On hunting with less efficient weapons

[rustyN]

I think a lot of people are conflating "efficiency" with "power" or some other term that doesn't actually mean what they think it means.

Terminal ballistics and terminal performance are what we care about. In terms of efficiency I would argue bows are much more efficient killers that firearms. The damage incurred from a well place shot is devastating, all while doing it under 400fps and under 100 ft lbs of energy - THAT is efficient. Less work, same result.

 

[Annapolis]

OP here again. Thanks all for these replies.

My takeaway here—and from my own still early experiences (with bow and rifle now)—is that my premise was maybe a false one. It’s not a question of more or less lethal instruments: it’s a question of more or less lethal shots, as someone very proficient with a bow at close range can kill a deer as quickly and effectively as someone proficient with a rifle. It’s a question of knowing your weapon, its capabilities, and your own skill. I can see how the hunt is more exhilarating and harder when using a weapon with a more limited range—one that’s less forgiving and requires better craft and knowledge of the hunter.

When I talk with non-hunters, I notice this is one aspect of what we do that they struggle with. Their logic being: if we’re really after ethical meat, why not use only the most powerful and precise weapons? Why should a hunter’s “enjoyment” factor in when we’re talking about killing animals? (Does anyone care whether a slaughterhouse worker enjoys killing cattle?) Once we start factoring in our own feelings (enjoyment, adrenaline, feeling connected to nature/the past, etc) as hunters, aren’t we all saying that, on some level, we’re all (the much dreaded) “trophy hunters”?—the trophy being the experience for us, if not an actual physical trophy? Shouldn’t it be about harvesting an animal as painlessly as possible and nothing else?

Of course I get it. But I’m in MD, and work with 99% non-hunters, many of whom have questions, hence my annoyingly academic interest in thinking this through as a discussion point and wanting as many points of view as possible. None of them are really skeptical or aggressive about it—just curious and confused. So I’m trying to be a good, well-informed ambassador. (Two of my friends have already expressed some interest in learning to hunt after talking to me.)

 

[Snyd]

OP here again. Thanks all for these replies.

My takeaway here—and from my own still early experiences (with bow and rifle now)—is that my premise was maybe a false one. It’s not a question of more or less lethal instruments: it’s a question of more or less lethal shots, as someone very proficient with a bow at close range can kill a deer as quickly and effectively as someone proficient with a rifle. It’s a question of knowing your weapon, its capabilities, and your own skill. I can see how the hunt is more exhilarating and harder when using a weapon with a more limited range—one that’s less forgiving and requires better craft and knowledge of the hunter.

When I talk with non-hunters, I notice this is one aspect of what we do that they struggle with. Their logic being: if we’re really after ethical meat, why not use only the most powerful and precise weapons? Why should a hunter’s “enjoyment” factor in when we’re talking about killing animals? (Does anyone care whether a slaughterhouse worker enjoys killing cattle?) Once we start factoring in our own feelings (enjoyment, adrenaline, feeling connected to nature/the past, etc) as hunters, aren’t we all saying that, on some level, we’re all (the much dreaded) “trophy hunters”?—the trophy being the experience for us, if not an actual physical trophy? Shouldn’t it be about harvesting an animal as painlessly as possible and nothing else?

Of course I get it. But I’m in MD, and work with 99% non-hunters, many of whom have questions, hence my annoyingly academic interest in thinking this through as a discussion point and wanting as many points of view as possible. None of them are really skeptical or aggressive about it—just curious and confused. So I’m trying to be a good, well-informed ambassador. (Two of my friends have already expressed some interest in learning to hunt after talking to me.)

Well, you can tell em there is pain in death whether is a meat packing plant or in the woods. Most non or anti hunters eat meat. They just prefer it wrapped in plastic so to not have to deal with the reality of the death of the animal. Our culture has lost touch with the cycle of life. 4H kids get it. They raise fowl, auction them off and then kill and butcher them for the buyer. Last month we ate a turkey at thanksgiving a 15 year old daughter of our friends raised. They killed, gutted and plucked it, her Dad deep fried it, I cut it up and listened to her tell me all about the Turkey as she chewed on one of his drumsticks. How high he could jump, what kind of Turkey he was, etc. That girl gets it.

and you can share them this quote...


"One does not hunt in order to kill; on the contrary, one kills in order to have hunted...If one were to present the sportsman with the death of the animal as a gift he would refuse it. What he is after is having to win it, to conquer the surly brute through his own effort and skill with all the extras that this carries with it: the immersion in the countryside, the healthfulness of the exercise, the distraction from his job."
Jose Ortega y Gasset, Meditations on Hunting.