On hunting with less efficient weapons

[Swamp Fox]

The only good reasons for legal restrictions requiring less lethal means of killing are safety or limiting collateral damage/excessive killing. Less lethal means usually make it harder for the hunter to comply with their ethical requirements as the hunter and to train to a higher standard.

[...]

wtf are you talking about

who is 'requiring less lethal means of killing'

the rest of the post .....i can't even...

 

[Nine Banger]

 

[Swamp Fox]

100% this is a quasi-religious topic. it's also not a one-size fits-all answer, ie the answers dont apply across the board to every situation, etc. First, @Annapolis are you intimately familiar with the North American Model and the conservation funding mechanism that is built into hunting "opportunity"? If not, imo it's not possible to have this conversation without that understanding, it's the bedrock behind the season structures (rifle+archery+muzzleloader) we have in nearly all cases.

After that, yes, at some level with any weapon you get a "fringe area" at the edge of effective range for many users where animals get wounded--that might be a slightly different rate, and it might come at different distances or conditions, dending on some variables--but it does exist with all weapons. As far as a less efficacious weapon within a "category", ie recurve versus a compound versus a crossbow...technology changes, sometimes very quickly. Are you going to mandate that everyone buys a new bow every season to "keep up"? Are you going to force longtime archery hunters to start using a crossbow? Those crossbows were illegal for almost everyone just a few years ago. My dads old rifle has sentimental value, is it now illegal to hunt with becasue it doesnt have a dialing scope allwoing me to shoot it accurately at long range? Every person will have a different effective range and ability to make an ethical shot using their weapon. Much of it relies on the person rather than the implement--I know plenty of people with steely nerves who shoot their vertical bow better than a newbie with buck fever will shoot their crossbow--how do we tell? Then we have other factors like noise--a crossbow is loud, and its not so fast that deer dont jump the string...is a 50-yard shot with a crossbow any more ethical than a 25 yard shot with a vertical bow, even if "groups" at the range are tighter, due to the likelihood of a deer ducking at the sound? There is always an element of self-responsibility regardless of the specific weapon, and knowing your own limits and staying within them. So its really hard for me to say that one persons preference of what they want to hunt with is necessarily a more or less efficacious choice, and whether it is more or less ethical. I think its good to have the conversation, and it's easy to throw stones at folks with a different perspective, I just havent yet found anything satisfactory other than just encouraging people to do the best they can to find their own limits and stay within them.

sir,

across the forum and numerous threads, i appreciate your posts and very often strongly agree with them.

however, i do wish you would adopt the concept of paragraphs and live it, not only because it is a writing standard, but because it would be so much easier to follow your thoughts.

in the meantime, i will make apologies for my lack of capitalization, poor punctuation, and any other errors.

this keyboard is fried.

 

[Scoot]

... it's a selfish and self-glorifying thing to do. If someone bow hunts and doesn't use a rifle at all, they will let you know 100% of the time. Ego.

100% wrong for me and the guys I hunt with. I only bowhunt and if you think that's driven by ego, you're not only wrong, you're clueless. I don't give 2 craps what weapon you use and I don't brag about the weapon I use. I use a bow because it's what I enjoy shooting. It has nothing to do with ego. Totally ridiculous and misguided post. Does it apply to some? Sure. Does your ridiculous stereotype apply to most? Not at all.