Would You Spine An Elk?

[Swede]

Would you purposely shoot an elk in the spine?
I deliberately shot one in the spine years ago as that was the situation I was presented. The elk was facing downhill a short distance in front of me as I sat high in my tree stand. The elk just stood there for what seemed like a long time. I was afraid it would soon bolt and decided I could nail it in the backbone.
Last year I shot another in the spine, and years ago a friend hit his in the spine by mistake. All three elk stopped in their tracks and with a quick follow-up shot were very soon dead.

[Tigger]

No I don't think I would on purpose. The spine is a small target.

[saddlesore]

Not an archer here , but I thought you were suppose to miss the spine and get the arrow down into the vitals I would think that would be a painful death to the animal.Crabbing along maybe on two front legs waiting for the hunter to get close for a killing shot.

[Swede]

I would think that would be a painful death to the animal.Crabbing along maybe on two front legs waiting for the hunter to get close for a killing shot.

I am not saying it is or isn't a particularly desirable shot, but I did it a couple of times and it was quick and humane. In all situations mentioned, the elk never went anywhere after being shot. I finished off my elk from the stand, but I think my friend got out of his stand and finished off his bull. Death came much sooner with all of these elk than most. The elk I killed got a second arrow within a few seconds.
The spine is a fairly large target from above. I would recommend you not try this shot with a flimsy broadhead.

[ElkNut1]

No sir no way would I even consider that shot no more than a head shot! I'm very surprised of your openness about this.

ElkNut/Paul

[Lsb]

No sir no way would I even consider that shot no more than a head shot! I'm very surprised of your openness about this.

ElkNut/Paul

I'm with Paul. I don't even like taking a spine shot with a rifle. Why pick that small of target when you can shoot heart/lungs?

[Swede]

I don't think anyone would take a spine shot if the heart and lungs are open to them. The spine is a bigger target than the hole in the front of an elk, but if you can't competently hit it, don't try the shot. I am not advocating anything. If you are shooting from above, and the elk is facing you or turned directly away, that is what is available. If the water hole is in front of you, that is not all that uncommon of a shot opportunity.

No sir no way would I even consider that shot no more than a head shot! I'm very surprised of your openness about this.

Yes sir, I am open and I write from experience. I am more that willing to share and let people consider a matter. What in your vast experience with spine shots, including youtube analysis, makes you so condescending? Why not shed some light on the subject instead?

[Indian Summer]

No I don't think I would on purpose. The spine is a small target.

Exactly. I grew up knowing one thing.... “double lunger”

If the elk was in range I’m thinking your opportunity will come. If not it’s one of those close but no cigar days.

[saddlesore]

Sometimes the elk wins and you let it walk

[RAMMONT]

Sometimes the elk wins and you let it walk

Absolutely. If you aren't starving to death then sometimes you just need to accept that you wont be going home with an elk.

[ElkNut1]

swede, it's pretty much self explanatory! I agree with the others thoughts 100%.

I've hit elk in the spine with archery gear, it's not a pretty sight, it's one of the worst feelings I've experienced watching the suffering before I could dispatch them. No way would I want to experience it on purpose!

As others mentioned, I'd let them walk before I'd cut an arrow loose fully knowing the results they would experience. No way would I take place in the torture they go through just to fill a tag on a spine shot. My .02!

ElkNut/Paul

[Swede]

I have shot two elk in the spine. Neither went five feet after being hit. The spine is over three feet long and 2-4 inches around. At thirty yards that is a chip shot. Not one person has said one word on why I should not take it.
If we are talking about inflicting pain, guys we are all in the wrong game. These shots ended in very quick kills. The arrows did not penetrate an inch into the bone, but they caused instant paralysis. If we are talking about missing, then you long range guys are taking more risk on the elk moving than I am. If I miss is it any worse than if you miss. At under 30 yards, I have made the shot both times.
Spell it out. Where is the beef?

[ElkNut1]

It's the intentional suffering. Too, this is not a game!

ElkNut/Paul

[Swede]

It's the intentional suffering. Too, this is not a game!

I have caused less suffering with two quick kills that most or all of your shots. What was the difference you saw with your poor spine shots as compared to other wounding shots? Is a wound somewhere else better? I have wounded elk, but my spine shots were quick and humane.

008.JPG (227.84 KiB) Viewed 10453 times

2018 kill. Notice where the first arrow is located.

[ElkNut1]

Please check out the comments, you are the only one admonishing this shot!

ElkNut/Paul

[Old school]

I guess I can see the logic in a spine shot if it’s directly below you as Swede states. I consider myself to be an ethical hunter and am surprised at the responses here. If the elk drops with the first shot and then you put a finishing arrow in it just a few seconds later, I don’t understand what the issue is. If you double lung it, it will experience pain, run for a ways, fall over, thrash around and die. What am I missing here? Honest question, not being a smart aleck.

-Mitch

[Swede]

I am probably coming off as a little dense, but my reasoning is the same as Old School's. I asked if you would take the shot. I do not think I was advising anyone to even try. I have defended my spine shots, and under the same circumstances will shoot again. Elknut's reasoning has more holes than Swiss cheese. No offence here but I am not moved by Elknut's, "Others don't approve" and "something was wrong with my (Elknut's) poor shot", but what happened to the elk beyond "oh my". The others have given no good reason not to try either.

You and I have made bad shots. What you have not said was why the spine shot was worse than others. I would rather have my spine shots than any gut shot. Is there a real difference in risk?
I shot a buck in the guts once. That is one that haunts me. It stepped forward just as the arrow was released. I assume I killed it, but after several days of looking, never any trace of it was found. I saw another man shoot a buck in the spine with a rifle. It went down like Saddlesore described and let out a bawl. It was quickly finished off. Is it possible to say that this was worse than any other wounding shot? I did not like what I saw, but it was over quickly. It was a lot more humane than a gut shot or one in the leg.
I believe with a careful aim, I can stop an elk every time, dead in its tracks with a spine shot, shooting down from my stand. I have no experience with other spine shots, other than seeing the buck mentioned above.
I someone wants to tell me why I am wrong, please include and explanation why the risk of a mistake here is worse in consequence than any other close range shot. I can be persuaded by facts and experiences when explained quantitatively or qualitatively. I have a much harder time with condescending verbiage.

[ElkNut1]

Mitch, I would guess you haven't seen a spine shot elk, it's pretty brutal. Yes it can happen but it generally is not done on purpose.

To say it's over in seconds is not true, it takes several minutes as the animal thrashes uncontrollably thus tough to get additional arrows in it & sometimes longer than a minute or two, in most cases it's heart wrenching. Yes it can be a part of ones hunt when accidental but certainly not a desirable shot.

ElkNut/Paul

[Old school]

Paul - you are correct I haven’t seen a spine shot elk, only a couple deer where I was aiming center lung and they “ducked the arrow” and I spined them. They immediately collapsed and i had a second arrow in them within 15 seconds and they died quickly. On the other hand, I’ve double lunged a doe and had her pinballing off trees flipping herself over backwards time and time again - this was with a 20 yard broadside shot with my bow. She probably ran head-on into the same 4 or 5 trees in a 30 yard circle 7 or 8 times until she finally couldn’t get up. That was gruesome to watch and very odd as well.

-Mitch

[Indian Summer]

The question is simple... is it a kill shot? The answer is no. The most likely scenario is a wounded animal or one that is paralyzed and suffering. I guess the idea is to incapacitate the animal until you are able to make a kill shot. Not my idea of humane or ethical.

[Tigger]

I think Joe nailed it. That shot is not a kill shot, it is only going to incapacitate the elk to some degree. And what if it flops behind a tree or down a slope? how long will it take a person to get down out of the stand and catch up with it? Also, a 2-4" target at 30 yards is not a chip shot for anyone in a hunting situation. And I don't think it is 4" but the actual spine is closer to 1" in diameter. To try and get an arrow through the bony spine on an elk is just not something I would ask of an arrow. I can see the elk running off with an arrow stuck in its bone. and if it glances off the spine and hits one lung? Potentially miles of tracking. Here is a hypothetical; if you could take a shot and break both back legs, would you take that shot? Pretty much does the same thing.

[Wyo67]

Just shaking my head at this topic. I can't even believe this is even questionable. Indian Summer and Trigger summed it up well. While, it's my opinion that every hunter makes their own decisions (and are accountable) on what they deem as a ethical shot, count me in as one who would never even consider this one. Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.

[Lefty]

Ive had two rifle elk where bullets demolished the spine.
One the bull had been heart shot, the followup running shot turned the spine to mush. however it ran another 90 yards, I dont understand.

Another; a guided depredation hunt,.. the cow elk was going away up a steep 60 degree canyon slope. Kind of gruesome. The finish shot was too many minutes later.
A neighbor kid spined a doe, Three years ago,.. hasn't hunted white-tails since

[Swede]

Years ago I went into the butcher shop in Burns Oregon. They have, or had a display shelf covered with old broadheads removed from big game carcasses. I have no idea if any came from spine shots. I asked if they retrieved more broadheads from game than bullets, as I saw no bullets on the display. The butcher said "we take out a lot more bullets". I believe my record on making shots that quickly brought down the animal is good. It is not perfect. Nuff said on that from me.
Where I hunted most days last season is not conducive to a lot of double lung shots. There were some. I have killed a lot of elk where only one lung is hit. "Oh My" again I suppose. Animals hit by broadheads die from massive hemorrhaging, and not from the balloon popping effect of collapsing lungs. The kill zone on a deer or elk is as large from above as it is on the ground. Death comes from severing arteries and veins. The key is normally to hit close to the heart. Death will come quickly from hitting an outlying major artery. Hitting a kidney will do the trick too. Anyone that says they got their critter with a kidney shot, or femoral artery is saying in affect they just got very lucky on a miss.

[saddlesore]

I suspect there are a lot of rifle hunters that cry bullet failure when in fact they only clipped on lung instead of confessing to poor shooting, or taking shots they knew were risky. On the other hand I suspect there are a lot of archers that say they missed when in fact the only clipped a lung and the elk got past where they could track them.

I think it stems from the desire to punch the tag rather than letting an elk or deer walk because the shot presentation isn't perfect. I see this a lot of hunters that have magnumitus and think that extra umph will let them take a shot when they know they shouldn't. Not pointing fingers,just an observation

[Swede]

I think you are right Saddlesore. I have heard both rifle and archery hunters say "you won't git anything unless you shoot." I find that mentality unacceptable. I have killed a lot of critters with a one lung hit. Lungs are not stacked on top of each other. They are side by side in the chest cavity. If you are shooting down at a steep angle, you can get near the heart, sever as many veins and arteries as with a shot across the animal and cause death just as quickly.

[Indian Summer]

What kind of area isn’t conducive to lung shots? And if you can hit one lung you can hit both unless you’re shooting from the front or the dead center rear. Ain’t much to hemorrhage in a backstrap either.

[saddlesore]

A quartering shot can miss one lung pretty easy. Another is a shot placed too that just barely clips a lung. The angle can be a lot less when that happens. Hit them pretty square and you get both lungs. I don't prefer a straight heart shot because you are more apt to destroy one whole shoulder.
Another thing I disagree with is these that profess in hit them in the shoulders to break them down and then kill them. Basically you end up butchering 1/2 an animal

[Swede]

A shot at a severe down angle will get one lung. It does not matter. It is not piercing two lungs that is important. There is no difference in a one lung hit from above and a two lung hit from the level. Cause massive hemorrhaging and you will kill the animal quickly. When shooting an arrow downward at a steep angle, you will hit the backbone if you crowd over too far and try to get both lungs. If you go over just a little too far the other way your arrow will likely slide down a rib and never enter the chest cavity.
I normally climb 25-30 feet up in the tree to set my stand. Often the water hole and trails are below the base of the tree I am sitting in. Steep angles are normal in tight openings. If you can't make that shot, you need to find a stand location in a large opening, or sit close to the ground.

[Wyo67]

The time it takes an animal to die from hemorrhagic shock can vary from seconds to hours depending on how many vessels are cut and whether they are arteries or veins. A properly placed two-lung shot should cause death within seconds as the lungs will not be able to expand (collapsed) stopping the flow of oxygenated blood to the brain. If I can't make a shot that will accomplish one of the above with either a bow or rifle and the animal walks out of range with out a shot, then so be it. I'll try again tomorrow or enjoy the experience with the tag soup. So to get back to the original question posted, no - I would never intentionally attempt shoot an animal in the spine.

saddlesore - I haven't heard of hunters hitting the shoulders to break elk down. One of my co-workers was stationed in Alaska and he said that's how they hunt the big grizzlies - to avoid having to track a wounded bear into the brush.

[Swede]

Here is a copy of the advice published by permission several years ago from the doctor that wrote it. Swede

"All of this illustrates a key point: it is BLEEDING that kills.

Often, I think, hunters image a tension pneumothorax killing a lung hit animal. If you are trying to cause a tension pneumothorax, then you better hope you are a great tracker.

No, we shoot lungs not due to their "balloon-like" qualities (and they aren't balloons anyway).

We shoot lungs because they are in the chest, and we shoot chests because that is where the blood is.

Sure, there's blood everywhere in a body, but it's not evenly distributed. Most is in the chest. Why? Because you have to run a lot of blood (enough for each pump of the left heart, ie 100% of the cardiac output) (or 50%, depending on how you see it) over a thin membrane to exchange gases, oxygen and carbon dioxide. That membrane IS the lungs. Lungs are vascular, and big.

Kidneys, for instance, get about 25% of the cardiac output, so hit one and it'll die faster than a femoral artery hit.

I visualize a hazy redness in the center of the animal, and in the center of that, a more intense redness. You want to hit in the center of that. That is the top of the heart, with fewer and smaller vessels the further you get away, even inside lungs.

Lungs have a great ability to heal, seal, and otherwise deal with holes, but they can't deal with massive hemorrhage.

So, my advice is to shoot for blood, not organs. Ronald Reagan got shot in the dang heart, but not with a big enough caliber to poke a hole in the chamber. He lived.

They've got to bleed to die quickly, in view (unless their movement is impaired, like a spine or brain hit). Nothing else will die quickly anytime today. Not a gut hit, not a lung hit;
not without hemorrhage.

Let's frame the question in another way: how do "one lung" hits survive?

One thing is FOR SURE: they didn't bleed enough to die, right?

Therein lies the answer.

A deer or person or whatever might or might not die of pneumothorax (usually, they live).

A deer or person or whatever might survive a ruptured diaphragm. (Usually, they do die,p eventually).

A deer or person or whatever might survive a flail chest.

Deer, humans, and all of God's creatures, though, die if they bleed enough. They die quickly. Witness: the odd femoral, carotid, or kidney shot.

People don't understand how vascular lungs are and they overestimate how they are like balloons. They are nor balloon! They are "internal gils". The pumping action of our chest and abdominal muscles push gas and blood over the "gils" but they don't ever "pop".

Most guys understand gils, and that fish live for a while out of water. They can't pump efficiently out here, but kind of still work, for a while. Lungs are just modified gils! Ask Darwin.

But, to make gils or lungs work, you need both gas and blood. Blood is what we are after.


Deertick
Herd Bull

Posts: 1444
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2014 8:32 pm
Location: Wyoming
Name: John"

John who wrote this above explanation is a practicing physician in Wyoming.

[southernelk]

my answer to the original question, is no, I would not intentionally take that shot. however, I would agree with mitch and swede that I have seen many animals shot over the years that appeared to be good shots and the animal by the looks of the kill sites appears to have suffered some. unless it is a clean head shot, I cannot imagine the animal not enduing some pain. our job is to make that as minimal as possible. I have shot animals in the spine unintentionally and have witnessed others as well, it is not a pretty sight. but just because it is not a pretty sight does not mean that it is more painful or there is more suffering. that being said, I would hope that if one chooses to make that shot, he is prepared and able to fire a final shot.

[Trumkin the Dwarf]

Holy smokes, this blew up fast... I step away for one day and you cats are going crazy!

Swede, I think that others here have made very valid points about not causing undue suffering. It's certainly something to consider. I'd push back a little, and ask if any of you fellas have run trap lines? There's serious stress for animals in a trap. Or taken a marginal shot on a nuisance critter like a coyote or hog? How many of you shoot ducks? I'd wager that for every duck I killed stone dead I just winged another. Heck, rabbits scream when you shoot them with a shotgun, even if they are rapidly bleeding out! The point is to get meat, at the end of the day.

Having said all that, I don't think I'd have a problem taking out an elk's spine if that was the only shot, and I was 100% certain of hitting it square. And there is where I disagree with your thinking in taking a spine shot, especially with a bow. There are a heck of a lot of spots on the spine that will deflect your broadhead instead of cracking. Then you've run your arrow through one lung, and most likely NOT hit the heart/arteries. The scenario you just described has the heart covered by the spine, and a deflected arrow is no longer on a line for those blood filled goodies you described.

[Elkduds]

I am glad to read discussion of limiting suffering of game animals. Technology alone will not do that. Only the hunter can accomplish that. It's completely on me what an animal goes through after I shoot it. The only time I would ever shoot to hit or wound would be on already wounded game. I had to do that once as a teenager. Never since then.

Just because we do not witness it, does not mean a wounded animal does not suffer. Shoot to kill. If I don't have that shot, I'm waiting.

[Swede]

I don't think I'd have a problem taking out an elk's spine if that was the only shot, and I was 100% certain of hitting it square.

I assume you can see where I hit the elk in the spine. It is quite well centered. It was no great or supernatural feat. Neither was the other one I shot at 25-30 yards. There is no thought that the arrow will pass through or by and go into the chest cavity. If I could get the angle to send the arrow into the vitals, that is where I would chose. I have shot two out of many animals in the spine. That was the decision to be made. That is what prompted the question; would you take the shot?
I think a more important part of the discussion regards the necessity of a two lung hit. Many angles make that impossible. I have seen proponents of the front shot that is off to one side. That will cause a one lung hit. So will one from a strong quartering angle. I will take those shots if I can get my broadhead into the center of the chest cavity in or near the heart. I did not autopsy the elk I show in the picture above, but the one that caused all of the blood loss took out only one lung. After it had been hit in the spine, the elk turned just enough to get an arrow in at a strong quartering away position.
No ethical hunter wants to cause undue suffering or will take high risk shots. We all need to know our personal and equipment limits.

[Lsb]

Wow this is getting to be like a thread on other sites I've given up on. I typed a whole lot of stuff and deleted it not to fuel the fire. I'll just say, nope I won't.

[Lefty]

I think it stems from the desire to punch the tag rather than letting an elk or deer walk because the shot presentation isn't perfect.,,,,

My dad was a fanatic, "you only take shots that would be good" All my squirrels were head shots ( even as a kid). I still often think of those words.
Moving west I could believe the attitude of some hunters I met

[Swede]

Wow this is getting to be like a thread on other sites I've given up on.

Don't worry. The vast majority of posts are only fair representations of where people stand. I expected some disagreement on this subject, but admit I did not expect the level of interest it would generate. Just be respectful of our differences and post opinions about the subject. I would prefer honest debate to a bunch of groupies patting each other on the back and saying "I agree". There is nothing learned in that. The question is why we believe what we do. Is it experience, something we read from a credible source, or just something that affects our feelings?

Moving west I could believe the attitude of some hunters I met

Help us out here Lefty. What does that mean?

[WapitiTalk1]

I've locked this thread. I thought about deleting it but will just lock it up instead. As with any non-traditional (for the lack of a better term) shot placement on a big game animal, opinions and personal preference (from what we have experience with, what we've been taught, and from what we've read about) vary sometimes to the point of sparking some very emotional discussion. Sure, discussion even debate is fine on our forum but I think this topic/thread has ran its course, and, there have been some borderline personal darts thrown which always gets my hackles up....

So, we'll lock this one up and let it go; carry on.