rabbits. In one Volley, they fired 30+ times at three running deer that would run back and forth in front of the driveline. I don't consider that my "Ethics" and choose not to hunt with them when they offer.

Gadget54
 
From a purely utilitarian viewpoint, it can be a huge ordeal if you don't murder your animal with a single insult.

Aside from the expense of ammo or arrows and the dented pride upon returning, there are practical considerations.

If you shoot an anomal in a bad spot, potent and foul fluids can be let out of their "containers" and ruin most of the animal for eating. Bile, urine, and other such things can make the meat downright nasty for all but the most desparate purposes. You're not just losing a few pounds of meat - you might lose both hind quarters and then some.

Second is tracking. Tracking is really hard in some weather conditions. You generally don't get a streaming red blood trail on bright new snow. Sometimes, especially with animals who can leap, tracks are sparse and indistinguishable from other ground features. There may be virtually no blood trail. It can easily take a day to find a wounded animal, or about as likely, you will never find it.

We all fancy ourselves as good navigators, and probably are, but my experience is that 1) tunnel vision is hard to fight off when tracking something you really want, and 2) giving up before dusk (time to get out) is extremely difficult, even if you aren't prepared to bivouac. Tracking late in the day, especially in winter, is a real safety risk.

This is just from a poorly placed FIRST shot. You'd have to be insane to intend more than one shot, even if you are insensitive to the animal's suffering.

Scott
 
What Bezaur said.

As you go along shooting animals, the necessity of trying for One Shot Kills will make itself apparent.
 
Anytime I'm out hunting my rifle is fully loaded. However my aim (pardon the pun) is to take an animal with one shot. It is either a good shot or it isn't. If not I shouldn't take it. No bragging rights involved, no saving of ammo cost is involved. I love to hunt and I enjoy the meat for the year after. However I get no enjoyment out of the actual killing. I could come up with several resons but I guess the best is that, that is the way it is suppose to be.
 
I've been deer hunting for, oh, 25 years or so. In that time, I've taken my fair sare (the yearly years, deer were scarse where I hunted, now days...)

In all those years, I've had to fire a second shot ONCE - I thought I missed. When I got to the deer, I found 2 bullet holes, bothe about 1/2 inch from one another - Under one of the holes was a "Blown up" bullet - It never got to the vitals. It actually relieved me, because I dread the idea of missing.

In fact, 2 years ago (2001), I shot my deer, and it took off - I could NOT find it - I felt so sick - I spent the next 2 hours trying to find the deer - I eventually found it - Clean hit, but she went about 50 yards (sometimes happens), and fell INTO the middle of some brush. The relief I felt when I found the deer was amazing. I was actually thinking thinking about giving up hunting over it.

So yes, there is a VERY VERY strong ethic of "One shot, one kill"
 
One shot one kill is what all ethical hunters strive for. It is great when the animal drops in it tracks, but thats not always the case.
As in the case of hunting dangerous game (those with teeth and claws)a one shot kill is very desirable. With dangerous game the order of the day would be the same medicine prescribed for a combat scenario. You keep shooting until the fight is has ended.
Bear meat is quite tasty table fare. Bears can be extremely tough to kill. Generally most bear hunters would agree a one shot kill is great but it is more important to first anchor the animal by breaking both shoulders or spine then follow up with a quick final shot if neccessary. No one wants to follow a wounded bear into thick cover unless its the very last resort.
While proficiency in marksmanship is very important, it is my opinion that the related field craft of tracking and care of the salvagable meat is just as important.
As others have stated tracking skills are neccessary in the event an animal does not drop on the spot with the first shot and a follow shot up isn't possible. I have seen large elk and mule deer hit with killing shots run 100 yards or more into heavy cover. Just this year I harvested a 500 pound cow elk using a 338 win mag 225 grn Barnes X bullet. The shot was 80 yards in a thick patch of lodge pole pine. The shot broke both shoulders took out the heart and lungs and she still ran 60 yards splintering the blown down trees in her way as she crashed through them like they were toothpicks.
She ended up piled into one heck of a mess of timber, it took quite a while to disect that old girl and pack her out, but it was all well worth the sweat involved. 60% of the meat we eat is venison of some type.
What we don't consume is made into homemade dog food for my spoiled Rhodesian Ridgeback Tau.

Thats my 2.5 cents for what its worth.
 
Gadget54, I followed you from the start. I was not debating "hunting" but one shot kills. Now again, define "ethics" in light of it's individual parts as I stated them earlier. Your statement of "it's just ethics" doesn't coommunicate. Ethics is a concept that needs definition or each person says, "I know what ethics is" when in fact they do not think exactly, or even remotely, like you.

I'm not questioning your ethics, I don't even know what they are!

Bruce
 
When I was 6 years old, my dad gave me a .22 and said "go get meat for the house". He gave me 3 rounds. I came back with a grey squirrel. He congratulated me on the squirrel and then asked for the other two bullets. I'd used them. He took the gun away for a year saying I wasn't responsible enough yet to hunt.

On my seventh birthday he gave me back the gun and 3 rounds with the same instructions. I shot (and failed to kill) a mountain lion- even though (I resoned) for big meat, 3 rounds were justified. I had hit it all three times. Back at the house, I told him what had happened and he gave me a box of ammo and said "don't come back without that lion". 22 rounds later the loin died. I cried all the way home. He took the lion and the gun. Again, I was not responsible enough to hunt but added to that, he said I was not responsible enough to even have a gun.

On my eighth birthday he gave me back the gun and another three rounds. Now 60, I've never needed a second shot for any single animal.
"One for one" is more than a rule, it is an ethic. Not all subscribe to that ethic. There are no excuses if you do subscribe, and everything becomes an excuse if you don't. ...my two cents.
-carl
 
I understand and agree with the "one shot, one kill" ethics.

I don't understand the "ethics" of sending a seven-year-old boy, by himself, into the bush to finish off a wounded mountain lion.

Doesn't sound like dad was responsible enough to procreate.
 
Thats a cool story Carl,it reminds me of my lesson with trapping.I trapped with steel traps when I was around 10 or so always catching possums and cats and rabbits and letting some go wounded.I finally stopped trapping when one day I caught a beautiful hawk in one of my traps.My dad had always told me which animals I could and could not kill as a young boy.Hawks,owls,and buzzards were a few of these I could not kill.Upon inspection of a trap one day I noticed I had caught a hawk and had also noticed that his leg was completely broke into with the bone protruding through the skin.I immediately knew what I had to do for the hawk would never be able to hunt again with its leg broke.I had to go home and get my 20 gauge shotgun and put it out of its misery.I felt real bad about that and quit trapping with steel traps and went to live traps and hunting only.From then on I could kill with "one" shot any animal worth taking and release any others unsuitable.I guess it all boils down to if your gonna do something do it all the way and do it right,if you half ass anything in life it just makes everything go wrong.
 
Oh and another thing as far as the ethics go for sending a 7 year old boy back to finish that lion ,his father made a very strong and important lesson to that young man.When you start something you finish it,doesnt matter what it is or how dangerous it is.That 7 year old shot at something and wounded it ,he didnt kill it he left it to suffer.Did it hurt ,yes of course it hurt but it left a lasting impression of what is the right way and what is the wrong way to do something.I hate to sound like an ol fogey here (cause I aint)but thats the problem with some of this younger generation,we never expect them to finish what they start,they never have to take responsibility for their actions.Sometimes in life you make bad decisions ,doesnt matter if its killin a mountain lion or buyin a 100,000$ car on 15,000$ a year salary,you still have to own up to it.I commend Carl's late father and I am sure it no doubt made him a much better person not only as a hunter but as a person.
 
If you miss a kill shot, you miss, and another must be taken(if the missed killshot HIT the animal), obviously.
I've never even heard of someone who wasn't trying to kill with a single shot. Except ducks.
If you are hunting for trophy purposes, I don't know what your ethics are. Not that I have anything against trophies, but I have always hunted for meat and hide. And then it isn't so much ethics as it is economics. More bullets means more wasted meat and hide.
In the Northwest Territories, the First Nations people use the smallest possible ammo to bring down the animals. This means .223 for caribou, sometimes .22LR or .22 mag, and then a .243 for moose. People without a lot of money use a 30/30 for everything because a model 94 is cheap, reliable, fits well on a ski doo, and will kill anything.
Bear is not considered a mainstay, and are rarely hunted. When they do hunt them, it is usually only black bear, and they use whatever is on hand. This is usually the 30/30, but not always. Many have been killed with .22s. Grizzlies are sometimes killed when they pose a threat, and then meat is not a concern, so fire away.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top