Discussion in 'Hunting' started by Smitty908, May 17, 2007.
This was killed just north of my hometown the other day!
That's no moon . . .
. . . it's a space station!
Unhappily, by the time they get to that size, they're far too old and the meat far to gamy to bother butchering the hog.
Otherwise . . . damn, boy!
Holy poop, that's a big hog!
Looks like my second Mother-In-Law without her dentures and make-up.
I'm actually a little upset about the kill. I'm not a hunter but isn't it a little unethical to try and kill an animal for 3 hours and shoot it 16 times? Shouldn't you only shoot an animal if you can kill it in 1 shot and kill it as quickly as possible. So the animal doesn't have to suffer.
Yumm, bacon, sausage, prok chops.Yumm.
I agree....3 hours and 16 shots later seems pretty cruel to me.
I know there has to be some weapon that will take down a hog that size in one shot. What do safari hunters shoot with?
Seems a bit strange to me too. Maybe the kid scored a bunch of gut shots? Hard to imagine an animal (even at 1000lbs) taking 16 hefty rounds through the heart/lungs and lasting that long.
whitetiger, generally yes, but I can make exception for destructive feral species. Not that I want them to suffer, but it's more important to keep their numbers as low as possible for the good of native species and crops essential to farmers' liveliehoods.
Curious to see if this story is real (no offense Smitty).
No offense taken, TaterJ. It weren't me or anyone I know who killed it. I was just passing it on...
Holy cow! I mean Holy Hog.
I'm with PotatoJudge. Those photos look Photo-shopped to me, but then I am not an expert. Judging size with the hog next to the "shooter" the hog would be the size of a buffalo. Just color me skeptic.
I'm wondering if there isn't a bit of forced perspective going on in these shots, shooting pictures with the hunters farther behind the hog than they appear to be.
I was thinking the same thing. But then again, there was a show on Discovery channel about "hogzilla" and wild hogs in general. Several "experts" looked at the photos of hogzilla and declared them to be fake. So the guy who shot it invited them (and a bunch of biologists) out to his farm and dug up the carcass. He proved them wrong, and the biologists examined the carcass and took DNA samples. It was just a regular hog, but it turns out it had been breaking into a fish farm and eating high protein fish food. With an unlimited supply of good food, it just got bigger and bigger.
I wouldn't be so quick to judge the kid for the 16 rounds he used. Sometimes animals do funny things when you shoot them. I've seen a veterinarian shoot a cow 8 times with a .45! Finally went to the truck and got a 44 mag lever action to put her down. We can scream ethics all we want, but the bottom line is that we are never GUARANTEED a clean kill. At least the kid followed up with his first shot and continued to try and finish it off. An unethical hunter would have just let the wounded animal walk.
I agree Rumble, forced perspective is in play in those photos.
Where are all the fist sized holes? 16 shots and you would think that a least a couple would be visible. The .500 likely isn't going to make the fist sized holes going in, so they must be exit wounds.
How come the people are all photographed BEHIND the pig. I have a pig from when I was a kid, holding the Washington Monument in my hand. It was a trick of forced perspective. In the first shot, it looks like the boy is leaning against the opposite side of the pig for the shot, but then again, the tree seems to be just as close, only in the second shot, you can see the tree isn't up close against the pig either. Heck the height of the pig's snout (flat portion to the far left of the image) is taller than the boy's head is wide. That just don't make sense unless they have forced the perspective of the image.
It is pretty amazing to know an 11 year old shoots a S&W .500.
How come this feral pig looks so much bigger than the 1100 pounder taken by Larry Early in Florida in 2004. (see snopes, searching on Larry Early)
Did you also notice that the 11 year old on his knees with the other men was as big as they were. The pig may be big, but so is that boy.
It may be a big pig, no doubt, but why would they force the perspective to make the pig look bigger than it really is? Isn't it good enough that the kid took a pig weighing 4 figures? Is there a reason needed to make this look more than it is?
Hogzilla was alittle exagerated. It was only 8ft/850lbs, not the 12ft/1000+ the shooter claimed.
Now this pig is big, no doubt. It is a shame there wasn't anyone with enough gun (rifle) to lend a hand. But, the kid did not give up, which is good. He was finally able to finish it off. I am a little concerned about shot placement and/or penetration. There doesn't seem to be any blood on the snout. You would think that with multiple hits, one or two would hit a lung. It would be interesting to do a necropsy on the hog to check out the damage and penetration.
Anybody see multiple hits?
Those pics sure look fishy. The one where they are behind the pig looks really fake. I could be wrong, i have been before, but I say these are photoshopped.
I don't even see a hit.
Wait...possibly one, on left side, high, just in front of the haunch (forgive me for not knowing the proper terminology--it would be just anterior to the pelvis area).
I checked out our local deer hunting BB and the guide for that hunt posts on there. Here is a link to his story with some better pics. I guess it is for real
That is one huge pig.
I'm with others who don't see any bullet holes....something stinks just a little...
regarding a clean kill vs shooting it 16 times, etc.
Thing is, we all hope for a clean kill and hopefully pass on shots which we think are too risky.
we sometimes calculate wrong, or sometimes the animal moves a bit between the gun firing and the bullet getting there.
Anyways, my attitude is, one shot and you miss, fine, go home no big deal
one shot and you hit but fail to kill? You stay until you get that critter dead, if it takes 16 more shots and 3 hours, well then that is what it takes. Actually, once you got the animal wounded, it is going to be a lot harder to get a decent shot, so I'd be much more inclined to take riskier shots, shots with less chance of killing it right away, just to hope the additional wound would anchor the animal to allow for a 3rd or 4th to finish it off, after all, it is already wounded
Separate names with a comma.