Letting them lie

[Skerhunter]

Only time to wait an entire night is if you are out of options, it’s dark and you need daylight to move your search forward.

Get on their trail hunt smart and find them. For one it’s a lot easier to see an animal still on its feet vs laying down. On bad shots this might be your only chance of recovery. Also my experience has been if you are bumping an animal that is covering a lot of ground it probably isn’t going to die soon. Animals hit poorly (liver/single lung) typically don’t go far before bedding again (length of initial run) and they struggle to even get up after a couple of bumps. Also need to remember you aren’t the only thing bumping animals from a bed, so waiting isn’t a sure bet.

 

[Macintosh]

What animals are we talking about? It also sounds like some people are talking about western elk and mule deer, while others are talking about eastern whitetails, which was the genesis for the post. I dont know but can imagine the answer changes depending.

 

[jmez]

Unless it is still steaming when you find it, you have zero idea whether or not waiting overnight let you recover the animal.

Sent from my moto g power 5G - 2023 using Tapatalk

 

[TxxAgg]

So nice horns, leave overnight, small horns go get it. Ok got it!

That's not my intent. I suppose it's different in some places, but down here folks usually shoot does and maybe a nice buck if you're lucky. Of course we want to eat the buck, too, but every single hunter I know personally would be a little more cautious trailing a nice buck.

Maybe that makes us all unethical. I'm not looking to argue on the internet with a bunch of strangers...just giving my two cents. This thread was spurred from a thread where a guy shot a big buck.

 

[Ucsdryder]

That's not my intent. I suppose it's different in some places, but down here folks usually shoot does and maybe a nice buck if you're lucky. Of course we want to eat the buck, too, but every single hunter I know personally would be a little more cautious trailing a nice buck.

Maybe that makes us all unethical. I'm not looking to argue on the internet with a bunch of strangers...just giving my two cents. This thread was spurred from a thread where a guy shot a big buck.

How many animals would be left overnight if coyotes ate antlers and antlers spoiled like meat?

I’ve left one elk overnight. I lost 10-15 pounds on the hind quarter. He was shot at last light and I heard him crashing through the trees 80-100 yards away. He ended up dying right where I last heard him but was unsure of the shot (perfect). The ONLY way I’d leave an elk is if it was a gut shot.

 

[sndmn11]

@sndmn11 to use your words the "conclusion" I am arguing for is "based on what I know and what I dont know at this point in the blood trail, the odds of recovery are as-good or better if I DONT keep pushing this animal right now".

I probably agree. I think you are saying you've worked through all, or most of the possibilities before concluding that leaving it is best. If that is close, I do agree.

What I disagree with is when leaving the animal is option two, and option one is walk over to the animal that died in sight.

I think that @screedler is a good example of what I envision when I read stories of guys who walked away and came back to track a day later to find multiple beds and no dead animal. In my eyes, opportunities to kill were missed for every empty bed found.

My experiences with a hunter leaving their animal are two, and definitely have framed my perspective and approach:
1) A friend shot a bull. I was within 50 yards behind him calling and it was thick enough that I didn't know where he was or that an elk was involved. It was borderline last light and he knew he hit the bull but couldn't say if it was minute of elk or minute heart so he backed off immediately. When me, him, his dad, and my dad regrouped in the dark, he didn't know where the bull was standing when he shot, and there's a good chance he didn't know where he was either. Things look different in the dark, they look different from a new angle, and it was thick. We went back the next morning and the bull died in 30 yards from where he arrow was stuck in a trunk after passing through. No predator damage, but he didn't smell well and it ended up as burger after the first few steaks were cooked.
2) A person who is friends with a friend who has a cabin was hunting when I was. I went back to the cabin to cook dinner for everyone and he said he had shot a doe first thing in the morning in one of the little gulleys coming off a big ridge nearby. I asked where it was and he said he came back to the cabin right after he shot to give her time to die and was waiting for help. when we went out looking he didn't know which gulley he was in, he had never looked for a blood trail even though she went over the hill, etc., he basically shot and left.

So, for me, I want to get to point A immediately and learn what story it has to tell. If it tells me to look for B, I am in. If at some point everything about hunting that track out tells me to hold off, then I will, but I want to get to that point of knowledge versus taking a guess. If my friend had walked over to where his bull stood at the shot immediately before he lost sight of it, we would have probably found his bull in 20 minutes. If the second guy had found blood right away when he could walk to the shot or last sighting, we would have had a starting point.

 

[Macintosh]

@sndmn11 we are on the same page I think. I’m fully, 100% expecting to go to the site of the arrow within a few minutes, try to find the arrow, find blood, find tracks, find hair. I will usually mark the site of first blood, and if Im not in a tree stand I’ll mark where I was standing, so I can recreate it if I dont immediately find the arrow. I’m putting the shot in my head, together with the evidence that I find, and making a determination of where I hit and what to do. Assuming no red flags I’m going to proceed to pack up my stuff and calm down, and then follow the blood at 30 minutes from the shot. Everything I say is fully assuming all of the above. It’s only afterward, when I find something that does not indicate a good shot, that’s when I start to question things. If I watched the arrow sail through the gut, I’m still going to check the arrow out and verify what I think I saw, because I do not trust my own eyes in that situation, I’m just looking to verify and get more points of data in a non-detrimental way with which to make any decisions. Same with blood as I follow the track.
It’s only after I have some solid evidence that it’s NOT a good hit, that’s when I start thinking about waiting longer. At that point, if I’ve got bad blood or what started as a decent blood track has turned to pinpricks, that’s when I have to start weighing my next move. Could it have been a bad hit? What are the likely consequences if I have wounded the animal and bump it, versus what are the likely consequences if I wait? I’m only saying that this “exception” is common enough that its going to happen to most bowhunters at some point— especially in the east with long whitetail seasons, multiple over the counter tags being the norm, and lots of brush, both in the way of arrows as well as making tracking difficult. In that circumstance, if conditions dont prevent it, it’s often the safer option to wait—so I don't think it makes sense across the board to vilify someone for erring on the side of giving it more time.

Also, thats why I asked about what animals people are talking about. A 150 pound whitetail cools off a heck of a lot faster than a 5 or 600 pound elk, so the consequences of waiting may be very different.

 

[TaperPin]

Have we swayed too far the other way due to:
-Laziness?
-Haphazard or taking shots beyond our ability?
-Lack of woodsmanship/ability to track a wounded animal?
-A misappropriation of the importance of hunting?
-Social media/tv influence?

All of the above! One problem with being self taught online, are the echo chambers with a number of guys providing each other reinforcement of incorrect information and an unwillingness to look at things from various angles and improve their understanding and competence.

 

[WiscoHoundsman]

Not sure what the original story was but I typically look for deer in the dark at least try and find blood.

This past week I left a cow elk overnight as I couldn’t find blood after the shot (rifle). The shot was within about 5 minutes of legal shooting hours ending. Looked for about a half hour with two people in the dark and never could not find any. She went from a meadow into the woods and down over a steep bank. I knew it was supposed to get below freezing and I didn’t want to bump her in case the shot was not as good as I thought.

Walked back in just after daylight the next day to find her about 100 yards from where I shot her at. No blood all the way there went through one shoulder and two lungs with just a small exit hole. She was bloated but didn’t lose any meat. Some slimy stuff on the joint of the back leg and body was green but easily trimmed off.

Maybe we should have looked more but without blood I was concerned and it worked out okay. Definitely not preferred to leave critters out there.

 

[Macintosh]

N/m

 

[KHNC]

The problem there is if you leave it overnight then the bear is there waiting for you in the morning. Better to go find them right away but you won't be walking right the next day due to soreness from puckering.

We dont shoot elk in the last hour before dark in griz country typically. Unless we are pretty close to camp.

 

[WCB]

I think the "when in doubt back out" motto is taken to the extreme because of T.V. hunters about 15 years ago and even today.
Also, most people in general are piss poor at tracking.

Shoot Deer, Elk, Moose, Antelope whatever. Get your sh!t together and go to where the animal was standing. Try to figure out how good the hit was and then make a decision. I never got the "wait 30minutes" thing. Obviously situations are different and if I hit an animal and it just hunched up and kind of slowly walked off depending on conditions I may wait. But most of the time the animal gets out of there pretty darn quick and covers ground.

I won't understand people who shoot and then don't go to where the animal was for hours. I am at that spot as soon as I can walk there and hunting immediately after that. There is either a dead animal, a wounded animal, or a safe and healthy animal involved and my perspective is that time erodes both physical and memory evidence.

If you are trailing an animal that is healthy enough to evade your pursuit, it probably isn't dying anytime soon. If you are trailing an animal that is mortally wounded, go be a hunter and kill the thing.

I agree with the not going to the spot of the shot for a certain amount of time 100% (in most cases). The part where I disagree is "hunting" immediately after and pretty much the entire second part of your statement. I have been on the trail of "many" animals "mortally" wounded, while guiding, that still can cover ground much faster than a human can and can evade your pursuit. A few times pushing them into absolute hell holes and a couple times ended up losing the track (lack of blood, weather, etc). In my mind no doubt if we would have left them for a couple hours or so we could have had a lot easier time getting in on them and finishing them off, or they would have expired prior to us finding them.

There are also times where experience has lead me to insist on "pushing" the animal as hard as we can and this has lead me to recover animals that due to lack of blood and being able to visually keep track of them allowed us to make a follow up shot and end it. In those cases backing out would have allowed perhaps another animal to push the wounded one or just from the animal getting up and moving beds and hard tracking conditions made it really hard to find where it went.

I do find it laughable when someone double lungs an elk or deer and blood is coming out like a firehose and the first thing they say is "lets give him an hour or so and review the shot"? huh?

 

[sndmn11]

I agree with the not going to the spot of the shot for a certain amount of time 100% (in most cases). The part where I disagree is "hunting" immediately after and pretty much the entire second part of your statement. I have been on the trail of "many" animals "mortally" wounded, while guiding, that still can cover ground much faster than a human can and can evade your pursuit. A few times pushing them into absolute hell holes and a couple times ended up losing the track (lack of blood, weather, etc). In my mind no doubt if we would have left them for a couple hours or so we could have had a lot easier time getting in on them and finishing them off, or they would have expired prior to us finding them.

In those instances did you move the animal once or multiple times?

I used the verb "hunt" rather than track because the times I have seen others track an animal they turned off their predator switch. Moving fast, being loud, not paying attention to the wind, bringing many people out, etc. It has to be possible that less animals get bumped if that predator switch is still on.

I think this all good discussion, and something where our approach is a direct product of our own experiences. There certainly is a lot of variables, and I think it is good to read other people's experiences.

 

[Scoot]

Also, most people in general are piss poor at tracking.

Boy is that true! I'm one of them- I'm colorblind. I understand how to track very well. My dad was a really good tracker and he hammered the process into my brain, but I'm not much good at tracking. My son, on the other hand, is as good as anyone I've been around. He gets the process really well and takes the kind of time to do it right (many are in a hurry and get ahead of the blood trail very quickly). My daughter is pretty good too, but she's had a lot less practice.

It amazes me, though, watching most people track. They have no clue what they are doing and they are remarkably bad at it.

 

[Macintosh]

…There are also times where experience has lead me to insist on "pushing" the animal as hard as we can and this has lead me to recover animals that due to lack of blood and being able to visually keep track of them allowed us to make a follow up shot and end it. In those cases backing out would have allowed perhaps another animal to push the wounded one or just from the animal getting up and moving beds and hard tracking conditions made it really hard to find where it went…

I agree with most everything in the full post, but Im curious about this part. In my bow hunting world (eastern woods) there is no such thing as visually keeping track of a hit animal, because visibility is typically measured in feet not yards. That might be an exaggeration, but not by much, its just not realistic to expect more than 50 yards or so of visibility almost ever. What does the situation look like where pushing the animal is a good approach, and do you have any insight into this approach and how it does or doesnt apply where as a rule you cannot ever maintain visibility?

 

[roosterdown]

I suppose it's my post "The Long Night" over in the Whitetail forum that spurred the discussion.

Just back from a great pheasant hunt and finally read this thread - lots of good info & different perspectives.

My distillation is that there is no cookie-cutter approach; ever situation is different and the hunter has to factor in a great many variables to make the right call. And despite our best intentions and efforts, if one hunts long enough, there are going to be times where we make the wrong call.

Those variables include, but are not limited to:
Species
Analysis of the impact, if seen
body language of the animal after the shot
Condition of the arrow (color, debris, coverage, smell), if found
Read of the blood-on-the-ground
Terrain
Is snow a factor?
Rain?
Other hunters/people?
Foliage/visibility?
Property lines?
Moving water/crossings, ponds/lakes?
Temperatures
Time of day & time of season (length of day/night)
Wind direction
Local predator situation

I'm sure I am missing some.