Now, I know for a fact that Mike shoots a lot of deer, and he's an experienced stalker, but I can understand why the programme makers may have been reluctant to show the shot. I have seen 3 "impact shots" on TV up to now and one was a complete f*** up, one was mis-placed, but worked and one was text book. The first was Gordon Ramsey shooting a roe and the film made it look like he hit it a long way back, but the camera stopped right on the shot, and the next time you saw the deer it was on the deck and dead. As a stalker I got the impression of a skilfully edited bad shot. The next was Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall shooting a sika. The shot was a bit far forward, but none the less a quickly lethal shot that wouldn't have taken much of a follow up, if any. Again it was edited to cut out any following up. Someone who has no experience of shooting would have thought both shots went perfectly because of the editing. The good shot was one by Marco Pierre White on a roe which he heart shot and it did the usual of running on which the camera showed, but it didn't show any follow up. I'm confident that that would only have been a short trail, leading to a very dead deer, but I just happened to watch the programme with a non stalker, his reaction when he saw the deer run on was "well, he f**ked that one up, di'nt he? It's run off". If we are to win the public round to accept what we do more redilly, then I hope programme makers continue to exercise a bit of discression in showing shots and hits. I agree, however, that in all cases, some s coverage of the gralloch would have been good. No need to get up close or gory about it, but at least enough to show that the process exists would have been good.
