ORIGINAL: DropTine249
I'm going to have to agree with Jeff, on this one. Although- I do see what point BAW is making.
On one hand, a 'quartering to' shot is not the ideal shot. Too many variables, too little vitals. As hunters, we should strive to ethically harvest our quarry, and only, ETHICALLY.
One the other hand, the shot was legal and so was the hunt(as far as we know), so we should show support to the fellowhunter.
Now, constructive criticism should be practiced by all !
I took ONE quartering too shot in my life. I recovered that deer, hours later. I will never, ever take that shot again, EVER.
Here is why: when I found that deer, she had expired, but- she was laying down like a bedded deer, not like one that 'crashed'.
What that told me is that she layed down, suffered and then expired. I have so much love and respect for wildlife- I was almost brought to tears.
This point can and likely will be argued until we are all blue in the face. Just remember, we owe it to our quarry to make only ethical shots.
Good points, but before we get 15-16pgs into this, I want JEFF to go back and re-watch the show on DVR to make sure he saw what he thought he saw!!!
I've take 2 quarter-to shots and one head-on. The head-on was moreorless out of self-defense, the 2 quarter-to's were well calculated and resulted in dead deer on in a short 18yds blood bath, the other ran 130yds to her death bed. Both were dead in less than 10seconds, both WERE ethical shots that I took knowing my abilities, taken at 11 and 18 yds. away. There is a time and place for everything, if Andy made the shot and recovered the animal even though it was a marginal shot, I say kudos to him, showing it on TV though ain't gonna get a kudos. And if he takes the same type of shot again and loses an animal, then he needs to do some re-thinking.