This is a sort of philosophical question that has shifted into reality for me on several occasions. Of course, it is a play on "A bird in the hand..." and the problem seems to defy logic as there is no one absolutely right answer and there are risk/reward considerations that come into play. So I was curious how other people resolve this issue when they are hunting.
Of course, as a hog hunter, you probably would like a crack at both the hog you have in your sights right now and at the sounder in the next field that you can see/know is there right now, but can't shoot at right now for some reason (distance, unsafe direction, etc.).
I have played this scenario on several occasions with most potential results.
I have shot the hog in the sights and managed to get to the next field where the sounder has disappeared.
I have shot the hog in the sights and managed to get to the next field and shoot members of the sounder.
I have skipped the hog in the sights and gotten to the next field and the sounder has disappeared.
I have skipped the hog in the sights and gotten to the next field and shot members of the sounder.
I have scanned the hogs in the next field trying to figure out if it is worth my while to go their first and had the hog that was in my sights disappear on me and then it turned out that getting to the sounder put me up wind and I got busted.
I have shot and hit the hog in my sights only to have it run off and be lost, and managed to get a couple from the sounder.
I have shot and hit the hog in my sights only to have it run off and be lost, and had the sounder disappear on me.
What seems to really compound matters is whether I am hunting alone, in a pair, or in a group.
Hunting singly, I have come to decide that playing a lone target (in my sights) is often my best chance for a definite success (shot, hit, and recovery) and that it is worthwhile to stalk the single or take my time to choose the absolute best shot possible to assure success. I would rather go home with a single good kill than to try to get to the sounder in the next field and risk coming away with no kills. However, in getting one kill and losing the sounder (which is common), I always wonder if I should not have gone after the sounder first, instead.
Paired hunting can go either way. Group hunting (when left to a vote) almost always opts to go for the sounder if it is at all possible.
Of course there are a lot of factors that come into play, but as a general operating philosophy, is a hog in the sights worth more to you than a sounder in the next field?
Of course, as a hog hunter, you probably would like a crack at both the hog you have in your sights right now and at the sounder in the next field that you can see/know is there right now, but can't shoot at right now for some reason (distance, unsafe direction, etc.).
I have played this scenario on several occasions with most potential results.
I have shot the hog in the sights and managed to get to the next field where the sounder has disappeared.
I have shot the hog in the sights and managed to get to the next field and shoot members of the sounder.
I have skipped the hog in the sights and gotten to the next field and the sounder has disappeared.
I have skipped the hog in the sights and gotten to the next field and shot members of the sounder.
I have scanned the hogs in the next field trying to figure out if it is worth my while to go their first and had the hog that was in my sights disappear on me and then it turned out that getting to the sounder put me up wind and I got busted.
I have shot and hit the hog in my sights only to have it run off and be lost, and managed to get a couple from the sounder.
I have shot and hit the hog in my sights only to have it run off and be lost, and had the sounder disappear on me.
What seems to really compound matters is whether I am hunting alone, in a pair, or in a group.
Hunting singly, I have come to decide that playing a lone target (in my sights) is often my best chance for a definite success (shot, hit, and recovery) and that it is worthwhile to stalk the single or take my time to choose the absolute best shot possible to assure success. I would rather go home with a single good kill than to try to get to the sounder in the next field and risk coming away with no kills. However, in getting one kill and losing the sounder (which is common), I always wonder if I should not have gone after the sounder first, instead.
Paired hunting can go either way. Group hunting (when left to a vote) almost always opts to go for the sounder if it is at all possible.
Of course there are a lot of factors that come into play, but as a general operating philosophy, is a hog in the sights worth more to you than a sounder in the next field?