- Joined
- Feb 18, 2009
- Messages
- 4,573
Outstanding, Old CW4.:thumbup::thumbup::thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:
I couldn't be more in agreement.
-
The BladeForums.com 2024 Traditional Knife is ready to order! See this thread for details: https://www.bladeforums.com/threads/bladeforums-2024-traditional-knife.2003187/
Price is$300$250 ea (shipped within CONUS). If you live outside the US, I will contact you after your order for extra shipping charges.
Order here: https://www.bladeforums.com/help/2024-traditional/ - Order as many as you like, we have plenty.
Archery, Survival Yes, Hunting No!
- Thread starter Old CW4
- Start date
Outstanding, Old CW4.:thumbup::thumbup::thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:
I couldn't be more in agreement.
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2006
- Messages
- 7,035
I don't think anyone is debating the ethics of bowhunting. The point from the beginning of the thread was unethical hunters.
- Joined
- May 3, 2006
- Messages
- 1,819
Not with an inflamatory thread title like "Archery, Survival Yes, Hunting No!"
Yet another self-righteous thread where one hunter falls for the trap of condenming a method of hunters that are not "his kind". HSUS and PETA will win if we keep tearing at each others. :grumpy:
There is no shortage of statements from bowhunters that portray gun hunters as lazy, ill-prepared greenhorns that are unfamiliar with their weapon, their prey, and the woods. Traditional archers love to preen about how they are superior to those that use modern archery tackle. EVERYBODY whimpers at the idea of hog hunting with a knife or using hounds when hunting cats.
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2007
- Messages
- 1,745
archery is too humane to not allow IMHO.
i think the thread starter emphasized that it was really bad archers, not archery, that he was against.
some random thoughts;
the swiss make their hunters go through a lot of tests if they want to legally hunt.
part of hunting is abandoning your ego - if there is a deer overpopulation, its better that it dies somewhere from a bad shot than going through your wife's windshield when she hits it on the road. i've seen too much of that in the parts of the country that have curtailed hunting because of outsiders coming in and making it hard to hunt (and practice, for that matter).
Grain Weight of arrows might need to be addressed. - it doesn't matter how fast that arrow goes if it doesn't have inertia. - equally, a through-and through arrow shot can be just as slow to kill as bad targeting. - personally i like shooting "telephone-pole" arrows, as my friends call mine - but what i shoot dies. i also have a 32-inch draw length.
no overdraws.
a large amount of bad arrow shots might be detected simply because you are in prime hide areas, where animals go to die. like sitting in a funnel.
vec
i think the thread starter emphasized that it was really bad archers, not archery, that he was against.
some random thoughts;
the swiss make their hunters go through a lot of tests if they want to legally hunt.
part of hunting is abandoning your ego - if there is a deer overpopulation, its better that it dies somewhere from a bad shot than going through your wife's windshield when she hits it on the road. i've seen too much of that in the parts of the country that have curtailed hunting because of outsiders coming in and making it hard to hunt (and practice, for that matter).
Grain Weight of arrows might need to be addressed. - it doesn't matter how fast that arrow goes if it doesn't have inertia. - equally, a through-and through arrow shot can be just as slow to kill as bad targeting. - personally i like shooting "telephone-pole" arrows, as my friends call mine - but what i shoot dies. i also have a 32-inch draw length.
no overdraws.
a large amount of bad arrow shots might be detected simply because you are in prime hide areas, where animals go to die. like sitting in a funnel.
vec
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2004
- Messages
- 1,011
Post expired.
Last edited:
i grew up hunting, rifle and then to trad bow hunting. to say that a hunter should never make a mistake, just isn't realistic. they do happen, but, the difference between a ethical and responsible hunter, and the other, i find to be is that and ethical hunter puts in the time, thinks about proper shot placement, strives to be in the best position for a clean, quick kill. also, while bad shots happen in bow hunting, unfortunetely, it takes more skill to get close enough for the shot, good or bad. with a rifle, that is not the case. while there are rifles(underlined) capable of shooting hundreds of yards, unfortunetely you get goofs thinking just because there rifle can, so can they.
- Joined
- Oct 8, 1998
- Messages
- 8,917
The thread was poorly titled. I mean, I have done so in the past as well but the OP really did debate the ethics of bowhunting when he titled the thread as he did. The title of the thread is the first thing you see. So, that is the beginning and the beginning is rather inflammatory.
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
Yes.
Perhaps the OP is not really that way but just spoke more from the heart. My Dad was very critical of hunters in general, but never the method. I think that was the mistake of the OP along with a poor choice of words for the title.
Well, not "everybody" of "nobody" would be doing it, but I get your point.
Society is full of squeamish people...the farther we get from doing it all ourselves...just like taking care of family who fall to illness up to and including taking care of a corpse. Society has changed and what most people call "civilization" or "progress" I tend to cringe at those things. How many people under 35 years old outside of a war, medicine or mortuary science context have ever seen a dead body before it was embalmed?
We are not "better" for missing out on these experiences, in my opinion. It makes us weaker.
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
Perhaps it is because we live in different places...but just how "responsible" can you be at night and driving 55 MPH, the posted speed limit? Answer? Sometimes they jump out. If you see them and you don't slow down, that's just foolish but when you are talking about some of the areas around here, it is simply impossible to travel the posted speed limit and avoid hitting these animals. There is no reactionary gap because of the close proximity of their habitat, the woods right along the side of the road.
I hate to say this for fear of jinxing myself but the only incident I have had with a deer was when a doe hit me. I saw her and a couple other deer in the median and it was either 30 or 35 MPH posted in that area and I slowed down to about 7 MPH and she bolted, she was so close to the road, she bolted and she hit my vehicle, the driver's side door where it meets the front quarterpanel. Now, that's not my fault she freaked and tried to kill herself. There was no front end damage, all on the side well away from the front portion of the vehicle and I have seen many vehicles damaged in this way.
Vehicles and highways mixed with wild animals is a blender. I agree with you that most people are irresponsible but, come on, this "point" is really stretching it. Some of these deer pop up and jump out of nowhere and they get smashed.
Yeah, confiscating a person's means of transportation, worth several thousand dollars, yeah, that's the way to go.
And, no, I do none of those things but I don't believe in that degree of intrusive government, either.
I cringe when I see the ethics angle. Is trapping, including snaring, "ethical?" If one of the definitions of "ethical" is never causing suffering, I would imagine I am unethical because if it comes between me and an animal dying in an unpleasant way that could be defined as "suffering," I will absolutely be "unethical."
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2009
- Messages
- 795
Another comment about survival. I sure would hate to depend on archery gear for survival without plenty of real world practice before the survival situation. Chris
- Joined
- May 3, 2006
- Messages
- 1,819
Wait a minute!!!! I'm the wild-eyed belligerant and Don is talking me down from the tower?!?!? What strange parallel universe is this?? 
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2006
- Messages
- 7,021
Thank God, I thought it was just me.
Doc
These "archers" are the same guys that don't sight their guns in before opening day and end up with a belly shot- then make the poor choice not to track it and finish the job. If you shoot it, there's never a 100% on it not running, but you finish the job. I have taken a solid shot and spent four hours tracking the poor deer. Not my favorite hunting trip, but the right thing to do. Sometimes an archer practices for a 40 yard shot, and gets real excited and ends up taking a 60 yard shot that is not fatal. This is irresponsible. Sometimes "stuff" happens, but it is ultimately a hunter's job to track and bag the animal whenever possible.
We don't need to give any more ammo to our anti-hunting/anti-meat/anti-gun/anti-knife citizens. We have to set the example and the standard by using our tools properly and responsibly.
Not to make this overly political, but sometimes I look at these issues and I see being a citizen as being a kid in a really really big family. If your Uncle Sam finds out you've been using a bow/knife/gun improperly or dangerously, he's probably gonna try to make a rule limiting how you can use those things. Or even worse, take it away from you altogether.
Best thing to do in these situations is to clue your wildlife officers in to the incident, so that they can perhaps come up with some "hotspots" and look for people doing these things in the future. They'll probably never catch the "one" that shot the deer you found, but it sends a good message that a majority of hunters do not condone this sort of thing.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Oct 8, 1998
- Messages
- 8,917
:jerkit:
- Joined
- May 3, 2006
- Messages
- 1,819
Archery, Survival Yes, Hunting No!
Thread title is inflammatory.
Actual OP, not so much.
Re: hunting.
It is not the weapon choice but the operator that is the problem.
What ever weapon you choose, limit your shots according to your own personal ability.
Like Harry said, “A man's got to know his limitations.”
Thread title is inflammatory.
Actual OP, not so much.
Re: hunting.
It is not the weapon choice but the operator that is the problem.
What ever weapon you choose, limit your shots according to your own personal ability.
Like Harry said, “A man's got to know his limitations.”
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2004
- Messages
- 1,011
Post expired.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Oct 8, 1998
- Messages
- 8,917
I don't disagree, Don. I am from the deep Northwoods country originally - where deer jump back and forth across public roads like jack rabbits. There, it isn't a question of "if" you might hit one, it is "when" you hit one. I could have explained myself better and been more specific.
I sorta figgered that was the case. Here - it's insane at times. BOOM! Right out in front of you and if you don't go the speed limit, you're going to get flown to shock trauma because of some of the very same idiots you are talking about.
Well, most people go through life looking at the inside of their colon, so it doesn't really surprise me none.
Anything that I might say after this portion of my post should be viewed with the reminded that I don't believe in trespassing on other people's property to start with. If I owned land, I would not want people on it if I had it posted, I would expect people to respect that boundary as I do other's property.
Well, as you might have already figured out, I don't have a whole lot of use for people just shooting stuff to be shooting it unless it is in self-defense or because it is a vermin, etc. But game animals should be used unless they are diseased.
Yeah, I think some people that might obtain a handicap permit of some type should be allowed to shoot from a standing/parked vehicle but shooting in and around roads is a big no-no where I am from as well. Just common sense. In the same way vehicles move fast and sometimes deer cannot be avoided, well, bullets and vehicles move very fast and that's just a recipe for disaster unless you have a lot of visibility.
As far as being intoxicated, if someone is having a beer or something and they are not intoxicated, I don't have a problem with that. If someone really is intoxicated, they don't need to be screwing around with a firearm.
I can't say for anything we have discussed in this post just yet would rise to some type of confiscatory action, however.
There are some people who are just "law and order" people and that's that and never shall anything, no excuse or situation enter into the discussion as to why someone did something.
To me, there are two types of poachers. There are those that profit from breaking the law, people who would poach animals to take the ivory, hide or pelt or even sell the meat to a restaurant or some type of meatpacking business, etc. Since they are making their living breaking that law it would seem not only sensible but reasonable to take the profits/fruits of their crime, their rigs that they are using in their criminal enterprise.
The second type of poacher, and please consider that this country is incredibly large and as we discussed with driving around deer, there are many different areas in the country with different dynamics, etc.
There are places down south that are economically depressed areas and now, more than ever, hunting and fishing licenses are increasing in price and people need to kill for food. Not because they like to, but that's just the way it is. I'm sure with some it is a rebel attitude but I have known quite a few people that do it for real, because if they don't, they don't really have enough money to feed their family.
I know some people might not like this way of thinking and they might get all indignant about this but, that's the way it is.
Hunting is not getting any cheaper and some of those areas are not getting any "better," either. Sometimes, there is a reason to break the law. Some will inevitably say, "That's true, but then if you get caught, you have to pay the penalty." Laws that prevent poor people from obtaining food in this manner, well, I don't consider them moral or ethical, either. Just me. Roast me if you want to. Won't change anything.
It's interesting, my brother was talking to me a few weeks ago about some article he read or documentary he watched about some river in England and the British Gent that was talking said that Britain is the real place of capitalism, you have to be a member of a club or you cannot fish on any of that river. In The United States, he was saying, just anyone can go out and go fishing.
I think that is where we are going. Earlier in this thread there was a hint of that - that because of the increase in hunting costs, it's keeping the lower class out of the game or diminishing their ranks...that kind of thinking will lead to terrible things.
And, I'm not casting ideas on you that you have not signed your name to, just talking about it. Nothing is perfect but it seems as though as we continue on in our development as a country, we are simply becoming more and more Draconian and people actively complain about the development and perpetuation of a nanny state, but they like the whole informant angle as well.
If a person did have three beers in him, I don't think that should mean the loss of a vehicle, I just don't. Poaching for profit? Yeah, take it. Feeding your kids...no...what is being done seems to be more about "The King's Lands" than the taxpayers lands...stepping back in time.
I don't want to step in anything here, but...
Suppose many of the dead animals I encounter in the forests were wounded by firearms hunters, only it's not so obvious since there's no arrow visibly sticking out?
Sure, I've found many loose arrows in the woods likely mis-shot by hunters. But how many rifle bullets are out there too, only no one can see them?
Suppose many of the dead animals I encounter in the forests were wounded by firearms hunters, only it's not so obvious since there's no arrow visibly sticking out?
Sure, I've found many loose arrows in the woods likely mis-shot by hunters. But how many rifle bullets are out there too, only no one can see them?