Hunting show on Outdoor channel

[jblabsnduck]

Did anyone see the hunting show(can't remember name) on last night (8-1-2005)

at about 7pm or so where the guy was bowhunting and he has a nice buck walk in and then they showed him arrow the buck in his chest. The deer was standing forward looking at him but he shot it anyways.

Of course they found the buck but talk about something they should NOT be showing. Then he went on to talk about why he made the shot becuse he was such a good bow hunter.

What a load of carp.

Broadside or quatering away is all that should be taken.

Just plain stupid in my opinion.

[Rolly22]

Yeah, I saw that one and you're right, what a load of BS. Just an excuse for getting buck fever and making a bad decision. I also saw one the other day that was just the opposite. The hunter wouldn't take the shot because the deer had its leg back with the shoulder blade covering the vitals. The deer then trotted away and he never got a shot. It was a big muley and he didn't want to risk the arrow not getting through the shoulder.

[Bagley]

Yeah, I didn't see it last night but I did see that one a couple weeks ago. Off camera it probably took them 3 days with ten guys, two pistols, and six dogs to find and claim that deer. I don't care how good of a shot you are. You still don't take stupid shots like that.

[mnz71hunt]

I agree that this shot should not be taken. The deer in my photo was taken in 2000. The following year I had a 160 class buck less than 10 yards from my stand, but head on. The buck was a buck of a lifetime to say the least. I was at full draw for 2-3 minutes while he stared me down, then he backed up, turned on a dime and walked away the same direction he came, never once offering a shot that I could be sure of.

The same head on shot was taken by Stan Potts in Prime Time Bucks 6 Video. They also found this buck, but not until 4-5 hours later, lucky to say the least - they admit in the video that this was not a shot they wanted to take and also mention several times they thought they had lost the deer. Viedo always makes the recovery seem short, when really they probably loose many animals also.

Here is a link to a photo of the deer Potts shot in Prime Time Bucks 6. http://www.bowhunting.net/emagazine/Articles/001-HuntersSpecialties03.html

Good luck hunting this fall. Let the little ones go and they too will grow.

[jblabsnduck]

Yep, that's the stupid arse I watched on TV shoot that buck.

You would think a guy that gets to hunt that much would know better.

Just plain stupid. I would never put him in the same catergory as me as a bow hunter.

I would put him in the " I am a stupid guy that hunts with a bow" catergory.

Just uncalled for.

[BLACKJACK]

I think a lot depends on how close you are to the deer and how high your stand is. Several years back I was on a ladder stand in a woods that was about 10 feet high, a small buck came thru the woods, right at my stand, I drew back and at about 8 feet away he stopped and looked up at me, I thought 'the gig is up' and shot him right at the base of the neck, the arrow angled thru, catching some lung and came out underneath him, I watched him fall 50 yards away. I wouldn't take that shot at 25 yards but at 8 feet from a low stand it worked.

[Scoot]

Blackjack, I'm not trying to start a fight here, but regardless of distance, a face-on shot isn't an ethical shot. Did it work for you in your example? Yep, sounds like it. But it is just as likely to end up with an injured or unrecovered deer next time- no matter what the distance or angle.

jblabsnducks, I totally agree with you. However, just a point worth noting- I firmly believe that bow hunters as a whole are pretty dang ethical and generally try to take smart shots and abide by the law. Definitley some examples of when this doesn't happen, but they're generally pretty good. Sure does suck when some (Contact US Regarding This Word) (the guy on the Outdoor Channel) gives the rest of us a bad name though.

Like I mentioned above, not trying to start any fires here, just giving my opinion.

[bigbucks]

I would agree with that, if you have a good angle & it's point blank range, under 10 yards, it's not a horrible shot.

[kevfish]

Scoot- who are you to say it was an unethical shot? I think that depends on ones skill level. For some a 10 yard quartering away shot is unethical because they have not practiced enough to be consistant at shooting. For some a 40 yard shot may be ethical. I just dont understand how you or anyone else can make that decision for them?

[Scoot]

The shot he described- the animal facing directly at him- is an unethical shot. You're definitely right though- that's just my opinion.

I can say this, the biggest buck I've ever seen was inside of 10 feet away from me, facing directly at me, with me on the ground at full draw, and I didn't shoot. It hauled butt outta there without me shooting. I kicked myself for a month for not shooting. However, not shooting was the most ethical, responsible thing to do because I don't believe a face-on shot is an ethical one with a bow.

That would be my opinion. If you disagree, that would be your opinion. But, I would say that you're advocating taking an unethical shot. Seems to me we disagree...

[kevfish]

my point is that what may be an ethical shot for one archer may not be an ethicl shot for another archer- based on their skill levels

[Scoot]

I totally agree. But some shots are not ethical regardless of the archer's skill level. If you're talking about ranges, then I totally agree- I feel perfectly confident shooting at a deer that is a good distance away whereas some people's max range is possibly 20 yards. But, none of us are talking about max range here, or even the overall difficulty of the shot. We're talking about a face on shot being ethical or not. I don't believe the shot described was ethical for you, me, or Fred Bear.

If you don't agree, that's ok by me. I made my point, said my peace, and I'm done with conversation. No point in argueing for the sake of argueing.

Have a great day!

[jlm]

I really have to agree, no matter the skill level, this is an unethical shot. I say this because no matter your skill level, there is no way to puncture both lungs in this shot. Without a double lung hit (unless you hit the heart which is almost impossible in a front on shot) you potential for a long tracking job has just magnified multiple times and your chance on not recovering the animal is even greater. I personally feel the most ethical thing we as hunters can do is to harvest the animal as quick as possible. Chancing a heart or one lung shot is not the best decision im my book. Just my opinion!

[metrojoe]

I'm actually more upset the episode was even aired.

[BLACKJACK]

I knew there would be some controversy when I said that I took the head-on shot, even though it worked great - that time. Since yesterday I've been thinking about other tough shots. How about if you're close, <10 feet, and all you see is the head? Take it or not? I wouldn't, too much chance of hitting a bone and ricocheting (sp) off. How about if the deer is right below you, do you take the shot right down thru the back? I've never done it, but I'd be tempted, you're either going to hit a lung, the heart, or the backbone.

Back to the head on shot. I normally practice at 20, 30, and 40 yards. When I practice with my wife, she wants to start at 10 yards. I have to shoot every arrow at different targets or else I end up messing up nocks and arrows. I knew when I took that head on shot exactly where my arrow is going. I feel you need to envision where the heart is, even if you think that the only ethical shot is a side shot thru both lungs, if you're up in a tree you need to adjust and shoot higher on the animal to achieve the optimal double lung kill.

Happy hunting!

[jblabsnduck]

NO WAY would I take a head shot, no matter what.

Head on will never come from my bow no matter how close that deer is

[icefisherman73]

IF YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT "DREAM SEASON" I TOO SEEN THAT EPISODE, AND IF YOU WATCHED ALL OF IT, YOU SEEN THAT THE DRURY BROS,(WHO PUT THE SHOW ON) CHREWED HIM OUT FOR TAKING THAT SHOT, AND TOLD THE REST OF THE HUNTERS THAT ANYMORE SHOTS LIKE THAT WILL NOT BE TOLERATED. I AGREE WITH YOU THAT IT WAS A BAD SHOT TO TAKE, BUT I DONT AGREE THAT IT SHOULDNT HAVE BEEN AIRED. I THINK IT WAS A GOOD LESSON OF WHAT NOT TO DO, AND THE FACT THAT DRURY BROS CAME DOWN SO HARD ON IT, SHOWS THAT.

[BLACKJACK]

Interesting to hear the full story, that they did acknowledge in the video that it was a poor shot!!

[jblabsnduck]

IT was NOT the dream season show (even though I did see the show you are talking about and they did chew his butt)

this was a different show.

A previous post said the name of the guy(Stan Potts).

he went on to say that it was a VERY SKILLFULL shot and that most hunters do not have the skill to take a shot like that. He was very high and mighty about it.

COMPLETE JERK WAD if you ask me.

I don't care how good he says he is, it is not a shot that should be taken.

P.S. I love watching Dream Season.

[icefisherman73]

IF THAT WAS THE WAY HE WAS ACTING THEN I TOTALLY AGREE IT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AIRED. ITS GUYS LIKE THAT,THAT GIVE THE REST OF US A BAD NAME.

[Royce Aardahl]

3 years ago I was full draw on a nice buck at 12 yards. Me on a ground blind and my pin on the bottom of his white patch. I figured he would turn either way take a step and he's in the freezer. After about 20 seconds he bolted so fast it was a bluuurrrr. It just quit snowing and 3 inches were on the ground. If that same situation comes up again I'll pull the trigger right away. I think we need a soapbox section if we are going to battle ethics.