Video of giraffe harvested with 6mm

[Doug Hamilton]

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.

The giraffe was shot with a 6mm (.243). The entry wound would be a round hole slightly less than 1/4" in diameter. Obviously there would be no exit. Had the shot been slightly off, tracking the animal would have been difficult. Of course, being inside of a fenced enclosure with a professional tracker or two would make it somewhat less complicated.

 

[CBH Australia]

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.

There is nothing wrong with the word harvest.
In our national parks legislation the definition of hunt terms chase , pursue, harass , kill, or interfere with an animal. I could check the exact definition.
National Parks regulate the kangaroo industry where a professional applies for a ‘Trappers license” this allows them to harm wildlife under the licence for commercial purposes. The professional has to complete a game harvester course to to apply for the licence.
Since the only allowable way to harvest Kangaroos commercially is to shoot them under a spotlight and they are selectively targeted by a licensed professional. I consider it harvesting as they take what they want from the available population.

Property owners can get a permit to harm for culling purposes where numbers are high.

 

[Rule 303]

Apparently the term "Harvest" in relation to animals has been used for well over a couple of centuries. If I remember correctly it is claimed to have been used in ancient times. All this was shown to me when I was against using the harvest term for taking an animal as to me the term was for cropping.

 

[Rocked and Loaded]

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.

For me hunting is the general term for the pursuit of game, up to and including killing it. Whether you shoot something or not, you are still hunting.

I use killing to refer to that specific part of the hunt if it comes up.

I’ve never liked harvesting and I feel like it was largely adopted in the US to counter the idea that hunters are just bloodthirsty killers. I don’t think it works though.

 

[gbflyer]

My Northern village neighbors “catch” their critters.

 

[Doug Hamilton]

For me hunting is the general term for the pursuit of game, up to and including killing it. Whether you shoot something or not, you are still hunting.

I use killing to refer to that specific part of the hunt if it comes up.

I’ve never liked harvesting and I feel like it was largely adopted in the US to counter the idea that hunters are just bloodthirsty killers. I don’t think it works though.

Using the word "harvest" in lieu of what is clearly meant as "killing", " taking" or "shooting" seems to.me to be intellectually dishonest. I will not use it to describe what is a natural act just to save the feelings of a Disney trained snowflake.

 

[CBH Australia]

 

[GuttormG]

Energy and hydraulic shock, if I push a broadsword through the lungs of a giraffe it will die very quick. The energy deposited is less than any cartridge intended for hunting, there will no "shock".

Off courses will the giraffe also die if I push a 1/4" steel rod through its lungs, it will just take more time.

What do I mean? Have a coffee and look into the fire. It is not about speed and energy.

 

[gbflyer]

Using the word "harvest" in lieu of what is clearly meant as "killing", " taking" or "shooting" seems to.me to be intellectually dishonest. I will not use it to describe what is a natural act just to save the feelings of a Disney trained snowflake.

I had not thought about it in those terms and now that I have, I agree with you. I don’t like “harvest” either but I have used it.

On the same subject, we want to kill cleanly. In nature, that is rarely the case. All we have to do is look at any predator, they kill things a bite at a time. Keeping that in mind, why do we get so wrapped up in not letting an animal suffer when clearly that is not the case in their natural cycle of life? I like to think as their stewards we are better than that. I wonder what others think.

 

[Doug Hamilton]

My Northern village neighbors “catch” their critters.

Before I retired I would go off on hunting trips. When I gay back, people that I worked with would ask.where I had been. When I told them I had been hunting many of them would ask, "Did you catch anything?" They didn't know how to politely ask if I had killed an animal. I would usually say that I "got" one or I "didn't get anything one this trip."

 

[Doug Hamilton]

Energy and hydraulic shock, if I push a broadsword through the lungs of a giraffe it will die very quick. The energy deposited is less than any cartridge intended for hunting, there will no "shock".

Off courses will the giraffe also die if I push a 1/4" steel rod through its lungs, it will just take more time.

What do I mean? Have a coffee and look into the fire. It is not about speed and energy.

That may or may not be true. Broad sword injuries (or broadhead) kill due to blood loss. Bullets kill by shock. There are many stories of elk, which are much smaller than giraffes, being shot through both lungs with under powered or sub optimal expansion rifle bullets, surviving. The bullets have some times been recovered under the hide of the off side after another hunter killed the elk a year later. My guess is that 1/4" rod passed through a giraffes lungs and removed would not kill the animal. That's why hunters should not use under sized cartridges to take big animals.

 

[375er]

It was a stupid stunt that should not have been done in the first place. Much less put on youtube or wherever it was. Way to go feeding antis.

 

[Rule 303]

That may or may not be true. Broad sword injuries (or broadhead) kill due to blood loss. Bullets kill by shock. There are many stories of elk, which are much smaller than giraffes, being shot through both lungs with under powered or sub optimal expansion rifle bullets, surviving. The bullets have some times been recovered under the hide of the off side after another hunter killed the elk a year later. My guess is that 1/4" rod passed through a giraffes lungs and removed would not kill the animal. That's why hunters should not use under sized cartridges to take big animals.

More than one Sambar Deer/Indian Elk has been shot through the lungs with a 30 cal and survived. It is assumed the bullet did not open up as there was no or very little blood trail.

 

[Frederik]

I would call this a stunt it was not ethical and in an emergency it can be done but then rather go for a headshot/brainshot.

Vehicles close by in the background what if the bullet hit the big leg bone when the PH called shoot again it would have been direclty in line with the vehicles. If the hunt took place in KZN/Natal it will be illegal and still in grey area with Norms and standards that @saswart mentioned in other provinces.

As a hunter it is our responsibility to kill an animal as quickly and humanely possible there was enough ample time for an extra shot or two although vehicles was in the way that first shot should not have been taken in first place.

Would they have showed the video if the shot failed????
So what is this video teaching the millions out there a giraffe can be shot with a .243 and it is easy to do?

It takes away the aura and the special animal that a giraffe is and makes it now canon fodder for a 6mm.

 

[GuttormG]

Broad sword injuries (or broadhead) kill due to blood loss. Bullets kill by shock.

Shock-an acute medical condition associated with a fall in blood pressure, caused by such events as loss of blood, severe burns, allergic reaction, or sudden emotional stress, and marked by cold, pallid skin, irregular breathing, rapid pulse, and dilated pupils.

What kills an animal when shot in the chest is sudden loss of blood pressure; shock.
I have tracked enough game hit by trucks to know that "shock" as in just pure energy transfer most often do not kill. We find the game dead from blood loss, or because we are able to catch-up because they are hindered by mechanical damage (broken leg is typical) or 1-2-3 days later dead or dying from sepsis.

A bullet hitting, touching the underside of the spine (my English vocabulary isn't big enough here-the bones protruding outwards7downwards from the spine) will cause an animal to go straight down, like hit by lighting. This is due to energy transfer to the spine and central nervous system. More then one hunter has stood there like a clown watching the dead deer run away after a few minuets.

 

[coreydb]

Yeah.....hunting like this with a 6mm can be done, but when it's for sport and not survival, deficiently not cool.

 

[Doug Hamilton]

Yeah.....hunting like this with a 6mm can be done, but when it's for sport and not survival, deficiently not cool.

I'm not sure that I get your point. All safari hunts in Africa are for sport. And all game animals taken ate eaten (yes, that means survival). The giraffe in this video would not be an exception. Where I and most other AH members object is that a 6mn/.243 caliber would be unreliable on anything other than a perfectly placed shot. Most animals are not that cooperative about getting shot.

This was a stunt that could have led to a lot of unnecessary suffering. Or as you put it, "definitely not cool "

 

[Tradmark]

My son shot a very very large giraffe this year in SA. Carcass weight was 1948lbs (gutted, no hide, and legs cut at the knees, no head.). He shot it three times with a 375hh with woodleigh hs solids. 2 shots on the run. All within a 5” circle. From shot to falling was just under 30 seconds. Big cartridges and used solids so no bullet failure. What the ole boy deserved.

 

[Ericedwinbates]

Expletives and fools! I am sorry I watched it.

 

[Tradmark]

what would have been more telling is if he had shot until it was down like most hunters wouldve. The reason we choice the woodleigh solids is so we couldve put him down at any angle had he run straight away. Thats where i think the 6mm fails