Pretty horrific leg wound on a deer…

[9x56MS]

I've actually run into this situation. Shot it, tagged it, called the DEC and they came out to take a look and issued me a replacement tag. They took the carcass and I have no idea what they did after that.

I have done that myself. The conservation officer was very understanding and thanked me for calling them and not leaving it in the woods.

 

[DeepSouth]

Easy to judge from a distance and without knowing the details.

"It" happens, sometimes no matter how much you've prepared.

One of the best shots I’ve ever know wounded a deer that ran off, couple days later he found about a quarter sized limb with a bullet grazed spot on it where he had shot at the deer.
Stuff happens to us mere mortals, apparently many here aren’t in the same category.

We simply don’t know the facts behind the photo, an automobile could be the guilty party.

 

[marksman13]

One of the best shots I’ve ever know wounded a deer that ran off, couple days later he found about a quarter sized limb with a bullet grazed spot on it where he had shot at the deer.
Stuff happens to us mere mortals, apparently many here aren’t in the same category.

We simply don’t know the facts behind the photo, an automobile could be the guilty party.

This wasn’t the result of a car collision. This was a bad shot. The person who shot him found a branch that was grazed by his bullet. It’s ugly. It’s not the way any hunter wants a hunt to end, but it does happen. We live in an imperfect world and things happen. Never did find out if this deer was found dead or not.

 

[daniel craig]

You are assuming facts you have no way of knowing. I can not believe any hunter goes into the woods trying to maim an animal and have it get away to die a horrible lingering death. Maybe I have too much faith in humanity.

I have significantly less faith in humanity. I would not at all be surprised, based on how many people over they years want to buy a rifle that can "drop a deer on the spot" every time, if the hunters were just too lazy to to try to find it.

I'd also say that any hunter who places and takes such a terrible shot like it is going into the woods without intent to ethically harvest, which is only a small step away from intent to maim. There's little you can do if it goes on private property, that's true, but I guess I'm too cynical to believe that's what happened here.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

I'd also say that any hunter who places and takes such a terrible shot like it is going into the woods without intent to ethically harvest, which is only a small step away from intent to maim.

So a bad shot gets made and you have retroactively determined that the hunter never had any intent to ethically "harvest." 9x56MS sounds spot on.

I bet you can find plenty of hunters on this forum that have taken a bad shot for which they never had any intent other than to take their prey ethically.

 

[jmorris]

I bet you can find plenty of hunters on this forum that have taken a bad shot for which they never had any intent other than to take their prey ethically.

To be fair, “taken a bad shot”, leads me to believe it was a low probability shot even before the trigger was pulled.

“Made a bad shot”, would have to do more with POI/POA variation on an otherwise ideal situation.

There are lots of ways to miss though. A stick or a step can do it.

Then again, I have taken low probably shots myself but I think “ethics” in killing is a moving target. For me it depends on what I am wanting dead.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

To be fair, “taken a bad shot”, leads me to believe it was a low probability shot even before the trigger was pulled.

To be fair for most of these hunters, I don't think that was ever their intent to take a bad shot as was being claimed and they aren't one step away from intentionally trying to maim animals. That was what I was refuting.

It is only afterwards that comprehension comes and they realize something went wrong. No doubt, there are some terrible people out there that enjoy harming animals or are too lazy to try to do the right thing, but the notion of going from saying a bad shot was made to saying that the hunters never intended to make a good shot as a gross generalization is ludicrous.

 

[jmorris]

I agree, there certainly are a lot more dead and wounded chronographs out there than were intended to be shot…people make simple mistakes all the time. Some consistently.

 

[9x56MS]

I have significantly less faith in humanity. I would not at all be surprised, based on how many people over they years want to buy a rifle that can "drop a deer on the spot" every time, of the hunters were just too lazy to to try to find it.

I'd also say that any hunter who places and takes such a terrible shot like it is going into the woods without intent to ethically harvest, which is only a small step away from intent to maim. There's little you can do if it goes on private property, that's true, but I guess I'm too cynical to believe that's what happened here.

That’s a pretty dim and grim view of the world Dan.

 

[jmorris]

That’s a pretty dim and grim view of the world Dan.

Maybe that’s just an observation via New York?

 

[daniel craig]

I have done that myself. The conservation officer was very understanding and thanked me for calling them and not leaving it in the woods.

Honestly it's been my experience that they're usually pretty good people.

 

[daniel craig]

So a bad shot gets made and you have retroactively determined that the hunter never had any intent to ethically "harvest." 9x56MS sounds spot on.

I bet you can find plenty of hunters on this forum that have taken a bad shot for which they never had any intent other than to take their prey ethically.

Look, yes, many people have taken bad shots. The difference is few are rarely THAT bad. Like, that's not even CLOSE. Furthermore it's the lack of follow through to harvest that takes the cake for me. Part of hunting is knowing when and when not to shoot. Determining the odds of a shot leading to a good kill or not. Part of hunting is knowing when NOT to shoot. Another part is practicing enough so that when you do make/land a bad shot, it's still good enough for a kill, as opposed to being so bad it just maims without killing.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Look, yes, many people have taken bad shots. The difference is few are rarely THAT bad.

True, you virtually never find a deer shot twice by two different hunters at different times that is still alive with nasty wounds. Yep.

However, the shoulder shot on the deer doesn't appear to be a hugely terrible shot. A couple of inches over and that could have been a very dead dear.

Let's say the shot was at 100 yards. Flight time on a bullet at 100 yards is going to range from about 0.10 seconds to 0.13 seconds on most of your typical hunting calibers. That is just flight time. A good bit of motion can happen in that short people of time. Add to that the delay of time from when your brain tells you to act and your finger pulls the trigger which will add 0.15 to 0.40 seconds depending on things like your age (younger people have faster reflexes, generally speaking). All that had to happen for that shot to be off is for the deer to start to take a step AFTER the hunter decided to pull the trigger and the bullet will be off the mark and it could be by several inches. If the hunter was using a bow or subsonic ammo, the deer may have been reacting to the sound of the shot and starting to move before the bullet arrived.

Furthermore it's the lack of follow through to harvest that takes the cake for me.

One of the really interesting things about hunting is how hard it is for hunters to find ambulatory animals that have been wounded. Some can find them after they are downed, but not all. Hell, there are plenty of hunters that can't find downed deer.

Maybe you shoot the deer and it runs. Well, obviously, you can't shoot it again if you are some hunters. Why? Because shooting running deer in unethical, or so I have been told in this very thread.

With that said, the deer runs off property onto private land, as in the case here, following through to find an ambulatory deer becomes that much more difficult.

Part of hunting is knowing when and when not to shoot. Determining the odds of a shot leading to a good kill or not.

I am totally amazed by the number of hunters who were never newbs or otherwise inexperienced. They know everything before the hunt even starts. My hat is off to them. It truly is.

 

[buck460XVR]

I could see the two wounds on that deer as being done with one shot. Hunter in a elevated stand shooting a the deer while it is looking at him. Deer could have been quartering away slightly and the hunter shot around the head/horns. Low percentage shot? Somewhat, but if you are a hunter that has never had a buck that big standing there looking at them? The angle between the wounds indicates a sharp angle meaning the deer may have been close. So, at 40 yards it probably seemed like a easy shot. Didn't take much of a jerked trigger to throw the shot off just a few inches, which resulted in what we see in the picture. On a broadside deer, that little bit would probably not matter. Like others have said could have been a branch or the deer moving at the last second too. A deer looking at you will move at the slightest of movement, even the movement of your trigger finger. That the deer is at a feeder and actively feeding is what is so surprising. Tells me, the deer has lived for a while after being shot, and is not suffering as bad as a gut shot deer.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

I will also add that a hunter will not look for an animal if s/he does not realize that they have hit it. Often times, hunters will gauge the effectiveness of their shooting/ammo/etc. based on the animal's reaction right after the shot. It it doesn't jump or buck and just decides to run off, the hunter may think it is unwounded. Not all animals generate the desired impact confirmation that we, as hunters, would always like to see. If the deer runs off and doesn't look wounded, why would the hunter spend time looking for it? More than likely, s/he will chalk it off as a miss and try to do better next time.

 

[marksman13]

I could see the two wounds on that deer as being done with one shot. Hunter in an elevated stand shooting a the deer while it is looking at him. Deer could have been quartering away slightly and the hunter shot around the head/horns. Low percentage shot? Somewhat, but if you are a hunter that has never had a buck that big standing there looking at them? The angle between the wounds indicates a sharp angle meaning the deer may have been close. So, at 40 yards it probably seemed like an easy shot. Didn't take much of a jerked trigger to throw the shot off just a few inches, which resulted in what we see in the picture. On a broadside deer, that little bit would probably not matter. Like others have said could have been a branch or the deer moving at the last second too. A deer looking at you will move at the slightest of movement, even the movement of your trigger finger. That the deer is at a feeder and actively feeding is what is so surprising. Tells me, the deer has lived for a while after being shot, and is not suffering as bad as a gut shot deer.

Deer was shot on two separate occasions and was at the feeder the morning after being shot in the leg the previous afternoon. That’s the information I got from the guy whose camera took the picture.