THE KILLING PROFICIENCY OF MOOSE HUNTERS

H. R. TIMMERMANN, Regional Moose Biologist, North-central Region, Thunder

Bay, Ontario

Ab6t4aet: The ability of hunters to instantly kill or mortally wound a moose

(AleeJ alee6) depends on factors such as their past experience, familiarity
with and adequacy of firearm, some knowledge of the animal's vital areas, as
well as visibility and distance to target. A moose hunter seminar held in
Thunder Bay prior to the 1976 season allowed hunters the opportunity to self-
evaluate their shooting performance. Potential wounding rates among 30
participants who averaged 16.2 years hunting experience were subjectively
assessed to be in the magnitude of 25 to 30 percent. It is suggested that a
system of shooter improvement to ensure a minimum hunting skill be a basic
prerequisite for obtaining an annual hunting license.

In order to develop a sound big game management program, it is

necessary to know the number of animals removed from any given range. Total

mortality statistics generally include the reported or estimated legal

harvest. In addition, a calculation for natural mortality may consider

losses attributed to predation, winter severity, disease, drowning, and a

variety of other causes, including animal-vehicle collisions and poaching.

During every big game season many animals are shot at, and some are

hit but not recovered. A percentage survive, while others die or fall prey

to a variety of scavengers and predators. Survival depends on factors

including degree of injury, hunting pressure, winter severity, range

conditions, and state of health before injury.

The killing proficiency or competence of hunters to cleanly dispatch

their quarry should concern all moose managers. How many animals are

wounded but not recovered during a hunting season is always good for a

lively but nonconclusive discussion. Until recently game management agencies

have largely considered hunter wounding or crippling losses to be

insignificant or have simply ignored them.

13
 Wounding, crippling, and unretrieved losses attributed to hunters are

estimated in several ways. Hunter surveys utilizing mailed questionnaires

or personal interviews, as well as post-season ground searches of heavily-

hunted areas, are the most frequent methods used. A number of examples are

provided in the deer (Odocoiieu& sp.) literature. Potential losses have

been reported to vary from 10 to 50 percent of the legal kill. Losch and

Samuel (1976) estimated the average annual deer losses in the United States

to be 30 percent of the reported legal harvest based on 42 studies. Admitted

losses by Ontario hunters interviewed at fall check stations have varied from

10 to 25 percent (Hepburn and Morrison, personal communication). Unfortunately,

for moose,very little material has been published. Several surveys based on

hunter questionnaires and personal interviews however indicate a wide

variance.

Table 1 illustrates projected moose wounding losses based on 10,971

mail survey returns from Ontario (Barbowski, personal communication).

Provincially, wounded animals accounted for 7.7 percent of the 1975 legal

harvest. Calculations made for 10 management units administered by the north-

central region indicated a range of 0 to 9.2 percent. Check station

interviews on the other hand have produced some rather high estimates.

Beange (1976) contacted 747 unsuccessful hunters who admitted sighting 45

moose, shooting at 16, and wounding 11. Similarly Greenwood (1976) reported

that of 44 moose shot at in the Nakina, Ontario area, 10 were not killed and

4 were known to have been wounded. Minnesota hunters admitted wounding an

additional 55 of 1,515 registered moose killed during the past 3 special

seasons (Karns, personal communication). Rates varied from 2.1 to 6.0

percent depending on the year and area. An additional 79 or 5.2 percent

were reported found dead by participants. Soviet Union moose wounding

losses excluding legal or poaching kill average 24.3 percent in a sample

of 2,358 nonhunting related cases over a 7-year period (Zablotskay 1967).

Losses varied from a low of 1.0 percent in East Siberia to a high of 36.9

percent in the West European geographic region.

Table 1. Hunter reported wounding rates expressed as a percentage of the
a
legal harvest for Ontario, 1975 (Barbowski 1976) .

Geographic Calculated Calculated no. Projected moose Estimated

Area no. hunters moose ki !led wounded rate (10)

Wildlife
management unit 11 311 104 8.0

12 1,717 439 31 7.1

13 2,840 673 62 9.2

14 225 82 0 0

15 5,219 962 68 7.1

17 383 53 0 0

18 1,433 144 11 8.0

19 2,439 376 31 8.3

21 6,114 982 83 8.4

33 883 166 8 5.0

Total north
central 19,452 3,524 257 7.3
region

Province 82,205 11 ,306 872 7.7%

The above data is based on 10,971 returns from both successful and non-
successful hunters to the question: Did you shoot any moose that you
weren't able to recover because the wound was not fatal?
No: or Yes: I wounded animals.

15
 The precision of such voluntary information is often suspect and must

be carefully interpreted (Timmermann 1975). Most hunters are hesitant to

discuss or admit they may have wounded an animal. In addition, conditions

frequently prevent an accurate assessment.

The writer is grateful to the following individuals for providing

unpublished information: J. Barbowski, R. Hepburn, and K. Morrison of the

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources; D. Langille of Confederation College,

Thunder Bay; H. Haswell of the New Brunswick Department of Natural Resources;

and P. Karns of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Game Research.

In addition, the assistance of D. Langille and P. Anderson of Confederation

College, Thunder Bay; R. Kotanen and members of the Thunder Bay Fish and

Game Club; J. McNicol, R. Gollat, and Dr. A. B. Bubenik of the Ontario

Ministry of Natural Resources is appreciated for initiating and carrying out

the shooting sessions.

INFLUENCING FACTORS

Some factors by themselves or in combination influence the ability of

hunters to successfully retrieve a kill. Familiarity with and ease of

handling a firearm is probably the single most important element in

determining shooting proficiency. How many hunters practice between

seasons or sight their weapon in before starting out? Witness that 11.5

percent or 1 in 10 potential moose hunters failed to hit a stationary target

2 out of 3 times in the province of New Brunswick prior to the 1976 season;

the target, a 40.6 cm (16 in) square at a distance of 46 m, shot at in any

position with no artificial rest (Haswell, personal communication).

The question of how well individuals can see was studied by a group

of optometrists who tested the visual abilities of 845 beginning New York

State hunters (Crinigan 1964). Ten percent failed the minimum standards,

while 23 percent were rated as having vision deficiencies. Visual acuity,

or the ability to recognize detail at a distance, was the test most

commonly failed, followed by distance judgment. The importance of both

undoubtedly increases under certain field conditions.

~
 Hitting the target is only part of the objective. More important is

the effect a projectile has after making contact. Ideally a bullet should

just penetrate both sides of the animal while leaving most of its power

inside. A minimum of 162 kg/m (1,200 ft Ibs) of energy delivered at 91 m

(100 yd) should be more than adequate if well placed (Langille, personal

communication). Table 2 lists a number of cartridges capable of such

delivery. Bullet design and construction will determine penetration,

expansion, subsequent release of energy, and whether the projectile will

stay together. Tragectory is also an important consideration. A 30-06

rifle sighted in for 91 m (100 yd) will drop over 30 cm (1 ft) at 228 m

(250 yd) (Table 2). Unfortunately few hunters, according to Downing (1971),

can resist shooting at game even when it is beyond effective range of their

weapon.

The secret of effective killing is well-placed hits in vital body

areas. Brain and spinal column shots quickly immobilize, but the target

is small. Shots striking the spinal column in the rear portion may permit

a moose to continue travelling by dragging its paralyzed hindquarters.

Breaking I or both shoulders or forelegs above the knee joint, or severing

the windpipe or jugular vein will normally bring an animal down. Heart or

lung shots are almost always fatal but may not stop a moose immediately.

Lethal paunch or gut shots, except with bullets developing great shock and

tissue destruction, may require a long chase. Hunters often expect their

target to stagger or fall at shot impact, however a bullet may pass through

a soft portion of the body with almost no shocking power.

The position of and distance to an animal can influence shot

effectiveness. A close-range broadside view presents a large object. An

animal facing away or toward the shooter will allow for a much reduced

target. Failure to compensate for movement may result in a shot striking

the paunch or hindquarters rather than the vital heart-lung area. Finally,

a large percentage of hunters rarely see a moose between hunting seasons.

 Table 2. Ballistics of centre fire cartridges rated good and fair for moose (Langille 1977).

Energy delivered in Trajectory in inches

Cartridge foot pounds at: at:
Size Bullet wt. (gr.) Type b 100 yds. 300 yds. 100 yds. 250 yds.

375 H&H Mag. 270 pp 3510 2228 o -10.3

338 WIN Mag. 200 pp 3137 1977 +0.9 - 6.1
300 WIN Mag. C 180 pp 3095 2262 +0.8 - 5.3
300 WIN Mag. 150 pp 2900 1827 +0.7 - 4.8
300 H&H Mag. 180 ST 2785 1927 +0.9 - 6.0
300 H&H Mag. 220 ST 2677 1765 o -11.0
7mm REM Mag. 150 pp 2667 1792 +0.8 - 5.2
300 H&H Mag. 150 ST 2652 1707 +O.B - 5.3
7mm REM Mag. 175 pp 2483 1452 o - 9.4
270 WIN 150 pp 2307 1528 +0.9 - 6.1
284 150 pp 2243 1480 +1.0 - 6.3
30-06 Spring C 150 pp 2217 1295 +1.0 - 6.6
30-06 Spring 120 pp 2216 1301 o -13.8
30-{)6 Spring 180 pp 2203 1192 o -11.2
348 WIN 200 ST 2178 1241 o -12.7
358 WIN 200 ST 2093 1151 o -13.3
303 Brit. 180 pp 2096 1393 o -11.6
308 WINc 180 pp 2066 1109 o -12.1
308 WIN 150 pp 2061 1193 o - 9.8
7mm Mauser 175 SP 1821 1027 o -13.4
300 Say. 150 PP 1779 1012 o -11.6
30-40 Krag. 180 pp 1761 929 o -14.5
Bmm Mauser 170 PP 1672 771 o -14.6
300 Say. 180 pp 1639 860 o -15.6
I GOO D I
F AI R
I
303 Say. 190 ST 1588 619 o -24.1
30-30 150 PP 1356 651 o -16.0
30-30 170 PP 1355 720 o -18.0
32 WIN 170 PP 1320 606 o -19.0
35 REM 200 PP 1280 577 o -23 .5
30 REM 170 5T 1253 666 o -19.6
J2 REM 17G ST 1203 569 o -20.6

Source - Winchester - Western, New Haven, Connecticut.

Cartridge Type - PP - power point; ST - Silver tip; SP - 50ft point
c Top 3 popular calibers - Minnesota (P. Karns, personal communication) and Ontario.
Consequently, the actual size and proportion of the animal when sighted can

vary considerably from that conceived or imagined.

Animals are frequently lost by directly pursuing them after shot. If

a moose disappears, a hunter should check the direction of flight by compass.

The presence or absence of blood may assist in determining if a hit has been

made. Height of blood on vegetation and its distribution on either side of

the trail will help indicate wound magnitude. Some fatal wounds bleed very

little, while others flow freely for a time and then stop, leaving bloodstains

at irregular intervals. A hunter must learn to read these and other signs

left at the scene of the engagement. Ideally, one should wait 30 minutes or

more before following the track. This will allow the moose, if mortally

wounded, to lie down and stiffen up. Tracking shoUld proceed slowly and

quietly to ensure a shot at the animal when sighted again. A specially

trained bloodhound or elkhound is well suited to such a task.

The assumption that all licensed "hunters" are equally capable of

making a clean kill is false. Even though commonly acknowledged that in

any society there exists a few good hunters, (Holsworth 1973), more mediocre

hunters, and many poor hunters, little attempt has been made to eliminate

the latter. Most North American game agencies merely require their hunters

to have passed a hunter safety examination or show proof of having purchased

a hunting license in the past. An exception recently is the province of

New Brunswick which introduced during 1975 a mandatory shooting and written

capability test as a prerequisite to purchasing a moose license. The

motive behind this legislation, however, was primarily to reduce large

numbers of annual license applications and not necessarily to upgrade hunter

capabilities (Haswell, personal communication). In Scandinavia a yearly

shooting test using a life-sized target is mandatory prior to purchasing a

license (Bubenik, personal communication). Hunters who cannot hit such a

stationary and moving target are not allowed to hunt.

SHOOTING SELF-EVALUATION

To better evaluate and assess potential wounding losses in moose,

19
a shooting test similar to that used in Scandinavia was designed. A moose

hunter seminar held in Thunder Bay, Ontario prior to the 1976 season allowed

participants an opportunity to self-evaluate their shooting performance. An

attempt was made to simulate a hunter-moose encounter and assess the effect

a shot might have had on a live animal. Indirectly then, ~le attempted to

subjectively measure potential wounding rates or the killing efficiency of

moose hunters. Dr. A. Bubenik provided the initial stimulus for this

project.

Each hunter supplied his or her own rifle and ammunition. The target

was a life-sized moose silhouette constructed by the Graphics Department of

Confederation College in Thunder Bay. It consisted of styro-foam material

covered with black bristle-board. vital internal body areas were faintly

sketched according to an illustration contained in the Finnish hunter

handbook "11etsastajan Opas" (Rajanto et al. 1975). Prior to shooting,

participants filled out a duplicate form containing 8 questions (Appendix

1). Each shooter was allowed 2 offhand standing shots with no time limit.

The target was placed in a stationary broadside position at a distance of

80 m. Participants were advised to aim where they normally would when

encountering a live animal under similar circumstances. After each shot,

the location of the hit was located relative to the faint outline on the

target and transferred to a similar sketch on both forms. A subjective

assessment was made by at least 2 experienced hunters concerning the effect

each shot may have had on a live animal. A shot into the brain or spinal

cord area was judged to be an instant skill. A mortal wound constituted

a shot into the heart, lungs, or liver area whereas a hit into other

nonvital areas, including the stomach, legs, neck, or ears, was recorded

as a potential wound. Black electrical tape was placed over each recorded

shot before proceeding. Upon completion of both shots, 1 copy of the form

indicating shooting performance was handed to the participant and the

other retained for analysis.

20
 A total of 30 shooters participated. Appendix 2 illustrates their

age, years of hunting experience, type of rifle, whether the rifle had been

zeroed in, and a subjective assessment of the 1st and 2nd shots. Potential

wounding losses among the participants, who averaged 16.2 years hunting

experience, were subjectively assessed to be in the magnitude of 25-30

percent (8/30 1st shot, 9/30 2nd shot) (Table 3). Losses were reduced to

13 percent (4/30) when both shots were combined. On such a small sample,

it is impossible to correlate any 1 factor with the ability to consistently

kill an animal. There seems little doubt however that shooting performance

can and must be improved even among "experienced" hunters. This is

especially true when one considers that in the field 2 broadside shots at

a moose within 80 m may be a rather rare occurrence. Every hunter should

have a moral obligation to ensure his rifle is accurate and sighted in

prior to hunting. In addition he should be able to use that firearm

effectively to ensure a clean fast kill.

How can killing proficiency be improved? Moose managers must assume

a greater responsibility to ensure hunters upgrade their skills. This

is 1 reason Ontario has recently initiated a series of moose hunter seminars.

In 1977, 3 such seminars exposed nearly 400 participants to a series of

illustrated presentations concerning moose management, biology, and shooting

proficiency.

From the evidence presented, it is obvious that improvement in hunter

skills, understanding, and attitude is both necessary and desirable. The

need for such an upgrading must be understood and voluntarily complied with

before it really becomes effective.

POSTSCRIPT

During the fall of 1977 a total of 191 shooters in 4 different

localities of Ontario duplicated the shooting season. Results were

similar to those found in 1976 with wounding rates subjectively estimated

at nearly 30 percent overall. In Thunder Bay, 86 participants had the

added opportunity to test their proficiency against a moving target.

21
 Table 3. Circumstances and results of a hunter-proficiency-self evaluation session (subjectively assessed).

CIRCUMSTANCES
Total Participants - 30
Mean Age - 33.2 years
Mean Age of Hunting Experience - 16.2
Number Shots Allowed - 2
Distance 80 metres RESULTS
Pos iti on standing (offhand)
l'tShot - Instant Kill - 3
Time Limit - none Mortal Wound - 17
Date - September 22, 23, 1976 - Wound ( possible loss of moose) -8
Place - Thunder Bay Fish & - Miss - 2

Game Range - Pento 2nd Shot - Instant Kill- 2

- Mortal Wound - 14
""
RIFLE USED Road
Wound ( possible loss of moose) -9
(a) Cal ibre: 30-06 - 9 - Miss - 3
308 - 6
300 WM - 6 No second shot - 2
303 Br.- 3
30-30 - 2
270 - 1
40-90 - 1
375H&H - 1
250-3000- 1
SIGHTED RIFLE IN BEFORE HUNTING

(b) Type of action - 5.5. - 2 Did you zero your rifle before hunting last season
(c) Typeof'ight - No record - 3
Auto - 2 - Open - 8
- yes - 28
- Bolt - 17 - no record - 2
Scope - 19
- Lever - 7 Did you zero your rifle before this session
- Pump - 2 - yes - 14
- no 12
- no record - 4
Potential wounding rates were nearly double (24/86 stationary vs. 43/86

moving). Successful shooters who scored a mortal wound on either their

1st (stationary target) or 2nd (moving target) shots were awarded a lapel

pin.

LITERATURE CITED
Beange, D.B. 1976. Black Sturgeon check station report, 1976. Unpubl.
Rep. Ontario Min. Nat. Res. Nipigon Dist. 6pp. Mimeo.
Crinigan, O.D. 1964. A hunter's eyes - how good are they? New York State
Conserv. April-May 1964. l5pp. New York State Conserv. Dept.
Downing, R.L. 1971. Comparison of crippling losses of white-tailed deer
caused by archery, buckshot, and shotgun slugs. Proc. Southeastern
Assoc. Game Fish Comm. 25:77-82(1), (6).
Greenwood, C. 1976. Fly-in hunt for the Nakina area, Geraldton District.
Unpubl. Rep. Ontario Min. Nat. Res. Geraldton Dist. l2pp. Mimeo.
Holsworth, W.N. 1973. Hunting efficiency and white-tailed deer density.
J. Wildl. Manage. 37(3):173.
Losch, T.A. and D.E. Samuel. 1976. Unretrieved deer left by hunters: a
literature review. Trans. N.E. Sec. Wildl. Soc., April, Hershey,
Pennsylvania. Pages 19-33.
Rajanto, T., M. Rissanen, R. Poteri, and A. Finer. 1975. Metsastajan Opas,
Metsastajan Keskusjarjesto Jagarnas Central-organisation, Helsinki.
l56pp.
Timmermann, H.R. 1975. Discrepancies in moose harvest data. Proc. 11th
N. Am. Moose Conf. and Workshop, Winnipeg, Manitoba. Pages 501-520.
Zablotskaya, L.V. 1967. Prichiny gibeli losei v razlichnykh
geograficheskikh rayonakh. (The causes of moose losses in various
geographic zones) ~~ Biologiya i promysel losya, Rosselkhozizdat,
Wildl. Serv., Edmonton, Alberta. 30pp. Mimeo.

23
 Appendix 1 - Form com~leted MOOSE HUNTER SEMINAR
by shooters.
Hunter Proficiency Self-Evaluation Session
Presented by
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
Thunder Bay District Fish & Game Association
and
The Confederation College of Applied Arts & Technology

Shooter Noo _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ 1st Shot 0 lnstant Kill

Date _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____ o Mortal Wound
Range _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
o Wound ( possible loss of moose)
o Miss
2nd Shot 0 Instant Kill
o Mortal Wound
o Wound ( possible loss of moose)
...'" OMiss

Namc _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

Age _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Did you zero your rifle before hunting last season
Years of Hunting Experience Oyes
Ono

Did you zero your rifle before this session

Rifle - Calibre _ _ _ _ _ __
o yes
Type of action 05.S. Type of sight 0 Aperture Ono
OS.A. OOpen
080lt oScope
o Lever
o Pump
Appendix 2. A subjective asscssment of th;:. killing proficiency of 10 nloose hunters; each ililowed 2 offhand dUll ~ ilt oJ
IHe sized target, 80 metres distant.

Years
~ of hunting Type of rifle Zeroed rifle ill before Subj('( rive ilSS"""rrlcnt of
___ "C_,___,_._"_bc!"
,g::..,_ _,_x..cp_.r_i_'__ action sight last - scasoll - this 1st shot 2nd "hot

)6 20 270 80lt Scope Yes No

)6 20 )08 Bolt Scope No Hli

)) 15 )08 Lever Scope No

33
46
20
20
)OB
30--06
Auto
Bolt
Scope
. Yes
No
H"

62 40 39--06 Pump OpelL

44 )0 30-)0 Lev('r Open

)1 15 300tr.-! Bolt Scope

IS 30-30 Lever Opell

10 )1 )OOllH Bolt SCQpe Yeo MIl

11 )6 23 30--06 Bolt Scope Y., No NY

12 28 12 )08 Lever Opl!1I Yo> No MY

IJ 26 II ]OOWM Bolt Open y., Ye, lk

14 48 )0 ]0011&11 Bolt Scope Y..
14 30--06 Bolt Scope Y..
15.
16 )7 24 ]OOWH Bolt Scope Yes No
""
N" BY

17 )) )0) Boll Open Y., No MIl MIl

18 44 22 40-90 Single Open Yo. No til"

19 41 )5 ]0--06 Bolt Scope Yc, Yo. Mil

20 )4 22 ]0-06 Auto Opell Y..

2! 48 28 )75H&!I Bolt Scope Yeo lk
24 ]O)Br-. No
22
2) 23 )O]S!" .
Rolt
Bolt
Scope
.., ""
24 29 11 250-]000 Lever Scope! Y., No

25 )6 23 30-06 Bolt Scope No

26 27 12 )08 Lever Scope y, :i

'0
27 )1 15 )('8 L('v~r Yo>
V'~5
28

29
)1

)8
15
19 30-06
SIngle
Bolt
Scope

Scop'" Yo>
""
'.I

)0 17 30-06 Pump N"

a ---- nt:> rpcord

b ti\oJ morral would
c "" wound (possible loss of moose)

d H Mis';

e Ik Illstant Idll

25