Video of giraffe harvested with 6mm

[Daisy]

Now all.we need to find is a Professional Hunter that says a smaller caliber is automatically more effective than a larger caliber to take larger animals...

Again. Quote me accurately please. No one has said that. If your only argument is to quote inaccurate information you’re not helping your cause.

 

[Grandpa Moose]

Totally stupid and disgusting as well as inhumane. A modern hunter has the responsibility to take an animal as quickly as possible. If this stunt had been tried in my outfitting/guiding days the consequences would have been severe and immediate. What a jacksss

 

[Doug Hamilton]

Again. Quote me accurately please. No one has said that. If your only argument is to quote inaccurate information you’re not helping your cause.

That was not a quote, never said it was. You were never even mentioned. It was just a comment. You seem to have a talent for being dense. That is not helping your cause.

 

[Daisy]

That was not a quote, never said it was. You were never even mentioned. It was just a comment. You seem to have a talent for being dense. That is not helping your cause.

Ha

 

[375Fox]

Again. Quote me accurately please. No one has said that. If your only argument is to quote inaccurate information you’re not helping your cause.

There is a search feature. The words “instructor” or “legal” and username “Daisy” bring up your exact quotes very easily. Something to consider before you continue to say you were misquoted because you don’t like the direction this has gone for you.

 

[Daisy]

There is a search feature. The words “instructor” or “legal” and username “Daisy” bring up your exact quotes very easily. Something to consider before you continue to say you were misquoted because you don’t like the direction this has gone for you.

Don’t put your thoughts on me my man.

I looked up my quote. I said smaller calibers are more accurate than larger ones. Not that they were more effective. If you had actually looked it up you would know that.

I took you to be hard headed, but at least honest.

If I had said different you would have linked it here.

Not for one second of my life have a “not liked the direction” an internet debate is going. Not once

 

[375Fox]

Don’t put your thoughts on me my man.

I looked up my quote. I said smaller calibers are more accurate than larger ones. Not that they were more effective. If you had actually looked it up you would know that.

I took you to be hard headed, but at least honest.

If I had said different you would have linked it here.

Here you go, among many others. I am hard headed but I don’t lie. I chose not to post these in the first response thinking you might take some advice.

 

[Daisy]

Exactly. I said people shoot smaller calibers better than larger ones. Exactly what I said I said.

This feels like bizarro world. I have continued to say that over and over. That’s a lot different than me saying smaller calibers are more effective than larger ones.

 

[John Wasmuth]

 

[Doug Hamilton]

There is a search feature. The words “instructor” or “legal” and username “Daisy” bring up your exact quotes very easily. Something to consider before you continue to say you were misquoted because you don’t like the direction this has gone for you.

I think you may be wasting your time here. Not only does Daisy have memory problems, he seems to.have trouble comprehending his own written words. On Sept. 12 after I said that using comparable bullets, a .243 was never going to be as effective as a .300 WM on large animals. He said that it was and was proven "by every shooting instructor at every shooting school in the world."

 

[MS 9x56]

Just because you can doesn’t mean you should.

 

[Ed Lally]

Just because you can doesn’t mean you should.

I was about to post these very words. Understanding this is a level of maturity few ever obtain.

 

[Datchew]

hmmmm,

that giraffe was not harvested as cleanly as it could have (should have in my book) been done. could have shot in head, OR simply shot it again (and even again) until it was down. it is one thing if an animal runs off and you can't shoot again, but when you can, i believe one has an obligation to continue to shoot till the animal is down. but, if you do that.....you can't say it only took ONE shot with a very light rifle.

This. I hunt and fish but I hate to see them suffer. I will even shoot them when they're down if it's clear they're still suffering and languishing.

It makes me want to be really sure I have a clean kill before firing and finish them off as fast as safely possible.

 

[Rule 303]

I have not read all the reply's but the greater majority are my thoughts as well. Other than this being irresponsible acts the other 2 factors that come to mind are 1) Bell used 6.5mm, 303 and 7mm calibres very successfully, this does not make them Elephant cartridges. 2) With large animals that can become dangerous, to me, people should be using a calibre and bullet that can break the animals leg/shoulder. Most large animals can not walk on three legs, if they can it still slows them down a bit that gives more time for a finishing shot. Heart shot animals can still trave a fair distance before they succumb.

My apologies if this has already been said.

 

[MS 9x56]

I’ll wait for clarification from Daisy, but if comment the other day was correct. This was done by one of the same individuals advocating for 223 on bear, elk, and moose on a different forum. It really makes me upset to see target shooting stunts on animals because I think it shows a complete disrespect to the animals they are hunting.

These types of stunts are done by people more interested in forwarding their agenda than making a quick humane kill and minimizing the animals suffering. Complete lack of respect for the game they Persue. They do not deserve the title of hunter. Sorry for getting a bit preachy but stunts like this make my blood boil.

 

[MS 9x56]

I haven’t pushed it. That is not me or my video.

I think we should be able to discuss it without a visceral You are entitled to your opinions and I am entitled to think and express how wrong you are.

 

[Creigh]

What I've learnt from 9 pages of this debate is

I should have taken the giraffe earlier this year and not the waterbuck. And waterbuck is excellent. I'm going to need a bigger freezer.

An animal in shock might not suffer that much worse if it died in a minute or if it died in 15 seconds. The problem is a 6mm doesn't produce the hydraulic shock on the animal that a big caliber might. There's a chance IMO this animal is just confused and in pain rather than in shock with a bigger cavity.

Hunting an animal ethically is always about the human condition. We're empathic creatures. I like it that hunters are some of the best animal lovers out there because we're realistic about what nature is.

I don't say harvest an animal or kill an animal, I say hunt the animal. I thought this was obvious. Who know, I new here.

And lastly, do not and I mean never shoot large antelope, large game or dangerous game with a 6mm.

 

[Huvius]

What is being overlooked here is the impressionable (gullable?) viewers of such videos whom are not all that experienced in the field or inclined to seek confirmation or opinions on forums such as this.

In this example, the intent of the shoot is clear - one shot kill with a 6mm.
Yeah, dumb but as it is, the giraffe succumbed to the shot about as expected and probably within the timeframe as it would in most rifle situations and certainly most archery hunts.
Good idea? Not in my book but neither is bowhunting DG or giraffes for that matter.

What has been entirely overlooked in this discussion is that, in Africa, there is far more accountability on the hunter than there is in the US for example.
I have heard more accounts of lost game in the last ten years than should be acceptable - the big difference is that a lost animal in Africa has a cost. A lost animal in North America is usually just ignored. It's more difficult to confirm a hit, miss or misplaced shot when using a smallbore. This likely results in less followup and an inclination to claim a "miss" rather than stomach the lost animal scenario. A 6.5 that doesn't pass through is not all that easy to track - not a lot of blood trail as I've been told. This video certainly bears that out somewhat - would like to see the entry wound.

This, in my opinion, has as much to do with the adulation of the newer 6.5s as it does with the trend of long range sniping of game animals and those producing videos of both have some blame to be shouldered.

 

[Doug Hamilton]

What I've learnt from 9 pages of this debate is

I should have taken the giraffe earlier this year and not the waterbuck. And waterbuck is excellent. I'm going to need a bigger freezer.

An animal in shock might not suffer that much worse if it died in a minute or if it died in 15 seconds. The problem is a 6mm doesn't produce the hydraulic shock on the animal that a big caliber might. There's a chance IMO this animal is just confused and in pain rather than in shock with a bigger cavity.

Hunting an animal ethically is always about the human condition. We're empathic creatures. I like it that hunters are some of the best animal lovers out there because we're realistic about what nature is.

I don't say harvest an animal or kill an animal, I say hunt the animal. I thought this was obvious. Who know, I new here.

And lastly, do not and I mean never shoot large antelope, large game or dangerous game with a 6mm.

Terminology question: What's the difference between going out and searching for an animal, and actually killing it? Both functions are "hunting." ;-)

Other than that, I agree with everything you wrote.

 

[Creigh]

Terminology question: What's the difference between going out and searching for an animal, and actually killing it? Both functions are "hunting." ;-)

Other than that, I agree with everything you wrote.

The reason is stupid.

I avoid using the word kill because of sensitivities around here.
Harvest always gave me the sense that I own the land I'm harvesting from, like a farmer would, so it seemed that in an attempt to be accurate, it wasn't.
If someone says to me, what do you hunt? I assume the implication is that I have successfully brought home that animal. And that's good enough for me because the statement carries the implication and I don't have to explain why I'm a heartless murderer of fluffy animals.