Neck shooting

[Swarovski1]

Personally I don't like neck shots,I prefer headshots

[brown dog]

Personally I don't like neck shots,I prefer headshots

 

Is that a 'waaa'?

[londonhunter]

If I may contribute

 

I have been invited to cull on game farms in Africa

The facts are quite straight forward

Most game farms wants meat and its an AUTOMATED process

If they have carcasses coming in with different placement it will only result in slowing the line down

The ones I was invited cull somewhere between 100-150 heads a day

One can shoot more but there is limited fridge storage space

They go out to Saudi almost within a few hours of processing

Owners don't want down time or problems with carcasses

Bottom line is it cost the owner cash

Professional outfitters ask to quote for these culls so again its down to finance the least outlay the more money in the pocket

Guys I have shot with uses 222 223 and nothing else

Anything else either cost too much (they don't have time to do reload ) or too messy

During harvesting seasons there outfitters will work literally seven days a week - you can do the maths yourself

The seasons last 6 weeks and they hope from farm to farm

Bottom line is these guys neck shot and nothing else

Any damage carcasses they have to pay the owner by weight

So there you are

Perhaps this gives another perspective to neck shots

Usually these operations do not allow paying guest

Cull hunts that gets advertised outside Africa are nowhere near these commercial operations

 

 

 

 

[brown dog]

If I may contribute I have been invited to cull on game farms in Africa The facts are quite straight forward Most game farms wants meat and its an AUTOMATED process If they have carcasses coming in with different placement it will only result in slowing the line down The ones I was invited cull somewhere between 100-150 heads a day One can shoot more but there is limited fridge storage space They go out to Saudi almost within a few hours of processing Owners don't want down time or problems with carcasses Bottom line is it cost the owner cash Professional outfitters ask to quote for these culls so again its down to finance the least outlay the more money in the pocket Guys I have shot with uses 222 223 and nothing else Anything else either cost too much (they don't have time to do reload ) or too messy During harvesting seasons there outfitters will work literally seven days a week - you can do the maths yourself The seasons last 6 weeks and they hope from farm to farm Bottom line is these guys neck shot and nothing else Any damage carcasses they have to pay the owner by weight So there you are Perhaps this gives another perspective to neck shots Usually these operations do not allow paying guest Cull hunts that gets advertised outside Africa are nowhere near these commercial operations

 

That's interesting, but not really relevant is it? Brassing deer-size animals up with a 5.56; presumably from vehicles, doesn't read across to UK stalking.

There are many things that go on in Africa that I don't agree with; they have different values.

Of course, if you don't agree, ask for a show of hands on that in Rwanda, or Sierra Leone....

 

It's a massive understatement to say that I suspect animal welfare isn't considered for even a moment in the situations you describe.

[londonhunter]

Yup ignore my posting if not relevant

 

The point I was making is that neck shots are made because of carcass damage

 

You make a body shot you pay for meat damage

 

Simple as that

[Missed]

Londonhunter I agree. I too have been involved in culling, both here in the UK and elsewhere. Stalking it definitely is not; professional management yes. Shooting needs to be of the highest standard, not least because a wounded animal is time and money. Also, a quick kill results in better quality meat and so in that regard animal welfare by default is looked after.

 

Edit to add: Regarding the difference in animal welfare, I have to say some of the organisation during culls I have witnessed in this Country has been more like Africa that African organisation!

[sonic]

<p> </p>
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="brown dog" data-cid="151952" data-time="1366300339">
<p> </p>
<p>Doesn't surprise me at all, as I said earlier that's what I was taught, through and through chest is the 'butcher's shot; no damage of useable meat.</p>
</blockquote>
BD from rereading your posts I get the impression you don't and wouldn't neck shoot. In an ideal world the above square on shot gives a clean kill bleeds the animal and damages little meat. But how often do we have that shot, often it's not ideal but we accept some meat damage to a shoulder perhaps.
I agree that you may be more clinical if culling professionally but that does not go hand in hand with not caring.

Should everyone neck shoot no not unless they are a real world good shot landie bonnet fence sticks free standing. And they are sure it's the best shot for a clean kill at the time.

I understand you have strong feelings on the subject and I respect your reason given earlier about culling.

But that does not mean its wrong to neck shoot or cull groups.

the realities of culling as opposed to stalking are that numbers must be met, time is precious as there is usually a deadline to meet. Time spent following up wounded deer is time lost, why would you take risky shots. Most of these guys are on piece rate or are buying the deer for the meat. A clean humane kill results in the best carcase quality. the better the venison the better the profit. A poor shot is not going to last long before they go bust.

[kent]

Can I just say, I have been there and done that and a lot of so called "professional" cullers don't shoot too good! High neck is a mobile target and not always doable, sometimes a broadside heart shot aint going to happen either. Culling to meet a target you need to take the chances as they present themselves if there is a deer walking slowly away from you down a ride, stopping every now and again for a brose or to scent the air it aint ever going to get a broadside heart shot is it now! Whenever this sort of discussion comes up "accurate shooting" is spoken about, that's total irrelevant BS placement within 1" at 100yds is often far more than just adequate for the job at hand and that aint exactly stunning! Movement of the quarry from the moment that sear trips is very much more relevant, any stalker who has shot more than the odd deer will have had a well placed shot go bad from an accurate rifle because the target moved unexpectedly during release of the trigger. There are of course many different categories of professional, ultimately it just means "got paid". Now as for meat wastage, if you trim correctly to allow for bullet fragment contamination the nice square heart shot is by far the best out of the two. Dropping quickly should only be an issue for recovery location not finding as bodged high neck and head have the lowest successful find rates with dogs, chest the highest

[sonic]

The definition of professional I meant was (copied from OED)

That has or displays the skill, knowledge, experience, standards, or expertise of a professional; competent, efficient.

not the muppet who claims to be.

we could go round in circles with this but I think we can agree that our quarry deserves respect a clean humane kill. And for that respect to be shown all the way to the table. It can and does go wrong even with the best intentions it what we do when it does that marks the man as they say.

[Crosshair]

I tend to head shoot whenever possible. Especially Fallow. No mess, no tracking, no coup de grace. Just downright dead!

If they're moving their heads around, just get ready and give a quiet whistle. Almost certainly the deer will look your way and freeze.

That's your cue

 

Never been a big fan of lower neck shots.

[gbal]

I tend to head shoot whenever possible. Especially Fallow. No mess, no tracking, no coup de grace. Just downright dead!

If they're moving their heads around, just get ready and give a quiet whistle. Almost certainly the deer will look your way and freeze.

That's your cue

 

Never been a big fan of lower neck shots.

 

Is not one of the points being made that your list of outcomes has one omission- " no lower jaw " ,which is simply not compatible with the others on you list,nor is an acceptable risk for many?

 

Gbal

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[DaveT]

I have read all of the arguements for head / neck shots and leave it to others to hunt as they will but I will pass up a shot if I cannot get a boiler-room angle ..... I just don't believe that I need a deer that much and would hate myself if I shot an animal badly..

[Crosshair]

Is not one of the points being made that your list of outcomes has one omission- " no lower jaw " ,which is simply not compatible with the others on you list,nor is an acceptable risk for many?

 

Gbal

 

I'm not going to say its never happened to anyone but in my experience, at sensible ranges, it just doesn't happen.

I'm not saying you should head shoot one or that anyone else should - I'm just saying that I've never seen an ineffective head shot.

In fact, out of many thousands of deer over many estates where I've worked, the only reference to a bodged head shot involved a now ex-gamekeeper and his exploits with a .22 rimfire and that unfortunate doe was immediately killed with the second shot from his semi-auto and he's now unemployed!

 

I have however spent many hours of my time chasing up poorly shot deer from gut and bungled chest shots by our stalking syndicate and various employers.

Take a recent trip to Warwickshire. My friend and I shot 12 fallow and 1 Roe. All were head shot and none needed even so much as finishing off. The one deer that our other friend shot in the chest needed a follow up shot as it spun 180degrees and was heading for a boundary. It still needed finishing off when we got there and that was two good engine room shots.

 

It helps that I'm not bothered about shooting them- no buck-fever, just a cold, calm dispassionate shot.

 

The fact that much lowland stalking is now out of the hands of professionals and in the hands of hobby stalkers is also part if the reason for the current deer-explosion.

Killing large game is a messy job no matter how you dress it up. Yes there is a risk but also accept that a chest shot carries risk also.

 

Respect for our quarry is paramount to me and the quicker I can put my hand on it, the better.

 

 

 

 

 

[gbal]

I'm not going to say its never happened to anyone but in my experience, at sensible ranges, it just doesn't happen.

I'm not saying you should head shoot one or that anyone else should - I'm just saying that I've never seen an ineffective head shot.

In fact, out of many thousands of deer over many estates where I've worked, the only reference to a bodged head shot involved a now ex-gamekeeper and his exploits with a .22 rimfire and that unfortunate doe was immediately killed with the second shot from his semi-auto and he's now unemployed!

 

I have however spent many hours of my time chasing up poorly shot deer from gut and bungled chest shots by our stalking syndicate and various employers.

Take a recent trip to Warwickshire. My friend and I shot 12 fallow and 1 Roe. All were head shot and none needed even so much as finishing off. The one deer that our other friend shot in the chest needed a follow up shot as it spun 180degrees and was heading for a boundary. It still needed finishing off when we got there and that was two good engine room shots.

 

It helps that I'm not bothered about shooting them- no buck-fever, just a cold, calm dispassionate shot.

 

The fact that much lowland stalking is now out of the hands of professionals and in the hands of hobby stalkers is also part if the reason for the current deer-explosion.

Killing large game is a messy job no matter how you dress it up. Yes there is a risk but also accept that a chest shot carries risk also.

 

 

 

 

That is quite clearly expressed,Crosshair.We just don't have good data on "botched shots",and even more crucially related to the shooters' skill level -strictly,on the shot in question.

For the non expert the conventional heart / lung shot clearly has more leeway for placement error,for the unerring excellent shot,the brain shot will ensure a drop on the spot.For small scale stalking,meat damage reduction is hard to justify ethically

There is no zero risk option,never is.

Gbal

 

Gbal

 

[kent]

We do have data from Scandinavia about botched head neck and other shots on deer. Head and high neck rate very badly in recovery rates when it goes wrong, registered tracking dogs and their handlers had to collate this info. Time of flight is an often ignored area in shooting live quarry, nobody can as we know call back a bullet once that sear is tripped- the upper neck and more so the smaller brain target are highly mobile and can move a fair distance in a very short period of time, it don't matter how settled you are the deer must be settled more.

The increase in deer has little to do with armature or professional control of their numbers ( via skill levels) it has far more to do with money, a paid stalker acting as a numbers limiter costs a fair amount of wages yet conversely a syndicate or pay for the day letting raises a fair bit of revenue. Fact has been proved many times that a large bunch of unpaid amateur stalkers can clear a large section of excessive numbers of deer from land real quick if you let them over stalk it and until numbers really dwindle they will pay to do it. Thing is many owners soon catch on to £150-£250 a day for a longer / indefinite period being economically more viable than hard culling

[Crosshair]

Yes, that's the trouble. Since stalking has become more popular and more accessible, more and more land has been taken out of gamekeepers hands and into those of hobby-stalkers. As we know, a reduction in females is where you really get to grips with a population and amature stalkers just don't put in the hours.

I'm out on my shoot day in day out and yet I'm always amazed at the numbers of Muntjac we bottle-up in the flushing point on a shoot day.

My boss retains full responsibility for our deer population and yet when he's out 'stalking' he never seems to have much luck. If he just sat still in a high seat, he'd kill five times as many deer. When I put this to him, his exact words were 'I use my stalking time to unwind from a week in London- the last thing I want to do is sit still!'

Still, he pays my wages so what can I do?

 

Back to head shots, like I say, I'm not advocating they become best practice for 'I've just passed my dsc level 1' stalkers however if you've got a good rest and a chance to fix the deer's attention, then it should be part of every experienced stalkers repatoir.

I just hate the holier-than-though attitude of many people who object to them. At the end of the day, you are putting a bullet into a living creature- you and only you need to be sure of your equipment, your skill level, the wind, the situation, the backstop and the implications if it goes wrong- wherever you aim. I know, if that day ever comes where a head shot goes wrong, then I've got a better than average chance of getting another round into it before it gets too far- I don't use head shots as an excuse for shooting poorly placed deer.

I'm also not saying always head shoot. If its got a nice head or its past 150 yards or my rest isn't very good or if its a browsing roe that will not keep still or if I'm not quite feeling my best then i'll also happily chest shoot them.

 

 

 

 

[sonic]

I have to agree with Kent there are many botched head neck shots. My mate used to work for Peter Boddy who accounts for to the best of my knowledge 10000 deer plus a year.

Over the years I have been told many horror stories of botched shots by poachers guests etc that they were called to deal with.

A particularly memorable one a red stag had been shot by poachers its bottom jaw hanging off, he had been running round for a week before they called Bod nobody had been able to get closer than 3 or 400 yds. It was eventually shot at a paced 500 yds.

[kent]

Yes, that's the trouble. Since stalking has become more popular and more accessible, more and more land has been taken out of gamekeepers hands and into those of hobby-stalkers. As we know, a reduction in females is where you really get to grips with a population and amature stalkers just don't put in the hours. I'm out on my shoot day in day out and yet I'm always amazed at the numbers of Muntjac we bottle-up in the flushing point on a shoot day. My boss retains full responsibility for our deer population and yet when he's out 'stalking' he never seems to have much luck. If he just sat still in a high seat, he'd kill five times as many deer. When I put this to him, his exact words were 'I use my stalking time to unwind from a week in London- the last thing I want to do is sit still!' Still, he pays my wages so what can I do? Back to head shots, like I say, I'm not advocating they become best practice for 'I've just passed my dsc level 1' stalkers however if you've got a good rest and a chance to fix the deer's attention, then it should be part of every experienced stalkers repatoir. I just hate the holier-than-though attitude of many people who object to them. At the end of the day, you are putting a bullet into a living creature- you and only you need to be sure of your equipment, your skill level, the wind, the situation, the backstop and the implications if it goes wrong- wherever you aim. I know, if that day ever comes where a head shot goes wrong, then I've got a better than average chance of getting another round into it before it gets too far- I don't use head shots as an excuse for shooting poorly placed deer. I'm also not saying always head shoot. If its got a nice head or its past 150 yards or my rest isn't very good or if its a browsing roe that will not keep still or if I'm not quite feeling my best then i'll also happily chest shoot them.

One point I disagree with while 1 lone wealthy armature might not put in the hours, most syndicates and deer groups put in way more time per acre. Hording stalking rights will eventually lead to a legislation change as the situation stands - maybe for the worse, perhaps for the better?