View Single Post
Old October 12, 2012, 11:37 AM   #21
Double Naught Spy
Senior Member
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague Cnty, TX
Posts: 11,551
I fail to see how mis-judging the size has much to do with the fact that she was hit lengthwise instead of quartering or broadside as is taught in hunter's ed text books.
You both made a mistakes. You misjudged size, made a bad shot yourself, and didn't even known the animal was massively injured and the other hunter misjudged the shot. As for the hunter's ed textbook, that is something you failed to mention previously, but glad you did. The hunter's ed textbook offers suggestions only. There is absolutely nothing wrong with shooting a deer straight-on. Also, in Idaho, a hunter born before 1975 doesn't have to take the hunter's ed course for a regular hunting license. So who says he had the course? I realize you are defaulting to a higher authority here, but it is an authority that may not even apply.

Also, the hunter could have gotten hunter ed elsewhere and other places do advocate head-on chest shots even if Idaho doesn't (and I don't know if Idaho does or not).

that should also fall under the previous shooters responsibility as the 4th rule of firearms safety is to be sure of your target and everything beyond. if you have a deer standing directly behind the one you intend to shoot then you need to wait for one of them to move. anyone that has ever hunted knows that there is always a chance of a through and through, that is just common sense talking.
I understand, but you were ranting that the hunter failed to track the deer known to be shot. After all, nobody randomly just tracks deer unshot, right?. Of course, you have no real knowledge of whether s/he did or not. You just upset that you misjudged a deer yourself that you shot that turned out to be undersized, destroyed a lot of meat, and then learned more of its meat was ruined by a previous hit. You seemed to have thought that just because it could have been tracked that it would have been found and that simply is an unrealistic assumption as noted by the examples provided here. However, it is possible that it was unintentionally hit. Yes, that should not happen, but if the hunter didn't know the animal to be hit, s/he isn't going to track it, are they?

Your rant was all based on the notion that the hunter didn't do due diligence and try to track the deer and you don't know if that is factual or not, bottom line.
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher." -- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011
My Hunting Videos
Double Naught Spy is offline  
Page generated in 0.03469 seconds with 7 queries