[txhoghunter]

This is a reply to a post on the handgun forum where someone is asking about a .45 ACP or a 9mm for hog hunting....

He shot his hog (130 lbs) 11 times before it went down to stay.(The "he" being referred to is the poster's buddy)

It is people like this that give hunters (and gun people by association) a bad reputation. Can we not just get a gun adequate for the game we are hunting??

I don't go hunting for an animal knowing that even with a "premium bullet" it will still take at least 2 shots to humanely put an animal down. Ethics say, take a gun that can make a clean kill, with minimal suffering. That to me means one shot, one kill. Especially when there are plenty of guns available that can accomplish this feat. I would even go so far as to say that there are more guns out there that can kill a pig with one shot than there are that can't.

Am I alone in this thought??

[MCgunner]

Hogs are big rats. Long as it dies.....:D Yeah, I knew a guy and his buddy that were squirrel hunting and found a hog with their 10/22s. His description of the kill wasn't pretty. I posted the story here and lots of people jumped on ME for it. Hey, I was just relaying the story. I really wouldn't wanna be face to face with a hog peeving him off with a .22. :D

[MCgunner]

Oh, BTW, I've trapped a lot of hogs and shot 'em in the head with lesser calibers and killed them, includes .22LR. They die rather rapidly, though, with minimal force applied to the right spot.

[txhoghunter]

I've trapped a lot of hogs and shot 'em in the head with lesser calibers and killed them, includes .22LR

This is a trapped hog, the guy who I quoted was "hunting". Meaning they were not trapped, and were very capable of attacking. Would you "hunt" a hog with a .22 LR?

[MCgunner]

I've already answered your question.

Hey, I was just relaying the story. I really wouldn't wanna be face to face with a hog peeving him off with a .22.

[txhoghunter]

woops, gotcha, my bad....

In your opinion though, what is the smallest pistol caliber that you would actually hunt one with? I ask because I have no experience with handgun hunting, I just personally do not see a .45 ACP as enough. But I am curious as to what others successfully hunt them with

[kyle1974]

really? we have trapped hogs, cut the balls off the boars live, put a notch in their ear to be identified as a ball-less hog, so they can fatten up and be shot at a later date, and actually taste halfway decent.

I say we stop worrying about what anti hunters think. They're never going to think any form of hunting is suitable, so why try to appease them.

[grubbylabs]

Its not the anti hunters I worry about, its the rest of the voting population that I worry about.

[hogshead]

45 acp out to 30 yards is perfectly capable of killing hogs. A 500 S@W with a bad shot at 30 yards will not kill a hog quickly. Hogs are tough and sometimes dont die quickly even when mortaly wounded.

[txhoghunter]

To answer your question kyle, this...
Its not the anti hunters I worry about, its the rest of the voting population that I worry about

Yes, when it comes down to it, their vote counts just as much as yours and mine

[kyle1974]

I still don't see why that post is so offensive to hunters...

a 45 acp is more than adequate to kill a 130 lb hog. Perhaps it was nerves, and the person just kept shooting it? who knows.

I guess he could have shot it once or twice, and let it kick for a few minutes.... probably would have had the same end result.

I shot a hog in the head with a 223 a couple years ago, and blew its brains out...literally. it kicked for several minutes. was it dead? I'm pretty sure it was....

last season one of the guys was cleaning a hog. It didn't have a head. It didn't have any hide. It didn't have any guts, and I'm pretty sure the backstraps were cut out of it.

You could see muscles twitching in the hind quarters at this point. It wasn't severe enough to make the leg kick, but you could certainly see some very small twitching within the muscle tissue.

[txhoghunter]

I still don't see why that post is so offensive to hunters...

This offends me because the way I was brought up hunting was to make a clean kill, whether the animal is considered a nuisance or not. If you know the game you are going after, you prepare accordingly. Now, if you are walking along and stumble upon a pig, yes this is understandable.

But when people who are looking for a reason to limit guns and hunting see a story like this, it makes ALL of us look bad...

[grubbylabs]

Lets face it we are never going to change the minds of those who are adamantly anti hunter. However, we can influence those who are neither anti or pro. They are the largest portion of the population and the ones we need to worry the most about influencing.

The biggest problem we face with anti hunters is the fact that they are well organized and have the ability to run very effective add campaigns, while we fight and argue among ourselves about stupid things.

It is there for in our best interest as outdoors men and sportsmen and hunters to be on our best behavior and to do our best to get along with each other.

[kyle1974]

the entire purpose of my last post, was that clean kill or not, you can't control the entire functionality of an animals central nervous system.

by quoting a single line from my post, it's clear to me that you aren't looking at the entire story.

[txhoghunter]

Kyle I was answering your question, that is why only one line is quoted.

I understand that nerves cause kicking even after an animal is gone. What I am saying I have a problem with is the fact that the proper measures for making a clean, humane kill were not taken.

Maybe I'm old fashioned, but knowing that there is a good chance that the gun I am holding will take more than one shot to humanely kill an animal means that I am holding the wrong gun....not that I should shoot the animal 11 times to make sure its dead.

I wouldn't go Elk Hunting with a .243, just as I wouldn't go hog hunting with a .45 ACP. Yes, a couple shots from a .243 will kill an elk, but I make the extra effort for the sake of the game I am hunting to make it as close to painless as possible.


^^That was the point of my original post, and I was steering the conversation back that way, not picking and choosing through your post

[CraigC]

Properly loaded, the .45ACP is perfectly suited to taking small to mid-sized hogs. Just don't wanna go about it with 185gr JHP's.

[Dr.Rob]

In some states this is perfectly legal.

[jmr40]

If a 45 ACP is adequate to stop a 130 lb. man, it is more than adequate to take a 130 lb hog.

[txhoghunter]

If a 45 ACP is adequate to stop a 130 lb. man, it is more than adequate to take a 130 lb hog

Hunting and stopping an attacker are two COMPLETELY different things

Again, yes it will kill it. But I am talking about being an ethical hunter, and for that matter just a smart hunter. For my sake I would like to kill mr. piggy with a shot and drop; not give him a chance to attack.

This thread is not bashing the .45 ACP people, I personally love it. I just wouldn't choose it for hog hunting unless it was as a back up. I started this to see if anyone else was against shooting an animal 11 times and claiming that it is "hunting".

[suzukisam]

There is no way the 13th shot did that pig in...I'm sure the 2nd or third did...and either way there are atupis people everywhere..they drive past you in their cars everyday...you giving them your time to repeat their ignorance( assuming this guy was. I wasn't there) is only keeping it going.. he didn't ruin anything for me...I see road hunters, trespassers, and dead deer that never got recovered.....it is what it is.... I don't like it but unless they do it on my land, not my problem... and in the end they are only animals... my ethics teach not to torture or waste them....but my ethics are not everyones ethics....so it is what it is.... I guess I don't see any difference in shooting a pig 37 times than shooting a prairie dog with a varmint grenade

[Leaky Waders]

Hunting has a learning curve that people hopefully move up on by their personal experience and experiences of others. That's one reason hunters passionately debate minimum calibers and such.

Anytime someone has to shoot an animal multiple times with the same round, one should probably think about whether the shooter, the bullet, or the platform was suitable for the circumstances.

[kyle1974]

I think suzukisam is correct. The issue wasn't the number of shots, it was the issue that the shooter didn't recognize the difference between a dead animal, and nerves. I have killed plenty of animals that hit hte ground dead, and still kick. I shoot the vast majority of my deer in the neck. Last year I shot a cull buck in the neck, and severed his spine with the shot... and he "kicked" on the ground for a few minutes.

Should I have continued to shoot him until he stopped kicking? No.... he was dead, and sometimes death isn't a pretty thing. that's just the way it goes.

[jmr40]

If it took 13 shots the problem was not the gun or load, it was probably a lack of shooting skill.

[CraigC]

A 230gr SWC will kill a hog graveyard dead if placed properly. 130lb is a small hog, I would feel comfortable with this load for hogs up to 300lbs. There is ZERO unethical about it and I would expect them to go down as quickly as if shot with a .44Mag. Like I said, you just don't want to use hardball or a lightweight JHP. I would have to test 230gr JHP's on smaller hogs to find out how big a hog they'll drop. I want complete penetration if I can get it.

[mtnjrm]

I shoot them behind the ear with a 22lr but I rather have a 30-30.

[Cob]

Quote:
He shot his hog (130 lbs) 11 times before it went down to stay.

(The "he" being referred to is the poster's buddy)

It is people like this that give hunters (and gun people by association) a bad reputation. Can we not just get a gun adequate for the game we are hunting??


i have shot a hog 5 time with a .270 before it went down to stay...I know people hunt them with knives and spears, dogs & rope...

If i wanted to hunt a hog with a 9mm pistol, and that was all i had, I would not hesitate to go with it... wouldn't judge this guy for it either.
I carry a .38 spcl routinely in the woods ...just in case i see a hog, a bad dog, or something that needs killing.

[Pony Express]

Its not the anti hunters I worry about, its the rest of the voting population that I worry about.


Hear Hear. It is the hunters responsibility to give his or her game a clean and ethical kill, or no kill at all. Sometimes "one shot one kill" isn't really attainable, but in that instance, it better be darn near that.

[Carl N. Brown]

Last time I checked, in Tennessee wild boar is a big game animal and all big game hunting riles and regs apply. That means no shots of opportunity with inadquate weapons, as would actually be legal with a varmint species like coyote. I do realize that in some areas, wild hogs are vermin and varmints, but ethics of hunting should apply to humane dispatch of even vermin.

[CraigC]

That's only on public land. On private land, they are the property of the property owner and may be dispatched in any manner.

[BikerRN]

ethics of hunting should apply to humane dispatch of even vermin.

I disagree.

Vermin that takes money out of my pocket, be it by ruining crops or killing livestock, get no more afterthought than a cockroach. I step on cockroaches and they don't always die quickly. This is not a concern to me.

BikerRN

[Art Eatman]

"...ethics of hunting should apply to humane dispatch of even vermin."

This is one area where, for me, the ethics are seriously situational. Since I don't have a sheep/goat operation, coyotes are more a sport-hunting deal and the only real argument is about who gets to eat the quail. So, I try for a clean kill. But were I ranching? Oops! I'm with BikerRN and the cockroach analogy.

Same thing for hogs. If they're tearing up my farm, I'll take any old hit I can get--on as many hogs as I can hit. But, if I'm "just hunting" for the occasional hog, I'm back to the clean kill deal.

When animals harm livestock or crops, they're stealing money from the rancher or farmer. Taking the food from the family's mouth. Serious bummer...

[grubbylabs]

What Art said.

I don't understand how people can put animals above or fellow humans.

My only point I guess is that when you are out numbered by a larger voting group it makes sense to at least think about the affect our actions are going to have on their opinion.

[suzukisam]

You know every time I say "they're just animals" people freak out...they are JUST ANIMALS.. you shoot them cut them open and pull their guts out, then drag their carcas to your truck....stop trying to make something ugly pretty..it's not pretty it's life...you don't need to torture it any animals, but the animals aren't sitting around going "wow this really hurts this hunter is a jack--s"... animals live in a state of the survival.

[buck460XVR]

When animals harm livestock or crops, they're stealing money from the rancher or farmer. Taking the food from the family's mouth. Serious bummer...

When wild animals harm livestock or crops, they are not stealing. They too are only trying to put food in their families mouths the only way God gave them. Unlike humans, they do not steal for greed or jealousy, nor do they kill for the thrill of it. They do it to survive. To characterize their methods and reasons in a human way to justify illegal, inhumane and unethical elimination/hunting practices is grasping at straws. If they could reason in a human way, coyotes and other wild animals would probably consider us humans as stealing their ancestral homeland and taking the food outta THEIR families mouths. They would probably attack us at every opportunity, tear our guts out and leave us to die a slow and painful death, "because we are just vermin and we deserve it".

Just sayin'..............

[Gaiudo]

They would probably attack us at every opportunity, tear our guts out and leave us to die a slow and painful death, "because we are just vermin and we deserve it".

You don't think predators would do precisely that given the opportunity? That's kinda the way it works actually.

[buck460XVR]

You don't think predators would do precisely that given the opportunity? That's kinda the way it works actually.


No....it's not. Unlike the majority of human predators that kill for pleasure, wild predators hunt for survival. They don't rip the guts out of prey and watch them die for some kind of sick thrill. Wild predators kill because they must, even when they prey on our domestic livestock. While I feel their numbers need to be controlled, and they need to be hunted to keep those numbers, there's no reason we shouldn't strive to make it humane and quick. Deer prey on corn, soybeans and alfalfa, and cause more damage collectively than all the hogs and coyotes combined, but still we insist on killing them with respect and humanely. Why the difference.....other than our own self-perceptions? They're all God's creatures and have evolved for a purpose. While some may present more challenge and evoke more emotion when hunted, they all deserve to die quickly and humanely.

[jmr40]

#1

Hogs are not truly wild animals. They are domestic animals that have escaped into the wild and have become problems. No different than a rat, roach or any other vermin. They are usually killed on sight to prevent further problems. Just like rats, and roaches.

#2

A 45 ACP is plenty enough gun to humanely dispatch any hog. If it took this person 13 shots to do the job it was a lack of skill and he would have likely done the same with any other gun.

#3 Wolves, coyotes, killer whales, sharks, and many other predators have been known to kill just for the fun of it. Often toying with their prey for as long as they can keep it alive. Ever watch a cat when it catches a mouse.

[Gaiudo]

No....it's not. Unlike the majority of human predators that kill for pleasure, wild predators hunt for survival.

Having walked up on whole herds of deer killed off in deep snow in Wisconsin by wolves, as well as having seen what a weasel will do in a chicken cage... yes, it is.

Kinda a pointless discussion, and moving off-topic, but the idea that predatory animals don't love the thrill of the hunt and the kill is just off base.

(All this not to say that we shouldn't hunt ethically, and responsibly, but let's use realistic arguments.)

[suzukisam]

Wolves, coyotes, killer whales, sharks,

don't forget lions.. they have been known to hunt people for "sport"... "Ghosts in the darkness"... the railroad workers, or the fisherman that were dragged out of their boats..not eaten, just killed... this discussion has gotten stupid.. listen there is a story printed in the barnes manual where a guy shot a moose seven or eight times with a 30-06, all but one was a vital shot, the last one I believe brained the angry monster.. you don't know the circumstances of the whole thing.. the hog may have been hopped up on adrenaline, or the guy could have been trigger happy either way it's a hog....who cares

[DammitBoy]

Unlike humans, they do not steal for greed or jealousy, nor do they kill for the thrill of it...

You must be hunting a different kind of boar/hawg than I hunt. They do all of the above. I do bring enough gun though and always strive for a one shot kill.

[alsaqr]

i kill a lot of wild hogs: Well over 50 so far this year. Many are taken with a .50 muzzleloader. i've killed lots of hogs with a .22 magnum and a .223. Put the .22 magnum bullet in the right place and you have a bang flop. Put a .45/70 or .458 Win Mag bullet in the wrong place and the hog will run off.

BTW: A hog is not built like a deer. A hogs heart and lungs sit low and forward in the body. Shoot a hog behind the shoulder and you made a gutshot. A gutshot hog can run a long ways. A hog that is standing broadside can easily be killed graveyard dead with a shot in the crook of the front leg. Do a lot of close in shots at feeders using a .223 and that is where my bullet usually goes.

Hog anatomy:

http://www.wildboaroutfitters.com/sitebuilder/images/PIG_ANATOMY-570x381.png

http://www.tradrag.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=2099

[buck460XVR]

Having walked up on whole herds of deer killed off in deep snow in Wisconsin by wolves



Do you have any documentation of this? I'd be interested to know where and when this happened.

I live in Wisconsin wolf country...in areas of deep snow. Lived here my whole life. Have never seen this...... nor have I ever heard of anyone else seeing this. I am a avid deer hunter and also very interested in the impact wolves have upon them and other prey animals. Thus I keep up on any documented cases of negative wolf reports. Only documented cases of surplus killing by wolves either here and in our neighboring state of Minnesota, was of deer yarded up and already starving to death. In all of these cases, wolves just finished the deer in their deathbeds. Even in these cases the wolves continues to return and feed on the carcasses, and did not leave them to waste. Truth is, altho there is much INTERNET MYTH about surplus killing of healthy deer by wolves, there is very little evidence of it happening. Other surplus killings of healthy deer in deep snow were traced to domestic/feral dogs and wolf/canine Hybrids.

Again, I agree with you that this has little to do with the humane or inhumane killing of any animal. Hunter ethics is a volatile and argumentative subject. My stand is regardless of species, they all deserve a quick and humane death. Around here, deer cause more damage to crops and property and cause more human deaths by vehicle collisions than all of the so called "vermin". By others definition here, they could be considered pests. Why is it then, those that proclaim to be such "high road" hunters, will jump all over someone who loses a deer to a bad shot, but will proudly claim to gut shoot wolves/coyotes and hogs?:banghead:

[suzukisam]

By others definition here, they could be considered pests. Why is it then, those that proclaim to be such "high road" hunters, will jump all over someone who loses a deer to a bad shot, but will proudly claim to gut shoot wolves/coyotes and hogs?

I think it's pretty easy to monday morning quarter back any other hunter.. people say that in all their years of hunting they never lost an animal or made a bad shot or blah blah blah.. but they can't have hunted much, it's hunting because there are so many things that can go wrong..

I don't see the difference in any animal.. I don't see how shooting a prairie dog with a deer rifle and exploding it is any different than shooting a hog 13 times.

I go to the range about once a month.. I can usually shoot at least MOA out to 350-400... but I'm not perfect, I've put a couple bad shots on critters.. and I didn't like doing it, but I didn't cry over it either.. because I know that sometime crap happens... what does irritate me is the guy who goes and buys a 300 win mag and thinks he can shoot a trophy buck in the foot and it'll die, so he practices drinking beer not shooting(nothing against beer...mmmmmm)...

I think it all boils down to motive, if your trying to make animals suffer by intentionally putting bad shots on them, then you need to grow up. but if a bad shot happens, and you do what you can to find it, and you don't, well it's no different than being eaten by a wolf, coyote, or cat... it'S life in the wild...

[Gaiudo]

Do you have any documentation of this? I'd be interested to know where and when this happened.

Sounds like I was in your stomping grounds. Both times I was east of Cable, WI, winter of 2001. Chequamegon National Forest. First time we were out snow cave camping. The surplus killings were indeed yarded, and when we walked up on it there were probably 40 deer in various states. Some where eaten, the majority were not (yet). I don't doubt that they would eventually be consumed, of course, between wolves, coyotes, and other scavengers.

Even if the deer were starving, I doubt the wolves considered it a mercy killing!

I do love the north woods up there. Lake Owen's got some great smallmouth fishing, and a year of having loons put you to sleep makes for some serious nostalgia.

[kyle1974]

I guess since we're on teh subject....

I've lost animals....a lot of them. It happens.

I couldn't tell you how many dove and quail I've lost over the years, until I got a good dog.

I also lose pigs every year too, but I guess that's what happens when you shoot 50-100 of them a year.

I'm not losing any sleep over it. It's just an animal.


Some of you guys are saying "what if the anti hunters were to see that comment".... seriously? you're worried they are going to see some random comment in the middle of a hunting thread?

what if the anti hunters see THIS thread? I bet they would like nothing more than to see hunters going at each others throats, to see how easy it is to start an argument, and see how easy it is to divide the "ranks" of hunters....

thanks for the dilegence bringing this urgent matter to the surface in your effort to hope that anti hunters don't come across it...:rolleyes:

[DeepSouth]

I agree with the OP.......except when it comes to hogs, coyotes, possum, and dillars. Then as long as the nuance dies all is good. With Possum and dillars I intentionally gut shoot them so I want have to touch the nasty things and trow them in the woods. I feel the same way about hogs and yotes to but I want to make sure there dead. I do give the hogs to a neighbor who will eat them, yotes just get thrown in the woods.

Raised on a farm, now have my own.. When you start loosing several thousand dollars worth of cattle a year to holes in the pasture and yotes that gang up on newborn calves you"ll start to to care much more about the outcome than the method. At my house we have a rule about those 4 animals.....kill'em, by any means/method necessary.


For any other animal I can think of it is simple, take and ethical shot. Use a sufficient caliber and do your best to put it where it needs to go, understanding no one is a perfect shot every time and sometimes stuff happens. Just TRY to make a clean kill.

[Art Eatman]

Enough. It will come up again, I'm sure...