Head shooting

[Dunwaters]

I don't like it from the perspective of a no doubt overly-sensitive and 'soft' Lowland hunter. As in the aesthetic is clearly all wrong when you get to the poor beast!

In all seriousness, why anyone would wish to put up graphic imagery of exploding deer heads on YouTube is beyond me.

K

Spot on.
A successful head shot makes a mess.
It looks awful and needs tidying up PDQ. The site may need a bit of a makeover too and it’s an absolute disaster if you plan to do anything with the head other than saw off the antlers and sell them to a stick maker.
All excellent reasons to prefer the neck shot.

 

[308rws]

Provided it is within your capabilities and provided you follow-up and bleed the deer quickly there should be no ethical, welfare or venison quality issues. However, it has been my experience that there are stalkers who are ignorant of the requirement to bleed their headshot deer quickly.

 

[Klenchblaize]

Spot on.
A successful head shot makes a mess.
It looks awful and needs tidying up PDQ. The site may need a bit of a makeover too and it’s an absolute disaster if you plan to do anything with the head other than saw off the antlers and sell them to a stick maker.
All excellent reasons to prefer the neck shot.

I've long wished to move away from neck shot beasts too but until I get my act together and make some progress with acquiring a .35 cal 'hammer' there will remain situations where I'll take them.

K

 

[Mickeydredd]

Agreed - side on neck shots in particular are a recipe for disaster. Natural tendency is "centre of mass" which isn't where the spine runs.

Are deerstalkers not just as capable of learning the anatomy of the neck as well as the chest?

 

[Deermanagement]

They're not putting pressure. They're just paying for what comes through the door. A carcass that's worth more to them they'll obviously pay more for. Wouldn't any business do the same?
The only person who decides whether or not a shot is "ethical" is the person who pulls the trigger. An "unethical" shot is one that is beyond the capability of the shooter, but he takes it anyway. The decision was entirely his.
And besides, why should stalkers who have put in the time to hone their skills to the high level required to produce top grade undamaged carcass be subsidising those who haven't? Carcasses should all be paid for on quality. There's no other fair way.

Absolutely agree that quality of carcass should define the price, but without clear evidence, a head shot animal does not automatically put it in the “quality” bracket.

And when game dealers say they’ll only take head or head/neck shot deer, of course it’s putting pressure on the supplier. Likewise paying a better price for the “quality” head shot deer, is also a pressure, maybe more psychological than anything else, but pressure nonetheless.

 

[Ratel]

In my misspent youth 50 per cent of my shots with .22 rimfire and .22 Hornet were head shots. This up to about 50yds using iron sights with which I could hit an old penny stuck in a gatepost at that distance. The rest were chest shots and as said elsewhere I never lost a deer. Sure on body shots it sometimes took two shots if I stretched out to 100 yards, but I still got them.
Now in my dotage chest shots are the ones I take. I do take the odd neck shot but always from behind and out to about 75 yards. However I confess to one at 130 yards but I won't do it again , although it was spot on.
Previously I did neck shoot a few Sika and Hybrids across the water close to forestry because we were limited to .22 calibre.

 

[Mickeydredd]

Absolutely agree that quality of carcass should define the price, but without clear evidence, a head shot animal does not automatically put it in the “quality” bracket.

Indeed. I find that the quality of a carcase presented at the dealers has more to do with how it was extracted rather than where it was shot. The video posted by Tim earlier gives a clear example of horrendous extraction contamination.

FWIW, 95% of my shots are high neck off sticks, I'm not really keen on head shots. My calibre is 25.06 and the incidence of large Scottish Red deer running into the woods from a chest shot were the main reason I changed tactic. Even with a mature Red stag's thick neck width it's pretty easy to work out where his spine runs.

 

[Donkey Basher]

I’ve just watched it and to be fair it’s a good subject to discuss. What is skirted around is the risk of wounding deer with neck shots where the oesophagus and trachea are punctured and also the unnecessary suffering caused by low neck shots where the deer is paralysed but remains conscious

That hits the nail on the head for me - head shot is too risky so instead go for a neck shot instead…

Neither are exactly big targets!

Out of the frying pan into the fire!

 

[gelert]

The best part is 11:10

Hand on heart, I'm one of a handful that's had to carry a sika stag on my back from that very spot,twice!

 

[Keith Edmunds]

They're not putting pressure. They're just paying for what comes through the door. A carcass that's worth more to them they'll obviously pay more for. Wouldn't any business do the same?
The only person who decides whether or not a shot is "ethical" is the person who pulls the trigger. An "unethical" shot is one that is beyond the capability of the shooter, but he takes it anyway. The decision was entirely his.
And besides, why should stalkers who have put in the time to hone their skills to the high level required to produce top grade undamaged carcass be subsidising those who haven't? Carcasses should all be paid for on quality. There's no other fair way.

The 'pressure' surely comes when the game dealer refuses to take body shot deer - regardless of how well they have been presented. If a stalker is contracted to remove 75 fallow in a season and the game dealer refuses perfectly presentable, body shot deer then there certainly is more 'pressure' to take head shots. It would be hard to find a home for 75 fallow carcasses - regardless of the £/kg or even FOC.

 

[Bo Diddley]

Except rats

Nah.. to much fun giving 'em lead poisoning with the fx crown....

 

[Chris Richardson]

And slugs and squirrels and wasps and cockroaches .
No one should be taking “ head shots “.
The head is big and has lots of non lethal area, we should be aiming for the cranium.
There’s a bit of leeway with a soft bullet in a .270 class cartridge

Soft as in lead , yes I fully agree

 

[Essexsussex]

I was trying to find the excellent slides someone put on here about the various shot placements and the way they cause the demise of the animal, and how humane they are considered. But I can’t.

 

[VSS]

The 'pressure' surely comes when the game dealer refuses to take body shot deer - regardless of how well they have been presented. If a stalker is contracted to remove 75 fallow in a season and the game dealer refuses perfectly presentable, body shot deer then there certainly is more 'pressure' to take head shots. It would be hard to find a home for 75 fallow carcasses - regardless of the £/kg or even FOC.

I'm not aware of any individual stalker who has a contract with a game dealer to supply x number of carcasses per year to a certain specified standard, but I suppose that might be a thing.
Do you know of any examples?

 

[Keith Edmunds]

I'm not aware of any individual stalker who has a contract with a game dealer to supply x number of carcasses per year to a certain specified standard, but I suppose that might be a thing.
Do you know of any examples?

Not a contract with a game dealer - a contract with a landowner. I totally understand a payment 'reduction' for body shot but, for me, total refusal of very well presented body shot deer only leaves two options - head/neck shoot or don't shoot. That sounds fine in theory but with 50-100 herding deer to cull - as per contract with landowner - then that situation will put deer managers under pressure.

 

[VSS]

Not a contract with a game dealer - a contract with a landowner. I totally understand a payment 'reduction' for body shot but, for me, total refusal of very well presented body shot deer only leaves two options - head/neck shoot or don't shoot. That sounds fine in theory but with 50-100 herding deer to cull - as per contract with landowner - then that situation will put deer managers under pressure.

Well in that case, it's nothing to do with the game dealer, is it?
In stalkers' contracts with landowners there are so many permutations, for example:

- Stalker is contracted to shoot x number of deer. What happens to the carcasses is the landowner's problem
Or
- Stalker is contracted to shoot and remove x number of deer, in which case the fee paid by the landowner to the stalker for the work carried out would recompense the stalker for the inconvenience of trying to find outlets for the carcasses.
Or
- The stalker does it purely for a hobby, and isn’t fussed about financial return on carcasses, and just wants to fill his own freezer (in which case he was the wrong person for the contract).
Or
-The stalker accepts a low price for carcasses, but feels morally justified in having made what he considers an ethical decision on shot placement.
Or
- The stalker retails the venison himself.
Or
- The stalker pays the landowner for the right to take clients on the land, and lets his clients keep what they shoot. Problem solved.

And so on, and so on.

So many variations. None of which involve direct pressure from a game dealer.
And in the event that a contract did specify that a certain shot placement was required, and you were not comfortable with that or sufficiently competent, you simply wouldn't tender for that contract.

 

[Chris Richardson]

Not a contract with a game dealer - a contract with a landowner. I totally understand a payment 'reduction' for body shot but, for me, total refusal of very well presented body shot deer only leaves two options - head/neck shoot or don't shoot. That sounds fine in theory but with 50-100 herding deer to cull - as per contract with landowner - then that situation will put deer managers under pressure.

there is a third option which is to give them away /dispose of them , if the stalker has to make the numbers then needs must

 

[Klenchblaize]

The 'pressure' surely comes when the game dealer refuses to take body shot deer - regardless of how well they have been presented. It would be hard to find a home for 75 fallow carcasses - regardless of the £/kg or even FOC.

This is a very valid concern, and one those living in a game dealer proliferated bubble are unlikely to understand or accept.

Talk to those ("down South") who have no Game Dealer willing to take their beasts irrespective of presentation, and I can well understand a stalker's response if suddenly presented with an outlet but only for head shot beasts.

K

 

[Dunwaters]

Soft as in lead , yes I fully agree

Correct, lead is better in this instance. But copper is good enough.

 

[VSS]

This is a very valid concern, and one those living in a game dealer proliferated bubble are unlikely to understand or accept.

Talk to those ("down South") who have no Game Dealer willing to take their beasts irrespective of presentation, and I can well understand a stalker's response if suddenly presented with an outlet but only for head shot beasts.

K

Any stalker who feels forced into pulling the trigger at a time when his better judgement is telling him not to is probably not sound enough in mind to have a FAC anyway.