Irresponsible?

straightbetweentheeyes

Well-Known Member
Just reading my e-newsletter from yes we hunt and came across an article by a well known writer for a weekly shooting mag. Is it me or were his actions irresponsible and also didisrespectful to his quarry that he did not bother to go and look for the animal he had shot at and 'missed':eek:. Even if he saw what he thought to be the animal he shot at making its way off would it have bot been a good idea to go and inspect the 'strike site' for any signs of a hit? Lucky he stumbled upon the dead beast on his way back to his truck... Any thoughts on this gents?

The swings of fortune | yeswehunt.eu

​regards, Jez
 
It's a pretty poor display of follow up to a shot Jez to be honest.

he is adamant he missed without doing any more than basing that on the lack of a thump and was wrong. Doesn't matter if in fact the second animal was an accompanying one to that he shot at. He assumed it was the same in the firstinstance and therefore decided on a miss. The whole scenario should in fact be used as an example of what not to do or assume after a shot is taken.

a few years ago I shot at a roe doe off sticks I to woodland. The 270 at the time was not moderated and the recoil meant I lost sight if it momentarily. When I looked over the scope I saw the doe still standing there. So I shot her or should say at her again. Walked in and there were two lying dead side by side. First one had gone down out my sight and second one who had been lying down when the shot was taken had obviously sprung to her feet!
 
as above a few months back I shot a muntjac buck at last light, no thump no reaction to shot just bolted into the nearest hedge. All backed up by a mate who was watching with bins further back, just as formality we had a look and took the dog she was straight into the hedge and dragged it out stone dead shot was spot on. It was a definite reminder to always check no matter how much you think it must have been a miss
 
It's a pretty poor display of follow up to a shot Jez to be honest.

he is adamant he missed without doing any more than basing that on the lack of a thump and was wrong. Doesn't matter if in fact the second animal was an accompanying one to that he shot at. He assumed it was the same in the firstinstance and therefore decided on a miss. The whole scenario should in fact be used as an example of what not to do or assume after a shot is taken.

a few years ago I shot at a roe doe off sticks I to woodland. The 270 at the time was not moderated and the recoil meant I lost sight if it momentarily. When I looked over the scope I saw the doe still standing there. So I shot her or should say at her again. Walked in and there were two lying dead side by side. First one had gone down out my sight and second one who had been lying down when the shot was taken had obviously sprung to her feet!

I did exactly the same thing with two red hinds on the hill . . . shot the first hind, and thought I had missed . . shot the second and dropped it . . . .after gralloching the 'first' John Campbell Smith and I found the second one which had dropped in the heather and rocks . . . .I couldn't believe my eyes !!!

Remember that John ? . . . .that was a good day !!! :D
 
Gut shot a roe doe once. No visable sign from her at all of anything wrong. She wondered off as if she had no care in the world. If it had not been for the fact that I refused to accept that I could have missed at the distance I may have let her go. As it was I finished the job and found out what had happend to the first shot. Was not too happy.
 
There is no excuse for not looking after a shot, even if you are sure you have missed completely. And he even offers the chance to meet and stalk with him at the end of the article? Think I may give that a miss.
 
It's a pretty poor display of follow up to a shot Jez to be honest.

he is adamant he missed without doing any more than basing that on the lack of a thump and was wrong. Doesn't matter if in fact the second animal was an accompanying one to that he shot at. He assumed it was the same in the firstinstance and therefore decided on a miss. The whole scenario should in fact be used as an example of what not to do or assume after a shot is taken.

a few years ago I shot at a roe doe off sticks I to woodland. The 270 at the time was not moderated and the recoil meant I lost sight if it momentarily. When I looked over the scope I saw the doe still standing there. So I shot her or should say at her again. Walked in and there were two lying dead side by side. First one had gone down out my sight and second one who had been lying down when the shot was taken had obviously sprung to her feet!

+1 and in front of a FSC Ranger who, as you might expect given his cull target, was well happy. Had I not been so fast on the second shot I'm sure he would have told me I hadn't missed.

K
 
Had similar a few years ago. Just got into a seat at first light, a munty appeared not 30 yds in front of me. I took the shot, she hardly broke stride. I sat there for two hours kicking myself for shooting underneath her.
After getting out the seat I thought I'll just look at where she was heading to.
Much to my surprise she was laid stone dead not 10yds into the trees. Needless to say lesson well and truly learned.
 
I must admit i once shot at a roe doe last light and went to look at
at the area it was at and where it entered the tree line snow on ground
and no sign blood. So the next morning my dog and I did a search and found
the doe 100yards in tree line. so always follow up.
 
If you fire at it you presume a hit until proven otherwise would be my view.

I have seen some go down like the proverbial "bag of hammers" and others merely saunter off as if nothing has happened, some spring forward, some run at a rate of knots. You ought to check every time.

The two most recent deer I have shot both walked off as if nothing much had occured. Both were very dead about 10 feet from where they had been stood with shot placement as expected. Both had seen something and were looking as I fired.

I would have to be 100% certain there was no paint, pins or be able to carefully glass the departed deer grazing peacefully before I would ever give it up as a clean miss
 
For whatever reason, in the way the story was written, he didn't go straight in and check. Who knows why, we werent there. Maybe though, the whole point of the story was to provide a valuable lesson to the inexperienced and a worthwhile reminder even to the most experienced.
 
For whatever reason, in the way the story was written, he didn't go straight in and check. Who knows why, we werent there. Maybe though, the whole point of the story was to provide a valuable lesson to the inexperienced and a worthwhile reminder even to the most experienced.

i don't think this is one of those stories that does require the reader to be there to form an opinion.

Based on how the article was written by the man taking the shot he admits in his writing to his mistakes, perhaps unwittingly?

An earlier post is highlighting exactly what the default position should be, and that is always assume a strike and prove the miss.......
 
I'm often amazed how little sign of a hit there is at the site.

Earlier this year I shot a sika hind in the snow. I knew she was hit because I saw her run and it looked like she had a broken front leg, in truth when I found her she had two broken shoulders. However at the site of the hit there was very little sign of an impact and nothing that could have been seen without the help of the snow. On the snow there were a few, and I mean a very few, single grey hairs but on, say, heather there is no way on earth I'd have seen them, especially not with the light going. I could also see the slots in the snow and there was evidence that she'd taken a rather heavy step sideways which, I presume, was as a result of the bullet impact. Had the bullet not have gone through both shoulders or had there not of been snow on the ground there would have been no evidence of this "jump to the left" and I also had doubts that it was certain evidence of a hit; maybe it was just a jump from the surprise of hearing a big bang.

The first blood was maybe 10 yards from the site of the impact and was where her chest had hit the top of one of those big clumps of purple moor grass that had snow on top of it. I suspect the reason she hit the top of this was because both shoulders were broken and so she wasn't exactly running well but, again, a very small change in circumstances could have had her clearing this clump and so there would have been no sign of blood, even with the snow, at all.

The hind got under a small "christmas tree" type spruce about 30 yards from the site of the hit before she died and even with the clear trail in the snow I went past her several times before I dug around and looked under the low branches. Had it not of been for the snow I would certain have walked past her believing that I'd searched the area and that she must have been further on.

Under normal circumstances, with no snow, I can see how even the most responsible stalker who carried out a thorough follow up but who missed seeing the deer run with a damaged leg could easily have concluded that he had missed, and I can also see how without the snow I might never have found her even knowing that she was hit. Given that I found it a useful lesson and I would also be reluctant to point the finger at someone else unless I was actually there and witnessed that their follow up was lacking in some way. Even a tiny change in circumstances can turn an obvious "clue" into something the stalker simply can't see.
 
Most people who have shot enough deer will have had this happen to them at one time or another. The writer in this case did go back and check at the end of the stalk, he didn't just 'stumble' on it as the OP says. The article says: 'But I had still not taken a proper look in that hazel coppice, which I passed once more on my way back to the land rover. When I finally made a quick search....'
If he made a b*lls up and wrote about it, probably more than I would do on an internet forum!
If he had walked over to the spot straight away and it had run off with a busted leg, no doubt someone would criticise him for not having waited before following up.....
Those of us that this has happened to have learned from our mistakes, those that read that article and this thread may learn something from this.
 
If he made a b*lls up and wrote about it, probably more than I would do on an internet forum!

The other point to bear in mind is that he needs something to write about and if he wants to generate discussion and help others learn then he can't write about the perfect stalk again, and again. In this case he has got everyone on here talking about something he did which he would probably have done anyway, which is to say he checked the area where the miss took place and found a dead deer highlighting the importance of doing such a thing. If he had just written that he checked the area and found a deer no one on here would have mentioned it and, probably, no one would have paid him for copy that had no points of interest or debate. Adding in a bit of "bad practise" gives the story a bit of drama. That I am aware the author is very experienced in both stalking and writing and so could be expected to be aware of the fall out from admitting to such "bad practise." Nothing you read, hear or see in the popular media is ever completely true or without embellishment.
 
Surely a better way to highlight the issue would have been to go and check the possible strike site for any paint/pins in case of a slight knick? Thus finding the beast dead on the floor and showing the need to always check, even if you think you have missed?? Having a great interest in the use of tracking dogs I for one would have highlighted the article for him doing this as much as I have for what I consider irresponsibility.. Personally I would have waited ten mins or so and gone and had a look, as much for my own curiosity at missing than anything else and to see if I had clean missed or grazed the beast before continuing my stalk any further. If I was as experienced as him I would be pretty ****ed at apparently missing, I know it happens to everyone now and again but I would have gone for a look nonetheless..
 
Dama, most people who have shot enough deer , would have gone straight to the point of impact not walked around for 2hrs looking for more deer, if he had gone straight there and it had a busted leg at least he would have seen it , other wise it could have dragged it seof off somewhere else.
 
Back
Top