2006 British Columbia Moose Hunt (why I work out)

bio_fit

I've always wanted to go hunting - though maybe I'd start on rabbit or something first! :laugh:

Just one question though - why did you shoot both of them? If the big bulls are so scarce it took you so long to find them, surely it makes sense to leave one there? Not being aggressive about it (i know it might read that way), just curious.

bio_fit

That is what is Gross, ma'am. Not a hunter making a clean kill then utilizing the bounty that he worked for personally to the greatest extent possible.

Again, I'm not against hunting, but what is the definition of a 'clean' kill? the other part of the story that was a bit unsavory to me was the amount of time they took to die. I guess I always assumed a 'clean' kill was a quick death?

Ruger2506

I've always wanted to go hunting - though maybe I'd start on rabbit or something first! :laugh:

Just one question though - why did you shoot both of them? If the big bulls are so scarce it took you so long to find them, surely it makes sense to leave one there? Not being aggressive about it (i know it might read that way), just curious.

Sophie, both my dad and I had tags for mature trophy bulls and we both wanted to fill those tags. It's not the bulls were scarce. It's that true trophy bulls are smart and know how to avoid humans. To find one and beat them at their own game is an extreme challenge. That is why we took both bulls. Because the opportunity presented itself. There are a lot of trophy bulls of many species that come out of this lodge every year. We didn't shoot an endangered species.

No harm in your question. I have no problem answering questions like that. That's part of being an ethical hunter. Sharing the experience and willing to help others understand.

Ruger2506

That is what is Gross, ma'am. Not a hunter making a clean kill then utilizing the bounty that he worked for personally to the greatest extent possible.

Again, I'm not against hunting, but what is the definition of a 'clean' kill? the other part of the story that was a bit unsavory to me was the amount of time they took to die. I guess I always assumed a 'clean' kill was a quick death?

The shots were perfectly ethical and well placed. They were as clean as possible. Moose, Grizzly Bear and Elk are extremely tough animals. Shooting them in the chest hitting the heart and lungs is the most ethical shot a person can make for a "clean kill". Head and neck shots are not recommended at all.

Usually it is a very quick death. Deer (whitetail, Mule, Fallow) , Antelope, Tahr, Mountain Goat, Caribou, etc all expire rather quickly when hit in the chest area (vitals).

bio_fit

Thank you very much for your replies I now understand on both counts. Not being a hunter myself I just assumed that you would shoot them in the brain :embarassed: Thanks!

Ruger2506

Thank you very much for your replies I now understand on both counts. Not being a hunter myself I just assumed that you would shoot them in the brain :embarassed: Thanks!

No embarrassment necessary Sophie. If you don't know, you simply don't know.

A head/neck shot is very unethical unless the person is a highly skilled shooter and the conditions are perfect for it. I've seen some horrible things result from a botched head shot. The worst one was a doe that someone tried to shoot in the head and they shot low. The result was getting shot in the lower jaw. She could not eat after that and would have suffered a terrible death due to starvation and infection. Luckily I came across her and I decided to use my tag on her to end her suffering. This in turn meant my season was prematurely over. However that's what separates a sportsmen/outdoorsmen from a mindless killer. She wasn't the deer I wanted or was looking for that season. But it was the right thing to do.

ChaosMoosie

That is what is Gross, ma'am. Not a hunter making a clean kill then utilizing the bounty that he worked for personally to the greatest extent possible.

Again, I'm not against hunting, but what is the definition of a 'clean' kill? the other part of the story that was a bit unsavory to me was the amount of time they took to die. I guess I always assumed a 'clean' kill was a quick death?

If you want to understand the relativity of a clean kill versus a natural death for a large animal like a moose, you can read this. If it was a rhetorical question, you may not want to read what I describe here.

Unfortunately, the term 'clean kill' has no exact definition. In the movies, people shoot other people and the person shot immediately lays down and stays still, dead until the end of that episode. In real life, it doesn't really happen that way - even with people. In the case of animals, shooting and killing (or harvesting if you'd rather read that) a deer is pretty straightforward and usually quite quick. A deer, shot in a vital area, will live between 30 seconds and a few minutes, depending on what exact area. An elk is bigger, and a moose bigger still than a deer, so a 'clean kill' on a moose is less quick than an elk and substantially less quick than a deer.

There are spots where an instant kill can occur - spine in the neck or brain for instance. However, as another poster has noted, these are very hard spots to hit precisely at long distances and are not the most humane in many circumstances. A heart shot that severely damages the heart will take several minutes. Ruger's description leads me to believe that in this particular case, several minutes were involved, but not much more than that, and the shots he described were correctly placed and caused death within minutes. With a moose that would qualify as a 'quick kill', in my humble opinion.

We are talking here about animals that are in the 1000 to 1500 pound range (or more) and stand seven feet tall at the shoulder (or more). These are huge animals.

Someone else asked why shoot both of these old bulls. The reason - beyond trophy - is the fact that these are the old animals and they would die from natures ministrations within a very few seasons, simply because they were old. The young bulls are much more vital, have many more years ahead of them for all things 'moosie'.

Now for a slow lingering death as dealt by nature's ministrations...

First the moose starts to weaken. His body no longer is able to fight off disease and parasites that once did not bother him are now depleting his energy reserves. He can no longer run as quickly. His eyesight, in the case of a moose never really sharp, is failing. His teeth are worn down and some have fallen out so he can no longer browse effectively. He cannot climb as high and he cannot keep up his vigil. If he is unlucky, the natural progression of events will continue until he is no longer able to eat, no longer able to digest food, and after weeks of starvation, he dies. If he is lucky, the wolves find him, recognize the plight, and a pack of them set on him to pull him down and kill him. They do this by first attacking him from behind and hamstringing him so his rear legs no longer can support his weight. The moose collapses but still tries to fight them off with his front hooves and his antlers. While that is going on in the front, the wolves at the back are starting their meal - eating great chunks of muscle from his haunches and his flanks, and tearing his intestines out of his body. Finally, the great beast succumbs to blood loss, his breathing stops, and after any where from an hour to three or four hours of fighting a losing battle against insurmountable odds, the moose is dead.

That is not a quick kill and is anything but a pretty sight. Nature is very cruel.

mustgetmuscles1

Great points ChaosMoosie. Hunters can be selective of which animals they take while nature tends to prey on the young. A quick clean kill is always the goal for hunters. We spend thousands of dollars on our weapons to try and make them as lethal as we can. Always striving for the fastest bows most accurate bows, sharpest cutting broadheads, most accurate rifles with bullets that produce the most damage. Not all kills are instant but based on what happens in nature from starvation, exposure, predators and so on, kills by hunters are much more humane.

Here are some video from youtube that show some of natures brutality. Nature is cruel and these video are very graphic. Please do not watch them if you are easily offended by animals suffering.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1CLqJCGNCjo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMC7aZNXnL8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JVkaMqD5mI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4K04aHTL-Q
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0bgHYxQw74Y
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4x7khn84CQ

raevynn

If you eat it, you should be able to kill it.

This is very true. Every person that routinely buys "meat" in a sanitary wrapper in a bright, clean grocery store should actually have, at least once, been part of the experience of butchering an animal. Either hunting and field dressing, or helping out a hunter, or in some other way being present for a butchering.

"Meat" doesn't spring into existence in little foam trays.

I am a vegan. I do not eat meat. I don't hunt or fish. However, I have a lot more respect for people that are ethical hunters/anglers, who understand the balance of nature, and who respect the animals they are eating. If you are going to eat meat, the best meat to eat is first, wild game you hunted, then next is organically grown, grass-fed animals (bison is good) that were treated humanely. Avoid feedlot animals entirely. Eat meat a couple of times less per week.

Just doing that would improve the world just a little bit, in my opinion.

jnite

First off, LOVE your pics, some great country. Almost as great as western Alberta!!LOL can't tell where I'm from huh?!
Second, a wonderful discussion on hunting!!! I grew up eating and hunting wild meat as well as raising our own chickens and rabbits for food. You guys are great at articulating what I would like to say but couldn't!! Props to all of you!!!:drinker:

Ocarina

Just wanted to stop by and say these pictures are AWESOME!

deeharley

yeah. because if you get fit to run a marathon, posting photos of you at the finish would be irrelevant, huh?

if the finish line had something dead at the end of it, some people may not want to see it. You are missing my point. I didnt say hunting was bad. I said just warn people before posting those pics, or at least write something about it not being for everyone in your subject line.

I kind of took the word "Hunt" and the dead animal in his profile pic as a warning, but maybe that's just me? Oh, and as the wife and mother of two hunters who brought a moose home, I know that it's a much greater workout AFTER the shooting than before. The walking is the easy part.

Edit: To the OP, congratulations, and good luck on your next hunt!

Trail_Addict

Thank you very much for your replies I now understand on both counts. Not being a hunter myself I just assumed that you would shoot them in the brain :embarassed: Thanks!

That's how we kill zombies.

(happy to see an open-minded person who actually wishes to learn instead of argue based on ignorance. :flowerforyou: )

vaderandbill

I posted a quick message a couple of days ago and was just checking back...what the hell happened here???

There is a Deer Hunters group that many of you should join. It is not just deer though.

Thanks to everyone that posted great info for others to read and learn about what we do.

To the OP....just fricken awesome!!!!

ChaosMoosie

If you eat it, you should be able to kill it.

This is very true. Every person that routinely buys "meat" in a sanitary wrapper in a bright, clean grocery store should actually have, at least once, been part of the experience of butchering an animal. Either hunting and field dressing, or helping out a hunter, or in some other way being present for a butchering.

"Meat" doesn't spring into existence in little foam trays.

I am a vegan. I do not eat meat. I don't hunt or fish. However, I have a lot more respect for people that are ethical hunters/anglers, who understand the balance of nature, and who respect the animals they are eating. If you are going to eat meat, the best meat to eat is first, wild game you hunted, then next is organically grown, grass-fed animals (bison is good) that were treated humanely. Avoid feedlot animals entirely. Eat meat a couple of times less per week.

Just doing that would improve the world just a little bit, in my opinion.

Thank you! Your positions and your replies are excellent, well thought out and logical. I think I speak for everyone when I say that you are very appreciated.