Exclusively Bowhunters vs. General Rifle Hunters.... lend your thoughts

[charvey9]

The fact is that stereotypes about hunting and hunters do exist. I think Dustin's comments have been taken a bit out of context, and there is some truth to what he saying about the negative perception non/anti's have toward hunting. However, as a group we do not do ourselves any favors by using the backcountry hunting argument as a means to support their incorrect view of rifle hunters or hunting in general.

By propping up backcountry hunting as the "right" way to do it, you are acknowledging that any other way is not correct. This simply is not true. Although we all have our preference, there is nothing dishonorable about filling your freezer with game that is easily accessible. As hunters we should support all our brothers/sister who hunt honestly, ethically, and within the law.....regardless of weapon used and distance traveled.

The more appropriate discussion to hold with non-hunters would involve understanding and dispelling the incorrect perception they have toward our passion in general. As is the case with most things, a few bad apples spoil the bunch. The unfortunate examples of poaching, other illegal activity, and poor sportsmanship are the only interaction most of these people ever have with hunting. In the long run our way of life is better served by explaining the true rarity and misconception in these events, and then supporting our argument through all the benefits that hunting can provide. Namely food, conservation, and connecting with the outdoors.

Don't throw brothers to the wolves in an effort to gain short term allies.

 

[Shrek]

Let's talk about the moral and ethical high ground. Bubba in his pickup with his 30-06 looking for an animal close to the road to shoot is in fact standing on much higher ethi ground when you distill it down. He's using an ultra efficient method of take that delivers the quickest and most humane death. Used at ranges less than 200 yards by someone even moderately proficient with a high power rifle death is almost instantaneous. Compare this with archery equipment which is much more likely to wound and cause loss and almost never delivers instantaneous death. Then let's compare the risk of loosing meat to spoilage between us , backcountry backpack hunters , and bubba with his animal down less than 200 yards from the road. Within the hour bubba is on his way to someplace to process the animal and freeze it while we are just starting the hike out with the first load. Add in the heat of the earlier archery season and the challenge of getting the meat out there is much greater risk that some or all of the meat will be lost. All the challenge of archery and backpack hunting is narcissistic self indulgence. That includes me because I choose to backpack hunt and I acknowlege that there is a greater chance I will not recover the meat despite my best efforts and intentions. So maybe we sinners can refrain from throwing stones at Bubba and his '06.

 

[BroodBuster]

Then why did the Republican Party run him out of town? TR took on corruption where he found it and at the time most of that was in the Republican Party. Today it's equal in both parties. They tell us what we want to hear and then do whatever Wall Street tells them to do.

Hunters are not a constituancy of either party. We simply are not rich enough!

 

[Take-a-knee]

So maybe we sinners can refrain from throwing stones at Bubba and his '06.

Well stated.

 

[Take-a-knee]

Then why did the Republican Party run him out of town?

Because TR was a huge threat to the Money Trusts/monopolies, just the same as a free-enterprise/pro USA capalist is an enemy to the Fortune 500/US Chamber of Commerce set today. TR and Reagan were both unplanned anomalies.

 

[5MilesBack]

Don't throw brothers to the wolves in an effort to gain short term allies.

Great statement here. Doesn't matter whether someone's shooting a bow, shooting deer from their front porch, dropping giraffes, or clubbing seals. If its legal I won't condemn them.

 

[Take-a-knee]

Hunters are not a constituancy of either party. We simply are not rich enough!

They will "allow" us to hunt on "their" public lands, for now. Their long-term goals are to lock it up completely. They've written as much. Google "Re-wilding" and read all about it.

 

[Jason Snyder]

With all due respect Shrek, you're resorting to a straw man argument here.

While I agree with you that it's easy to lapse into a state of elitism and think that my way is better than yours because of these reasons. However, your example above makes an awful lot of assumptions that may or may not be true. Is Bubba proficient with his '06? Maybe, but I've seen a lot that aren't. Does Bubba take his deer right to a cooler if needed? Maybe, but I've seen a lot that don't.

Does said archer become proficient and know his limitations? Maybe, maybe not. I've seen archery gear cause death within seconds, which is as quickly as an modern firearm will sans a head shot. Does said backpack hunter know his limitations and plan accordingly? I sure hope so. I really don't see backpack hunting as offering any excuse whatsoever for meat loss. Barring a serious physical injury, I don't foresee why a responsible backpack hunter should have a concern about this.

Narcicistic and self indulgent? I don't think so. Only if you condemn others and look down your nose at them for what they do. So long as it is legal and ethical, I don't really care how people hunt. I do care about how they portray that to non-hunters. If you leave every rifle shot deer out overnight, then jump up and down like a fool before rambling on and on about how hard you worked and how much this deer (that you named) means to you and thank your 45 sponsors, then you make us all look like fools.

There is nothing wrong with being honest either. I primarily archery hunt. It is a self imposed challenge that I enjoy immensely. It does not give me justification for poor shots, wounded animals, etc. I am primarily a meat hunter, and when the season is winding down and I have the option, I'll grab the '06 too. I won't apologize for it, nor will I necessarily have to don my backpack and live in the boonies for days while I do it. Is it a hunt? It may or may not be. Sometimes it's simply a harvest, and I'm okay with that. If it's simply a harvest to Bubba every time, I'm okay with that.

Be honest with yourself and with others. I personally have a hard time justifying trophy hunting. If I don't eat it, I don't want to kill it. I am willing to bet that a large number of non-hunters have a very difficult time reconciling the thought of trophy hunting in their minds. I am not going to persecute someone for trophy hunting, but again, be honest about it and realize that it may put off some of the very same folks that would likely support someone that is hunting for meat.

 

[Shrek]

Jason , I'm pretty sure we agree on this although we don't state it the same way. We could talk about variables all day but the bottom line is we need to stop trying to divide the hunting community. We all hunt for different reasons and as long as it's legal and not leading to extinction I support it. Like it was said earlier , clubbing baby seals if properly managed has my support. Not my participation though . Clubbing baby wolves ? You can count me in

 

[Mike7]

I have no problem supporting hunters in whatever legal pursuits they participate in, but I think that it would be great for hunters to put pressure on other hunters in a private manner about waisting game meat due to a simple lack of effort. That would be a better solution than Fish & Wildlife having to get involved down the road I would think, or having anti's use this as one more advertisement against hunting.

Specifically, I watched a couple of Outdoor Channel shows for something to do while on the treadmill inside recently before the weather got nice, and they made no attempt to care for or retrieve the game for at least 16 hrs. These were guided outfits operating by lease on large private ranches in the southwest. I can't remember what show it was, but on one show they took a 1200 yd shot on a bull elk near dusk and near their vehicle, that dropped the bull right in his tracks. It was up on a gentle incline with some rocks near the top that would not allow 4 wheelers to drive right to the elk. So they made some lame excuse about safety, went to the lodge for dinner with the guides, and came back and gutted the bull around 10 AM the next day it appeared...not a very good advertisement for hunting.

 

[hodgeman]

QUESTION
If non-hunters are a valuable asset, which do you think they will be generally more supportive of?
1) Backcountry bowhunting, tough terrain, no ATV's, packing out your own animals, etc....
2) Glassing from the car with your .30-06 in a pair of blue jeans, taking an animal no more than a few hundred yards from a cozy cabin

I think there is a stereotype that people who hunt in general are simple minded guys looking to take the laziest route to kill an animal 200 yards away, sometime for meat, and sometimes just for fun.

I personally think if you want to have hunting appeal to a larger modern audience, it needs to be shown as an extremely difficult and educated process.

thoughts?

I think this whole thread has been about drawing simplistic analogies that just don't have a base in reality. I've hunted both the backcountry and i've popped a caribou 200 yards from the road...so what does that prove? Nothing, other than I'm an opportunistic predator.

Everybody hunts for different reasons and most of us hunt for many reasons simultaneously...non-hunters looking at the great body of hunting will be supportive and derisive for many different reasons as well. Trying to turn backcountry bow hunting into some moral purity PR campaign for hunting in general just isn't going to be productive, or effective. We aren't stereotypes, we're people. We're quite a bit more complicated than that.

 

[MattB]

Jason, I have always appreciated your perspectives here, and I don't mean this to sound like baiting to be argumentative - but how do you define "trophy hunting"?

The reason I ask is it is one aspect of hunting that non-hunters often tell me they do not support. They loosely define it as animals that are killed only for antlers/horns and for which the meat is wasted. I think we as hunters generally understand that is illegal in most states (which I explain to them and often cite examples of wanton waste laws such as AK's), and hence the commonly held definition is something between a gross exaggeration and a myth.

I for one am often selective and hunt for mature animals - trophies in my eyes. But I also work very hard to utilize the meat from the animals I kill (hunting for antlers and hunting for meat are not mutually exclusive).

 

[Jason Snyder]

Matt,

I sent you a PM.

 

[gmajor]

Some great posts in here, along with the occasional thinly veiled party rhetoric. The way I see it, as with literally all the hunters I know, both parties include viewpoints and policy that are both pro and anti-hunting. I find the lesser of two evils does fluctuate between the two historically. Personally, I think long term viability revolves around solidifying the pro-hunting viewpoint of non-hunters who engage in some form of outdoor pursuit, be it fishing, photography, skiing, backpacking, etc. In essence, becoming part of a larger conservationist viewpoint that recognizes hunting as one of many legitimate and important recreational activities and components of conservation, instead of "outdoor recreation groups" in one corner and "sportsmen's groups" in another. Divided we fall, etc (and that goes for dividing hunters into what weapons they use, too)

 

[WyoHnt300]

This topic came up on the Joe Rogan Experience, Remi Warren was the guest. They cover it briefly starting around 1:30 ish. JRE #637

 

[bogeyboy555]

My first and last thought about you and your attitude toward other hunters who do not come at hunting with the same values as you do is you are an absolute elitist prick. I can't even begin to express how obnoxious I find you. Just because the guy in the pickup who glasses up a roadside animal and shoots it to fill his freezer and doesn't find value in making filling the freezer an epic struggle doesn't make his way invalid. You most certainly come from an urban environment so crave time in nature and your own mythology of what hunting should be. I'm sure that as you try to convince non hunters of your rightiousness you also spread your prejudice against rifle hunters , non backcountry hunters , and anyone who doesn't provide validation of your choices and values. Your choice reflects that you have both the luxury and desire to choose a less efficient method of take.

Shrek,

My apologies for giving you the impression that my original post was prejudice or aimed at anyone hunter specifically. I was only posing questions that arise during my conversations with hunters, non-hunters, and anti-hunters (typically a younger crowd as well). Like any sport, attracting interest in young/devoted members is crucial to the longevity and growth of the sport. While I do strive to get the best from what I have earned, I do not feel like the questions I have asked make me an "elitist prick" or make me an obnoxious person.

If as hunters we want to educate people on the values, reality, and benefits of hunting - why shouldn't these questions get asked in this arena? This thread is full of great ideas about how to address the viewpoint of hunting. All useful information, that managed to give you a perception that my asking it was attacking a particular hunter. Did you find anything anyone else said useful? That's all I was trying to do was pick the brains of others around me, because I don't have all the answers.

 

[tstowater]

I hope this comes through. I'm technically challenged on doing this stuff. Kind of an interesting perspective. Got this from a buddy the other day.

 

[airlocksniffer]

View attachment 24880


I hope this comes through. I'm technically challenged on doing this stuff. Kind of an interesting perspective. Got this from a buddy the other day.

Not really sure what this is adding to the discussion other than you trying to get under people's skin.

 

[tstowater]

I was curious on how long it would take for someone to misunderstand or make a false assumption on the purpose of the post. As this is a free country, yet, people can be "conservative" or "liberal" of their own choosing. I love to hunt, it doesn't make a difference as to weapon, just give me the time, money and opportunity. Some people are more specific as to weapon choice for their own reasons, and thanks to this being a free country, that is their choice. I'm not interested in "labeling" people, especially hunters, as we need to stick together regardless of political afillation, "conservative"/"liberal" leanings. My point and purpose for the post was to challenge people's perspective of "why". May not make sense to some, but it does to me.

 

[airlocksniffer]

So the interesting perspective is libtards are government mooches. Still not seeing how this is relevant or beneficial to the discussion of bowhunters and rifle hunters.

That aside, if you follow laws and hunt ethically, whether that's with a bow or rifle, you are a hunter and get my full respect and support. Purists of any kind are so insufferable.