I was just watching an episode of Ruger's hunting show and saw a hunter shoot a 400 pound big at 100 yards. No problem here except that the shot was taken running straight away. The guy says "he wasn't gonna stop so I broke him down." So this guy shot this pig in the butt. This big ol' pig is now dragging his back leg and running as fast as he can off into the brush. So now he is wounded and poorly shot. What happened to ethical shots??? There is no chance of a one shot kill in this manner on a pig of this size. On another episode of the same show a polar bear was shot the same way with the same comment and the same result. I was personally upset by this. Is it so important to get a trophy that poor and unethical shots are okay??? Am I blowing this out of proportion??? I am seriously debating buying any more Ruger products if they endorse hunting like this. I'd love to know what you guys think.

I guess I'd have to of seen it or been there, but actually a shot to the hams is no more unethical than the front shoulders. The arteries in the hams are very large and will bleed them out quickly whereas I've seen animals hit in the front shoulders go along ways unless the lungs or heart are hit and in fact the only shot that gives instantaneous death is going to be a head or neck shot. A double lung shot means they will suffocate on blood and heart shot they have to bleed out and they will bleed out of the liver just as fast. It is more a matter of perception than anything else. The cleanest shot is the lungs because it doesn't blow up as much meat and you don't end up with guts all over in the body cavity but regardless of what they show on tv alot of animals will pack alot of lead a long ways and I personally shoot until they quit moving. I can't say whether or not the particular shot your talking about was ethical or not but there are places if your only going to take a standing broadside shot then you might as well go home. Elk in heavily hunted public grounds is a good example, I've yet to shoot one that wasn't moving and if I'd limited my self to the perfect shot then I wouldn't have put meat in my freezer.

Ah heck ya ever seen your Thangiving turkey killed, we as Americans have the uncanny ability to "Spin" anything to look less "distasteful"..so pop in the head or pop in the butt all the same..Buy that new Ruger..SSG Retired

I hunt so I can EAT! Not for fun, not for antlers. That Ruger did its part. Any gun would have done the same thing. Maybe not the best shot for the animals you spoke of but when is it?

I have thought about this one since I seen it early this morning. I have to agree with the rest that it is not my intentions to ever make a shot on game like this, ever but I am human too.

But maybe they allowed the hunt to be shown, to show the viewers that not all hunts are perfect shots gone great 100% of the time.

Is that a cub, what is the definition of an ethical kill? I've always considered dead, is dead. If the shot just wounds the animal, I might could see that as being unethical shot but, if the shot kills the animal, the animal is dead, regardless. The shot placement will only determine how much meat may be damaged, as wapitirod said. If you are confident in your shot placement and know it will kill the animal, that's about as ethical as you can get...That's just my opinion...I would hate to say that I would never buy a Ruger again, for they make the strongest handguns on the market today, along with FA of course....KRal

I can not comment on the polar bear because I didn’t see it. HOWEVER, hogs all together are a different story. Most land owners WANT you to shoot and take shots at VERY HOG because they want them all DEAD. They tear up fields and are very destructive. My first “running shot” was at a hog. I shot once and the pack broke up. I managed to get a second pig with a single shot rifle. I gut shot the second pig. But, I also learned a lot about shooting moving game! Honestly, I didn’t have anything to loose, the land owner told us to shoot every one we saw.

Duane

Is that a cub, I agree with you completely. Anyone taking a shot like that does not represent our sport in a positive way. Its just not the right thing to do. So what if the pig gets away. Use some hunting skills and stalk your way back up to it. When I see that I know I'm watching an unskilled hunter.

As far as pigs being destructive. An unethical shot is an unethical shot...it doesn't matter if its a pig or something that we hold in higher esteem (like a whitetail deer). To me saying they are not wanted is no excuse to be unethical.

I agree with Cub that the shot was completely unethical. "He wasn't gonna to stop so I broke him down"?!? I mean COME ON! The man was hunting a pig, not being charged by a lion. If he doesn’t take the shot he tracks the animal and tries again. If he doesn’t get another shot, oh well. At least he had the pleasure of seeing such a large animal and the enjoyment of being out in nature. I also really don't think that Cub's issue is with shooting at running game (at least mine is not), it is with taking a shot that almost 100% of the time results in wounding an animal.

I am going to be honest and say that I am a little surprised by some of the responses; I really thought that this group was more ethical. We have a responsibility to ensure that we take game in the cleanest way possible, even if that means being skunked. I believe that when God created man and gave him dominion over every living thing, that we were given a responsibility to use God's other creations wisely. God gave us animals to use, and I believe hunting them is okay. But we need to do so in a way that shows respect to God, the animal, and ourselves. I realize opinions differ, but hopefully you can appreciate where I am coming from, and why I believe the shot mentioned should not have been taken.

Jesse

Is that a cub, I agree with you on also. I was brought up with the idea that only clean, quick kill shots should be taken, regardless of the size or score of the animal. After almost two decades of consistent, year-round practice with all my hunting weapons, I still and will forever try and wait for a standing/slowly walking broadside shot. If I don't think I can put my bullet or arrow in the heart or lungs, I simply dont shoot.

Myself and my family stopped buying rugers last year after several guns of ours had to go back to the factory for various reasons (most recently was my SRH in .454; the straw that broke the camel's back). Some people are lucky and have great success with Ruger firearms. The four of us have unfortunately not been so lucky.

Lastly, I used to watch hunting shows a lot when I was younger and they were, or at least seemed to be great. Now a days, I can't even watch the "Shooting shows" because I get sick to my stomach. Don't get me wrong, some of these shows are good and the hunters hunt fair chase but the majority of shows are not this way. For someone to pay a rancher 5, 10, 20 thousand dollars to sit in an elevated cabin, pick out "their" deer from the herd gathered around the feeder or food pile, mute the tv with their remote, and shoot it from 250 yards away is ridiculous. I know a lot of hunters in these parts of this country don't do this type of hunting and I applaud you, but hunting sure aint made out to be like it used to. Then the "professional hunters" (Bull *&$# is what I call that) on these shows shows get upset and don't understand why when they hunt from the ground (extremely rare) they can't still do the Irish Jig like they did when they were up in their elevated hut and still see deer.

You can see what my feelings are about these shooting shows which is why I don't and can't watch them. It is unfortunate.

this swould seem to be a double edged sword. if someone only takes the perfect shot than i suspect that that person will not harvest many animals. Yet; quick humain kills are what we strive for. as far as the show goes maybe they should not have showen such a hunt so as not to give the anti-hunters more ammo ( pun intended ) but; all of these shows you only see perfect hunts done in a half hour and i suspect that even experianced hunters question if they are doing something worng in there subconcious, let alone the new hunter. I'm also a little woried about someone else telling me what is ethical

I am going to change my sentence above and state that ALL farmers want pigs eradicated! I have seen entire fields that look like a plow went over them and it was pigs that just tore up a freshly planted wheat field. In Texas pigs don’t have a season or limit for a reason. Even Game Wardens Tell you to shoot every one you see and leave it lie! I agree with the ethics, but not when it is concerning pig. Please don’t COME ON, BULL *$^&, and bad mouth me. I have seen and experienced this first hand because my family owns quite a bit of land. If you haven’t, I’m sorry. But when pigs start messing with a mans way of life, EG farming, I tend to listen to the man tiring to support there family. As stated before, I haven’t seen the footage so I don’t know how it was being presented.

Go read Rods post again. I consider him to be an ethical hunter. I also take under consideration that he hunts with firearms to suit is hunting environment. EG, 45-70’s and 475’s! He did bring home an elk ethically as far as I am concerned.

Are we that scared and ashamed to actually post our true feelings on the forum? This is supposed to be a place of rational discussion and conversation. Not bad mouthing and trashing. Post your feelings and talk. Maybe we BOTH can learn something!!

Respectfully

Duane

Duane,

I believe that you may be jumping to conclusions about what I said. Nowhere did I say that killing hogs that are destroying a man’s livelihood was wrong or unethical. I said that we have a responsibility to kill as humanely as possible, and to me that applies even if we are only killing hogs that are destroying fields.

In addition, I take exception to your use of expletives when addressing me. I don’t believe it is necessary to degrade ourselves by resorting to expletives. I understand that you were upset, but please don’t swear at me. You yourself said that “this is supposed to be a place of rational discussion and conversation”, and to me swearing is not reminiscent of “rational discussion and conversation.” We may have differing opinions, but I am certain that we can be civil and cordial when addressing one another.

Jesse

Here in Tn. in my county, there is no season or limit on hogs our game warden said kill all that you can as fast as you can
I watched the show and thought the hunter made a good shot
Tell me if i am wrong but i think he hit the pig with the first shot then the pig ran, he missed with the second shot, then hit with the third shot
Ethics is in the eyes of the hunter, who ever it may be, or what ever the game may be
We all should try to make a one shot kill, but it just dont happen that way every time, if you hunt long enough you WILL make a bad shot, then is when the ethics comes in, it is up to you to do every thing possible to finish the animal.
I am with TCMan shoot all the pigs you can! you can bet your @$$ i am !

Definitions
(humane) With regard for the health and well-being of another; compassionate

(ethical) Of or relating to the accepted principles of right and wrong, especially those of some organization or profession. Morally approvable; good.

We are hunters. To be successful, at some time or another,we must kill, otherwise we are just, for lack of better words, "hikers". By definition you can't humanely "Kill", and If you precisly place a bullet, arrow, knife or shot into the vitals of an animal, that is ethical because, you killed the animal. Which is what you set out to do or you would not have shot at it....Just my 3 cents...I've always considered my self as an ethical hunter by abiding by all game laws and regulations...KRal

Wow!! I’m glad that this post has brought up so much discussion. Still let’s keep it civil. To start things off let me add a little more information. This hog was taken on a 1,500 acre hunting ranch that the hunter was driving around in a jeep on. The shot was taken about 60 feet from the jeep and this hog was probably the 50th one that they had seen that morning. So the shot wasn’t for meat, it was for a trophy. These hogs were destroying no one’s livelihood. I’m not as upset with the shot as I am with the comment. “He wasn’t gonna stop so I broke him down.” This hunter took a shot to purposely wound the animal and slow him down. I was taught that it is the responsibility of the hunter to make a kill as humane and quick as possible. The rifle choice also concerns me. A .308 will not get to the vitals of a 400lb pig shot in this manner, I know, I have 2 of them and use them as my primary big game guns. If Wapatirod’s 475 (nice gun by the way!!!) were the weapon of choice that pig would have been split from north to south on the first shot. I would have no problem with that. I love pig hunting, don’t get me wrong, CA is infested with em. And I understand the comment that “if you hunt long enough you will make a bad shot” but I hope this shot is not made intentionally to slow an animal down. I just looked at all the factors involved in this shot and to me it was an unethical decision. But ethics are an individual’s own, and IT IS THE RIGHT OF EVERYONE HERE TO HAVE A DIFFERENT SET OF ETHICS. Keep the discussion going I’m excited to see the different opinions.

Mcbain,

We both may be. That is the reason I said “(PLEASE) don’t COME ON, BULL *$^&, and bad mouth…”

That is actually taken from three different post, not just one.

The please is a very important word in that sentence, in fact I went back and added it because I wanted to make sure I wasn’t being hypocritical! I am VERY glad that this is a controversial and that hunters are adamant about his topic. I am sorry if I misunderstood you and there are no hard feelings on my part. This is what this forum is for!!!

Let's step back a minute here.........I'm guessing that most of you who are condemning the shot placement have never shot an animal there??? Arteries in that area ARE "vitals" and destroying them will result in a quick, humane death.......it isn't pretty, but it IS effective!

Say what you want, but I can guarantee you......if the buck of a lifetime is walking directly away from me towards heavy cover, you can bet the farm I'll "texas heart shoot" him in a New York minute.....and I won't apologize for doing so!!!

And, PLEASE, enough with the "I hunt for meat" nonsense.......if you can afford a computer, internet access, the toys we come here to discuss and the cost of actually going hunting, you can afford to BUY meat.......if you were REALLY only hunting for meat, you would be using the MOST effective weapon available to kill your game.......and a handgun of any type just isn't the most effective weapon available.......we hunt because we WANT too......and we handgun hunt for the added challenge.......both of which which take the "I hunt for meat" argument off the table!!

My family eats 3-4 deer every year.......we probably buy less than 20 pounds of beef a year.......so, yes we do use the meat, but we hunt because we love to hunt, not because we need to.........

The point I was making in my earlier post was that we have been taught to percieve humane as only a heart or lung shot but what I have heard here has no scientific or physiological backing to it. If you understand the anatomy and biology of an animal then you know that the only real pain free instantaneous death for an animal is a high "c" spine or brain shot but a shot to the hams that severs the femoral artery or the neck that takes out the jugular will bleed an animal out quickly. The same goes for the heart and liver, they will both bleed an animal out quickly but the liver doesn't always leave as much sign since the rear cavity behind the diaphragm is larger and will hold most of the body's blood. The lung shot is a very humane shot but if you look at the facts it is the least humane of the shots I just listed, now animals don't feel pain and fear the same as we do but think about which way you'd rather go, bleeding out to a point where you get tired, fall asleep and die or having your lungs fill with blood or collapse and die from suffocation. Everything that has been brought up is perception and not based on actual fact. I didn't see the shot on the pig or the polar bear so I can't say whether I think it was ethical or not and I stress the "I think" part because it's up to each hunter to decide. Like dirty Harry said a man has to know his limitations but you cannot condemn a shot just because it was not placed where we have been brainwashed to believe is the only true humane kill shot.

kRal,

By your own posts admission you are able to “humanely kill”. The very last word in the definition is compassionate, and I maintain that we can compassionately kill an animal that we are hunting. We can ensure, to the extent possible, that we kill the animal as quickly as possible, with as little suffering as possible. Like N.E.S said, “if you hunt long enough you WILL made a bad shot”, but I am talking about taking a shot (whether for the sake of culling, getting a trophy, or meat) that YOU know to be questionable.

I also can’t rely exclusively on game laws and regulations as a benchmark for calling myself an “ethical” hunter. They do not regulate every situation and every shot. In fact, what is ethical when hunting can depend largely on your own skill, equipment, lighting, etc. I find it great that you abide by all game laws and regulations, but that cannot be the only qualification in determining if someone is an ethical hunter. Just as obeying all laws of the land cannot accurately describe how ethical or moral someone is. I know of many activities that are perfectly legal that for moral reasons I will not participate in.

By the way, I am not picking on you; I am just enjoying the conversation!

When feral Hog become a nusence and are concitered varmut a man should just flat out blastum!!!!!If when hunting an a varmut is in site and you are hunting varmut shoot them annawhere you can to bring them down!!!!!Varmut are not good for you or for Hunlee!!!!!!!Feral hog,,,,,feral cat,,,,,,pasome,,,,,,ciayote,,,,,wolf,,,,,crow,,,,perry dog,,,,,,gofor and a few other are varmut and need to be blastud!!!!!!

hunlee

This is a very intersting conversation.

The statement "I hunt for meat" is not really nonsence for me. Yes when I'm out enjoying the sport of hunting and harvest an animal with a handgun the price per pound is higher than if I took that money and bought beef or pork. I'm hunting for meat that is not available in a store, so my shots are usually directed to the area of the animal with the least amount of meat damage and the quickest kill. So yes I hunt for meat. I also agree with Gonhuntin that if a trophy animal was standing directly away from me I would take a "texas heart shot" and I do live in NY so it would be in a NY minute.

But it would be directed at that area of vitals for a quick kill. If I was unsure I could hit the "texas heart" from animal movement or distance I would let the trophy walk.

To shoot at an animal with no regard for bullet placement just to hit in hopes of slowing it down is not right in my book. Call it ethics, humane or what ever, I try and shoot to kill, not slowdown or wound the animal.

If you decide not to purchase Ruger products because of the bad judgement call of a show that is sponsored by Ruger is up to you. I would sooner say that someone in the editing room should be slapped for leaving the footage in and especially the comment made by the filmed hunter excusing his poor marksmanship as "breaking down the animal".

you brought up a good point tig and just to clarify I'm not advocating hale mary shots but I am saying there is more than one point of aim on an animal and there are other places that will kill them otherwise when we blow it (and anyone on here that says they haven't is either a liar or hasn't been hunting very long) we'd never find an animal that wasn't hit in the heart and lungs.

didn't see the show.....



....but.... yeah.....what he said.

I agree wapitirod. Good shots can be made in several area's. My impression was that the shots were "hale mary".

If a hunter aims at a vital area (heart, lungs, spice, brain, large arteries etc.) and makes a bad shot that's one thing. Aiming to "brake an animal down" is another. To me if you aim at vitals and make a bad shot you did everything in your power and I consider that ethical. It sounds like to me that wasn't the case in this situation. Also, I stand by my previous statement that this practice should be used regardless of the species being pursued.

I agree. And if I make a bad shot I do everything in my power to track and retrieve the animal. Even if it's only a few drops of blood every now and then. I have only drawn blood on a deer once and not retrieved it. I was sick about it for a few days.

I have ate "tag soup" quite a few years, especially when hunting with traditional archery gear, usually due to the fact that I was holding out for a better shot. Everyone has to decide for themselves what is or is not an ethical shot. I passed on a big mulie buck standing broadside with my recurve last year because the shot didn't feel right. The distance turned out to be at 20 yards, which I can shoot tight groups at all day long. The shot didn't feel right though, so I tried to get closer and he blew out. For me, that was the right choice. I have passed up several close shots at elk too because I was holding out for a better shot angle. I have chased elk for many years with a stick and string and still have not taken one with a bow (yet).

I have lost a two big game animals while bowhunting due to poor shot placement. The biggest problem with both was that they were too close and I had too much time to think about the shot. One was at 4 yards the other about 8 yards. Practicing at 15, 20, 30 and 40 yards, I tend to shoot too high on shots that are under 10 yards.

On the other hand, I shot a bighorn ewe with my recurve that was on the run. Many people say a running shot is unethical, but everything felt right about the shot, so I took it. It was a good shot and she went down fast. I would rather hold out for a "perfect" shot, especially when bowhunting, than to have that sick feeling I got on the animals I lost. Like I said before, everyone has to decide for themselves what shots they will take or pass on.

Well said Gonhuntin.

A texas heart shot is a deadly shot. I've shot a coyote or two with this shot and they were D&D (down and dead). I've also seen a half dozen head of big game taken with this shot. The results were also D&D. Wounded animals that are jumped and running straight away..........a shot up the ole poop chute will dump them right now!

I personally don't like the shot because of the mess, but it is deadly

Unethical???????????? Not in my book.

Here is a quote by Aldo Leopold that captures the importance of ethics in hunting. Of course there were not any hunting shows on TV when it was written. This is from the book A Sand County Almanac.

"A peculiar virtue in wildlife ethics is that the hunter obviously has no gallery to applaud or disapprove of his conduct. Whatever his acts, they are dictated by his own conscious, rather than a mob of onlookers. It is difficult to exaggerate the importance of this fact. Voluntary adherence to an ethical code elevates the self-respect of the sportsman, but it should not be forgotten that voluntary disregard of the code degenerates and depraves him."

I guess I missed something here, like the show. It sounds to me (without seeing it of course) that this hunter took a shot and perhaps knowing that he was being taped thought that it was better to say something that would help himi save face than perhaps what I would have said (the things that I would have said I cannot repeat here) had it been me that made the shot.
For what it is worth I think that every man has his own set of ethics and they are going to differ from man to man. That is just the way that it is. I am not advocating that a poor shot or whatnot is okay, for me anyway, just that we all have a different point of view and there is little that we can do about it.
I have read the posts here and I think that all have something to say and that each's words have merit from where they stand. I know that if there is one thing that we can all agree is upon is the fact that we do not want to help to destroy the fabric of what we all enjoy so much by allowing an apparent scene like this to be on TV for those out there that want us to hang up our guns.
I think that most hunters have the desire to take an animal as cleanly as they can and when they make a mistake or bad luck comes calling (I know this from personal experience)they do what they can to rectify the situation as quickly as possible.
I can say that I am glad that I joined this forum and I hope that I in no way offended anyone with what I am writing here.

Okay I want to make this clear in my mind, we (you all) have said someone did a "Texas Heart Shot" on a boar, and that this was unethical, then someone else said that boar are mere vermin and take a persons livelyhood away by rooting, destroying property, and we should kill as many of them we can, someone else said we should be compassionate of these vermin and only kill humanely (?) not Kill "inhumanely?". Someone was then insulted and someone else apologized for being on the forum if he couldn't express himself as he sees fit...Why couldn't we ride trains thru Texas or where the boar are running rampant, destroying everything in there way, shoot randomly, but humanely slaughtering everone we see until there irradicated,,sorta like the buffalo..bet that would get on TV..SSG Retired

Yeah, I would say that about sums it up. There were a lot of different thoughts going on here all at once and some made some sense and others, well, not so much. All I was getting is that no matter what we do keep the damned media from seeing something that is going to hurt us hunters and I tried to say it in a polite way so as not to offend anyone. And yes, I think that what you suggested would definitely get us on TV as a whole!

Amen brother, as Mr. O Riley says, "The Spin" stops here..sometimes emotions take over clear thought..Nuff said?? SSG Retired

Well, I think it is great that we can discuss it here, Personally I dropped a nice 4x5 elk with a 7x57 Mauser with a Texas Heart shot that I felt comfortable taking. The very next year I passed on an elk during a Muzzle Loader only hunt where the only sho I had was the same shot. I knew the 7mm would do the job and I wasn't sure if I had the penetration with the M/L so I passed. I have also taken a shoulder shot on a few big game animals to "break them down" for the finishing shot and to keep them from leaving the private property I was hunting on.

Just depends on the circumstances and the shot that presents itself.

Bill in OR

I shot an antelope in the behind once, and it went down right away. Broke it's back and bled out very fast. So to say that the shot was unethical is incorrect, more like the guy was a poor shot.

Lars

So I call this post a success. Great discussion guys. I wrote the original post in a moment of emotion i guess. I agree that Ruger in itself probably doesn't condone wounding an animal and some video editor probably needs to be smacked. I do believe that a slug up the pooper is more than ethical in the right situation with the right gun. The leupold quote pretty much sums it up perfectly. Keep up the good work guys and lets all be safe and bring home a big one this year!!!

When feral Hog become a nusence and are concitered varmut a man should just flat out blastum!!!!!If when hunting an a varmut is in site and you are hunting varmut shoot them annawhere you can to bring them down!!!!!Varmut are not good for you or for Hunlee!!!!!!!Feral hog,,,,,feral cat,,,,,,pasome,,,,,,ciayote,,,,,wolf,,,,,crow,,,,perry dog,,,,,,gofor and a few other are varmut and need to be blastud!!!!!!

Uhhhhh,WHAT!

10drenkor you have the same opinion as Hunlee

See there the original writer now feels better, Ruger is again off the hook, and we have decided that "Texas Heart Shots" are okay, probably the "editor" needs a smack instead, and maybe boar aren't vermin..boy these forums are great eh, wonder if we could get Mr. Obama to join????hmmmmm oh well guys have a nice day and glad you all feel better..SSG Retired

I agree whole heartedly with mcbain and popeanyoung!!! If the man was gonna starve to death if he did not kill that pig then by all means do what you have too but this was not the case. Just because an animal is a nusiance does not mean that it deserve any less consideration or right to a clean humane harvest. Wheres the respect that all seem to claim they have? Its quite a sobering reminder of those in our ranks. Sometimes I cringe at even being associated with the hunting world.

TCMan you may be one of the more prolific and veteran contributors to this site but apparently that does not matter. I held you in higher regard beacause of your apparent experiece; I am glad that you dispelled that myth with your comment. I am apalled at your blatant lack of respect and disregard for life! What does it matter what kind of animal, large, small destructive or otherwise. Do they all not deserve the most clean humane harvest possible? See last two sentences from paragraph above...