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.

 

[5MilesBack]

Re: selecting archery because the season is longer—that’s a practical response, of course, but it doesn’t get to the fundamental question, and that’s my fault.

It's not just the longer season. When I rifle hunted, I had no interest at all in applying for moose, sheep, or goat tags. But after I started bowhunting, the allure of hunting them with a bow grew strong, so I started applying. I finally got my moose and sheep 5 years ago, and then drew a goat tag this year. I turned the goat tag back in because I've got a bum hip with a labral tear right now that needs fixing. Ultimately I'm an elk hunter (and there's nothing like chasing elk in Sept during the rut), but I'll chase anything down with my bow in hand if I can get the tags.

 

[HunterGatherer]

Such a touchy subject . I hunt archery primarily, by choice because most of the excitement I get from hunting is inside of 100 yds. When I shoot them in the vitals with my bow they die just as fast as when I shoot them in the vitals with my rifle. A “primitive” weapon isn’t any less effective than a modern weapon. It just comes down to the shooter’s proficiency with their chosen weapon.

I would speculate that we see more threads about “help ! I can’t find my animal” with archery because archers have a better view of whether they actually hit the animal and make an effort to track and recover it. When a guy shoots at an animal 500+ yds away and the animal runs off, not sure if they hit it or not, maybe the hunter looks for blood , doesn’t find any and just assumes they missed. So they don’t get online and post a thread asking for help on how to find their animal…

The reality is that most hunters, whether proficient with their chosen weapon or not, are not proficient trackers.

 

[HunterGatherer]

View attachment 951779

This made my day

 

[Hnthrdr]

Such a touchy subject . I hunt archery primarily, by choice because most of the excitement I get from hunting is inside of 100 yds. When I shoot them in the vitals with my bow they die just as fast as when I shoot them in the vitals with my rifle. A “primitive” weapon isn’t any less effective than a modern weapon. It just comes down to the shooter’s proficiency with their chosen weapon.

I would speculate that we see more threads about “help ! I can’t find my animal” with archery because archers have a better view of whether they actually hit the animal and make an effort to track and recover it. When a guy shoots at an animal 500+ yds away and the animal runs off, not sure if they hit it or not, maybe the hunter looks for blood , doesn’t find any and just assumes they missed. So they don’t get online and post a thread asking for help on how to find their animal…

The reality is that most hunters, whether proficient with their chosen weapon or not, are not proficient trackers.

Exactly, plus most guys are recovering a bullet to shoot again, a 35 dollar broadhead with a 35 dollar arrow attached most guys are looking for that since it only went a handful of yards and not hundreds.

There are a few threads about long rangers knocking down animals at 600+ yards and asking what to do, they meet a lot of ummm judgement so I think less and less people are asking just like if someone said they took a 90 yard shot with a bow and wounded something you will get dragged

 

[tater]

Passion for all different hunting methods exist on a continuum. Some bowhunters are also year around archers, just like there are rifle loonies who burn multiple pounds of powder in the offseason.

At the other end you have the "i screw my broadheads on the day before season" and "i only need a box of rounds every ten years" guys.

Don't even get me started on the buckskin rendezvous blackpowder guys... (cult! cult! cult!)

There is something about an intertwined enjoyment of the experience of hunting and truly enjoying the method of take. Sitting on a mountainside and admiring the fine bow, modern rifle or muzzleloader you are grinding it out with is an added joy.

Couple in the satisfaction that comes with success after eating tags by willingly choosing to give every opportunity for an animal to bust you. Like the old Harley t-shirt says "If i have to explain, you wouldn't understand anyway."

 

[Hnthrdr]

Don't even get me started on the buckskin rendezvous blackpowder guys... (cult! cult! cult!)

How do I sign up?! I’m trying to be one of those dudes, I’m only 35 so I have a few years but I wanna run around shooting elk in a loin cloth and war paint

 

[Old3Toe]

A weapon's EFFICIENCY does NOT endow a hunter with PROFICIENCY.

A weapon's CAPABILITY is NOT a measure of a hunter's ABILITY.

 

[Yoder]

I've heard of these "sound shots" on the internet before but never met someone stupid enough to say they do it themselves.

I've heard guys from New Yawk say that before. I was hoping they were joking.

 

[blackveltbowhunter]

Last season I tracked more animals shot with a rifle than bow (not all mine). I didnt track any of my animals bow shot. All fell in sight. One buck hit with a rifle was not recovered he is still alive and doing fine. Two other bucks hit with a gun were difficult track jobs, on requiring a lot of skill and persistence. In the end both were fully recovered, but serve as example that the weapon is only as good as the operator running it.

 

[BigDewberry]

There are a few threads about long rangers knocking down animals at 600+ yards and asking what to do, they meet a lot of ummm judgement so I think less and less people are asking just like if someone said they took a 90 yard shot with a bow and wounded something you will get dragged

I can get behind bow hunting and do it myself despite knowing its not the best choice. Long range hunting (300 yard +) is pure ego and a bad look for all hunters. At some point you are just target practicing on live targets.

 

[North of 60]

@BigDewberry, while i definitely lean in your direction for closer shot vs longer shots, for rifle hunting it kinda depends on the size of game animal, your equipment, and your range to train...to me your point is more geared toward smaller critters, say deer or speedgoats, if you are limited to a 100 yd range to practice, and don't have the rifle/cartridges, scopes, and rangefinders for longer distances...i can see how it would seem that way.

On a large animal (e.g., elk or moose) in still wind with a good scope, 400 yds is actually easy for a competent shooter with decent equipment.

If you have the gear, a place to train in the wind for longer shots than you would hunt critters, and practice, practice, practice, proficiency allows for longer shots to become reasonable, and it isn't the same thing than not having those opportunities in a more limited gear/training situation.

There are lots of folks on this forum who have the skill from practice with good gear to take ethical shots longer than 300 yds.

For bow hunting i prefer the challenge of inside of 10 yds, and i have learned to not shoot game past about 25 yds to reduce string jumping.

 

[BigDewberry]

On a large animal (e.g., elk or moose) in still wind with a good scope, 400 yds is actually easy for a competent shooter with decent equipment.

If you have the gear, a place to train in the wind for longer shots than you would hunt critters, and practice, practice, practice, proficiency allows for longer shots to become reasonable, and it isn't the same thing than not having those opportunities in a more limited gear/training situation.

There are lots of folks on this forum who have the skill from practice with good gear to take ethical shots longer than 300 yds.

I have some heavy skepticism that a shooter with a cold barrel and in hunting conditions can make 10/10 shots at those distances. I can make shot well beyond 600 yards on a bench rest and no time pressure.

Lets see them get 5 hours of sleep in a tent with 3 smelly dudes, hike 5 miles, glass the entire day. sit around in the cold for 9 hours, then make a shot all pent up and excited to see if they can make it.

I agree those shots are possible. I'm just not sure why you would take a shot like that when you can easily move in closer. People bow hunt these animals, its not like getting to 150 yards is impossible or even that difficult.

 

[Beendare]

I'm just not sure why you would take a shot like that when you can easily move in closer. People bow hunt these animals, its not like getting to 150 yards is impossible or even that difficult.

Thats a blanket statement that is simply not true.

You have obviously never hunted PJ country.....

 

[wyosam]

For sure I would hope so, just from the surveys I’ve filled out, I wouldn’t be shocked it if was just that. The data can be hard to gather & I imagine and without a big enough sample size it isn’t all that telling. I just know most guys will walk 20-50 yards to look for an arrow or find blood a lot of guys won’t walk 300+ yards if they think that they didn’t hit it or they didn’t see it go down

Or they went but never found the spot the animal was at so they were looking for blood in the wrong place.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[blackveltbowhunter]

Distance is one of the few measurables in the shot selection equation. So many other variables that are not measurable that I am not sure why distance is the one so controversial. I have taken shots I should not have taken at spitting distance and killed clean at "long range". We should be learning from every shot we take, and mistakes will be made during the learning process. There is no such thing as an "easy" shot. Just shots that are more routine for an individual.

 

[Hnthrdr]

Or they went but never found the spot the animal was at so they were looking for blood in the wrong place.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This is a real thing, how many times do you plan a stalk only 300-400 yards away and when you get there think huh this looks nothing like did through my binos?