Any one seen this? 700 yard coyote shot

Originally Posted By: AndrewS

So then you knew for a fact that this wasn't a mortal wound prior to reading that he walked up to it and shot it again? What was your indication?

I didn't say he was trying to save the meat/fur. I said that is one reason not to fire a second shot on a mortally wounded animal. Again, I see nothing from the 2 minutes of video after the shot that would indicate that the animal wasn't ready to expire in short order.

So you think you could have squeezed off a second round on a moving animal at 700 yards? Furthermore do you think you could tell if an animal isn't mortally wounded from a video camera with a 2" screen or your scope at that range when it is still sitting in the same spot your dropped it at?

Quote:So then you knew for a fact that this wasn't a mortal wound prior to reading that he walked up to it and shot it again? What was your indication?

How long would you watch an animal flop around, Before you do something?

Quote:I didn't say he was trying to save the meat/fur. I said that is one reason not to fire a second shot on a mortally wounded animal. Again, I see nothing from the 2 minutes of video after the shot that would indicate that the animal wasn't ready to expire in short order.

It was painfully obvious that the animal was NOT hit in the vitals.


Quote: So you think you could have squeezed off a second round on a moving animal at 700 yards? Furthermore do you think you could tell if an animal isn't mortally wounded from a video camera with a 2" screen or your scope at that range when it is still sitting in the same spot your dropped it at?

Yes I would have taken the shot. If you can see through the scope to shoot. Than you can see through the scope and tell if the animal is dead or floping around.
If your position is that the animal is moving too much for a second shot. Than why take the first shot. The animal was moving then. The first shot hit the spine, How much could it move?
 
Originally Posted By: Timberbeast7Quote:if its in the vitals the deer will die within minutes.

That's exactly my point!

Than you have no point. You have hijacked this thread, and are all over the place. This thread is not about bowhunting. The coyote in the video was NOT hit in the vitals. My comments were about ethics, compassion for one of Gods creatures, and human decency. Something I'm not sure you understand.
 
Originally Posted By: P SideOriginally Posted By: Timberbeast7Quote:if its in the vitals the deer will die within minutes.

That's exactly my point!

Than you have no point. You have hijacked this thread, and are all over the place. This thread is not about bowhunting. The coyote in the video was NOT hit in the vitals. My comments were about ethics, compassion for one of Gods creatures, and human decency. Something I'm not sure you understand.

Actually, you hijacked the thread trying to impose YOUR ethics on other people. The OP was about a 700 yd shot on a coyote, not about your ethics on follow-up shots or long range hunting, or about how this guy is a "shooter", not a "hunter" because he shoots animals farther than XXX yds away. And of course the thread isn't about bowhunting. I am trying to highlight peoples selective outrage...watching a coyote die is no different than a bowhunter watching his prey die (or what about trapping?). I have been very consistent (and not only in this thread) about hunters tearing down other hunters trying to appease the anti's. To the anti's ANY hunting is deplorable, and I'm sure they would ask you how killing any of God's creatures is showing them compassion (no matter how swiftly death comes). When one hunter starts eroding the rights of another, his own rights will be taken away sooner or later as well (note: nothing illegal was perpetrated in the video). I'll reiterate my point for you...To each (hunter) his own. Tell the anti's to p*ss off and be proud you are a coyote (or whatever animal) killer.

And for the record, I have nothing against bowhunting, trapping, or whatever you want to do. And for the record, in my initial post I said he needed to finish off the animal...AND HE DID! Any hunter that has killed more than a handful of animals knows that death does not always come softly...the animal initially appeared to be in it's death throes.

And, I have not attacked you personally...I would expect the same in return.
 
Originally Posted By: jcs271
If he is such a great shot he should have been able to do a quick "double tap" and be done. Then I MIGHT have been impressed. Instead he made an incredibly long shot that hit the animal in the rear end and anchored it, then while it crawled/flopped around in the middle of the road (for several minutes) he was out in front of the camera telling everyone what a great shot he is. Later in his post he said that he walked out there and finished it with his pistol. Wonder how long it took to walk out there?

If you don't have any respect for the animal then I have NO respect for you.

Morons posting crap like this on YOU TUBE aren't doing our sport any favors at all!

What an idiot!

hello, thank you very much. You wanna kill something then by all means but don't let it flop around whiel you try to brag. He should have taken an immediate second shot.
 
Originally Posted By: AndrewSI don't know where you got the idea that I thought you should apologize for wanting to finish off a wounded animal. I plainly state you should do whatever makes you comfortable.

You say you don't expect everyone to agree with you but your statements here certainly imply otherwise.

Up until now I have tried to keep my personal opinion of the video to myself and just comment on the responses here but I see nothing wrong with what he did. Leaving a disabled animal be is fairly common practice. It allows the animal to expire in peace. Approaching it immediately can spook them enough to get up and run never to be found again. A second shot just damages more fur/meat if it is just going to die in a few seconds.

It was an excellent shot at that range but you have to remember that it was on a still target. Even if he wanted to put another round into him shooting at a flopping animal at that range would be futile. Flopping isn't a sign that the animal wasn't mortally wounded either. I have shot enough critters to come to realize that no matter how good of a shot you make the only way to constantly deliver a mortal wound that completely disables them immediately is a spine shot. Heart, lung, and liver shots just don't do it every time. Even head shots can give you the headless chicken effect. I have seen it multiple times now on rabbits that have had their head blown off.

You have to remember that coyotes are nothing but pests to a lot of people too. You might respect them and call the killing of them a harvest and name them your quarry but to some they are just a dead varmint. They don't shoot at them out of some great nobility. They do it to remove a pest. Shooting one is like swatting a fly. A wounded varmint is still better than a healthy varmint if you take away its ability to do you perceived harm.


how in the heck do you know whether or not he made an excellent shot. The video doesn't show the spot of impact. He could have hit it in the spine and then it could have laid there for days suffering before it bled to death or died from starvation. Whether you consider it a pest or not it deserves a quick and clean kill. And thinking otherwise shows a lack of ethics and bad moral judgement.
Yes i agree that any type of hunting video on the net is ammo for the anti's but why post it flopping around? thats just bad judgement on the hunters part. When you see a show on the outdoor channel they don't show a bowhunter taking a shot and the pan to the animal flopping around on the ground. Why, cause it would cause alot more of a headache than its worth. We as hunters know what happens after the shot so we can use our imaginations.
 
Quote:Actually, you hijacked the thread trying to impose YOUR ethics on other people.
No I watched this thread for 2 days, while you were on your soapbox before jumping back in. This forum is for an exchange of ideas. All my comments were directed at the video. You are the one that has been on bowhunting and trapping.

Quote: The OP was about a 700 yd shot on a coyote

That's right and I said I wasn't impressed.

Quote: I have been very consistent (and not only in this thread) about hunters tearing down other hunters trying to appease the anti's.

This is where you are wrong. If we don't police ourselves, someone will do it for us.

Quote: And for the record, in my initial post I said he needed to finish off the animal...AND HE DID!

After he steped in front of the camera to say how good he is, collected all his gear walked almost 1/2 mile to shoot the animal. all of which probably took 25 minutes. When a second shot could have ended it with in seconds. But that would have ruined his photo op. That is the only thing I have taken exception to. You seem to want to defend this.

Quote:I have not attacked you personally...I would expect the same in return.

I have attacked no one. All I have said is that you don't understand my position. When you delete a post and call it a double post. When your nearest post is 28 minutes away, I doubt you had anything good or worthwhile to say. So who was attacking who. I'm done with this thread.
 
Originally Posted By: P SideOriginally Posted By: AndrewS

So then you knew for a fact that this wasn't a mortal wound prior to reading that he walked up to it and shot it again? What was your indication?

I didn't say he was trying to save the meat/fur. I said that is one reason not to fire a second shot on a mortally wounded animal. Again, I see nothing from the 2 minutes of video after the shot that would indicate that the animal wasn't ready to expire in short order.

So you think you could have squeezed off a second round on a moving animal at 700 yards? Furthermore do you think you could tell if an animal isn't mortally wounded from a video camera with a 2" screen or your scope at that range when it is still sitting in the same spot your dropped it at?

Quote:So then you knew for a fact that this wasn't a mortal wound prior to reading that he walked up to it and shot it again? What was your indication?

How long would you watch an animal flop around, Before you do something?

Quote:I didn't say he was trying to save the meat/fur. I said that is one reason not to fire a second shot on a mortally wounded animal. Again, I see nothing from the 2 minutes of video after the shot that would indicate that the animal wasn't ready to expire in short order.

It was painfully obvious that the animal was NOT hit in the vitals.


Quote: So you think you could have squeezed off a second round on a moving animal at 700 yards? Furthermore do you think you could tell if an animal isn't mortally wounded from a video camera with a 2" screen or your scope at that range when it is still sitting in the same spot your dropped it at?

Yes I would have taken the shot. If you can see through the scope to shoot. Than you can see through the scope and tell if the animal is dead or floping around.
If your position is that the animal is moving too much for a second shot. Than why take the first shot. The animal was moving then. The first shot hit the spine, How much could it move?


If I thought it was a good shot I would have given it a couple of minutes just like you see in the video. Taking the time to narrate the shot on video is an acceptable way to pass that time in my opinion. I would then proceed toward the animal with rifle in hand until it became apparent that the shot wasn't as good as I thought. I would make a second shot after making my way to a reasonable range to do so.

If it was so painfully obvious that it wasn't a mortal wound why can't you provide why you think so?

The animal was not moving during the first shot. Shooting at a moving target at 700 yards is a waste of ammunition.
 
Originally Posted By: OptimaAndyOriginally Posted By: AndrewSI don't know where you got the idea that I thought you should apologize for wanting to finish off a wounded animal. I plainly state you should do whatever makes you comfortable.

You say you don't expect everyone to agree with you but your statements here certainly imply otherwise.

Up until now I have tried to keep my personal opinion of the video to myself and just comment on the responses here but I see nothing wrong with what he did. Leaving a disabled animal be is fairly common practice. It allows the animal to expire in peace. Approaching it immediately can spook them enough to get up and run never to be found again. A second shot just damages more fur/meat if it is just going to die in a few seconds.

It was an excellent shot at that range but you have to remember that it was on a still target. Even if he wanted to put another round into him shooting at a flopping animal at that range would be futile. Flopping isn't a sign that the animal wasn't mortally wounded either. I have shot enough critters to come to realize that no matter how good of a shot you make the only way to constantly deliver a mortal wound that completely disables them immediately is a spine shot. Heart, lung, and liver shots just don't do it every time. Even head shots can give you the headless chicken effect. I have seen it multiple times now on rabbits that have had their head blown off.

You have to remember that coyotes are nothing but pests to a lot of people too. You might respect them and call the killing of them a harvest and name them your quarry but to some they are just a dead varmint. They don't shoot at them out of some great nobility. They do it to remove a pest. Shooting one is like swatting a fly. A wounded varmint is still better than a healthy varmint if you take away its ability to do you perceived harm.


how in the heck do you know whether or not he made an excellent shot. The video doesn't show the spot of impact. He could have hit it in the spine and then it could have laid there for days suffering before it bled to death or died from starvation. Whether you consider it a pest or not it deserves a quick and clean kill. And thinking otherwise shows a lack of ethics and bad moral judgement.
Yes i agree that any type of hunting video on the net is ammo for the anti's but why post it flopping around? thats just bad judgement on the hunters part. When you see a show on the outdoor channel they don't show a bowhunter taking a shot and the pan to the animal flopping around on the ground. Why, cause it would cause alot more of a headache than its worth. We as hunters know what happens after the shot so we can use our imaginations.

I don't know that his shot placement was excellent. Never said it was. Just getting a hit at that range is excellent shooting and that is all I intended to convey.

Not a lack of ethics or bad morals. Just different ethics and morals. When a rancher shoots a coyote with his 22 to protect his livestock and the yote runs off injured it is still considered a successful shot no matter how much the animal suffers. He protected his cattle and that yote probably won't be back. I see absolutely nothing wrong with this. When applying that same principal here to a hunter shooting at a pest coyote that is running deer again I have no problem with such a shot. We might see coyotes as a prize trophy for a hard days work but to some they are just pests that should be put down by any and all means. I choose to recognize that fact and reserve judgment.
 
Quote:My comments were about ethics, compassion for one of Gods creatures, and human decency. Something I'm not sure you understand.

^^^This doesn't sound much like a compliment...

Quote:I have attacked no one. All I have said is that you don't understand my position. When you delete a post and call it a double post. When your nearest post is 28 minutes away, I doubt you had anything good or worthwhile to say. So who was attacking who. I'm done with this thread.

RFLMAO! You think I made some kind of attack on you then lost my nerve and deleted it! I accidentally hit the "submit" button instead of the "preview" button before I had completed my post, so I deleted it and re-typed my post, LOL! A bit paranoid are we?

Your entire argument is based on how YOU feel, and how YOU think, and YOUR ethics. Sorry, but not everybody should be held to what YOU think.
 
Quote:Your entire argument is based on how YOU feel, and how YOU think, and YOUR ethics. Sorry, but not everybody should be held to what YOU think.


You're funny. All I did is state MY opinion. Your problem is, I don't agree with YOU. You have been saying what ever you could to change others opinions. If you look back through this thread, it is pretty evenly split. You better yell a little louder. Don't give up your day job. You still don't understand my opinion
 
Originally Posted By: AndrewSOriginally Posted By: OptimaAndyOriginally Posted By: AndrewSI don't know where you got the idea that I thought you should apologize for wanting to finish off a wounded animal. I plainly state you should do whatever makes you comfortable.

You say you don't expect everyone to agree with you but your statements here certainly imply otherwise.

Up until now I have tried to keep my personal opinion of the video to myself and just comment on the responses here but I see nothing wrong with what he did. Leaving a disabled animal be is fairly common practice. It allows the animal to expire in peace. Approaching it immediately can spook them enough to get up and run never to be found again. A second shot just damages more fur/meat if it is just going to die in a few seconds.

It was an excellent shot at that range but you have to remember that it was on a still target. Even if he wanted to put another round into him shooting at a flopping animal at that range would be futile. Flopping isn't a sign that the animal wasn't mortally wounded either. I have shot enough critters to come to realize that no matter how good of a shot you make the only way to constantly deliver a mortal wound that completely disables them immediately is a spine shot. Heart, lung, and liver shots just don't do it every time. Even head shots can give you the headless chicken effect. I have seen it multiple times now on rabbits that have had their head blown off.

You have to remember that coyotes are nothing but pests to a lot of people too. You might respect them and call the killing of them a harvest and name them your quarry but to some they are just a dead varmint. They don't shoot at them out of some great nobility. They do it to remove a pest. Shooting one is like swatting a fly. A wounded varmint is still better than a healthy varmint if you take away its ability to do you perceived harm.


how in the heck do you know whether or not he made an excellent shot. The video doesn't show the spot of impact. He could have hit it in the spine and then it could have laid there for days suffering before it bled to death or died from starvation. Whether you consider it a pest or not it deserves a quick and clean kill. And thinking otherwise shows a lack of ethics and bad moral judgement.
Yes i agree that any type of hunting video on the net is ammo for the anti's but why post it flopping around? thats just bad judgement on the hunters part. When you see a show on the outdoor channel they don't show a bowhunter taking a shot and the pan to the animal flopping around on the ground. Why, cause it would cause alot more of a headache than its worth. We as hunters know what happens after the shot so we can use our imaginations.

I don't know that his shot placement was excellent. Never said it was. Just getting a hit at that range is excellent shooting and that is all I intended to convey.

Not a lack of ethics or bad morals. Just different ethics and morals. When a rancher shoots a coyote with his 22 to protect his livestock and the yote runs off injured it is still considered a successful shot no matter how much the animal suffers. He protected his cattle and that yote probably won't be back. I see absolutely nothing wrong with this. When applying that same principal here to a hunter shooting at a pest coyote that is running deer again I have no problem with such a shot. We might see coyotes as a prize trophy for a hard days work but to some they are just pests that should be put down by any and all means. I choose to recognize that fact and reserve judgment.

yah you did say he made an excellent shot and no getting a "hit" at that distance in NOT making an excellent shot. Getting a quick, clean lethal shot at that disance would be an excellent shot though. His shot was neither quick, clean or immediately lethal.
 
Originally Posted By: P Side Quote:Your entire argument is based on how YOU feel, and how YOU think, and YOUR ethics. Sorry, but not everybody should be held to what YOU think.


You're funny. All I did is state MY opinion. Your problem is, I don't agree with YOU. You have been saying what ever you could to change others opinions. If you look back through this thread, it is pretty evenly split. You better yell a little louder. Don't give up your day job. You still don't understand my opinion

You must just like to argue. Only my last couple posts have been in response to you; why you were so offended by my initial posts I don't know. My initial posts were intended for the folks who call long range hunters "shooters, not hunters" or call someone "unethical" or "immoral" as these are subjective ideas. My point is, and has been, that I support the right of a hunter to hunt and kill as he sees fit as long as he does not go out of his way to torture or be inhumane. I have rationalized this by relating it to bowhunting and trapping and the different ways animals are allowed to die (all of which I'm OK with).

I could really care less about you agreeing with me or changing your mind, I'm not trying to. I just don't like seeing hunters tear apart other hunters (who are hunting legally) because they don't conform to their ethics or morals on what "hunting" really is. Because in actuality, this is what the anti's feed on.
 
Quote: You must just like to argue.

No not at all. I said I was done with this thread a while ago. I was just testing a theory, That you just have to have the last word.
ohmy.gif
 
Originally Posted By: P Side Quote: You must just like to argue.

No not at all. I said I was done with this thread a while ago. I was just testing a theory, That you just have to have the last word.
ohmy.gif


So you are admittedly trolling...huh. Oops, there I go with the last word again. LOL!
 
Back
Top