Thanks, that’s at least a coherent argument.
1 Like
Just a guess, but the former is for fun (or “sport”) and the latter is for sustenance.
Do I win the prize?
2 Likes
What I’m saying–and at this point I’m as much purely philosophizing as anything else-- is that (IMO) killing animals because it’s the best way to feed yourself and your family is entirely justifiable, but it’s a long way between “I need to feed my family” and “I want some tasty bacon.” There’s nothing vital about modern first-world meat consumption; even if you don’t go vegetarian, most historical societies had way less meat in their diets on average than we do. If you had a pound of meat, you put it in a stew with lots and lots of veggies and fed eight people, you didn’t grill it up whole and feed two.
So I’m not sure if our bacon consumption quite rises to the virtue of “sustenance.” It’s arguably just as hedonistic as “I want some cool antlers on my wall.”
Another idle guess: eating bacon provides more sustenance than hanging antlers on your wall.
Do I win the prize now?
My apologies, I thought you actually wanted to have a discussion.
1 Like
[quote=“PhasmaFelis, post:169, topic:62767”]My apologies, I thought you actually wanted to have a discussion.
[/quote]
Well, you asked an obvious question, and I gave you an obvious answer. Was I wrong? If not, I want my prize.
Also, I’ll point out that it’s fairly disingenuous to reduce the entirety of killing a pig to “I want some bacon”, as if that had any resemblance to reality. One slaughtered pig provides quite a lot of meat (including, yes, bacon). Further, there’s no tangible relationship between killing a pig and the amount of meat we eat today vs. what you imagine we might have eaten in the past. That line of thought is a red herring at best.
If you want a serious discussion, ask serious questions.
okay, okay, i come from a bow hunter family, but only deer in the PNW. so i am sure that skews my experiences mightily.
i don’t know why you would want to tar me as a douche, other than i know how deers are stalked and taken but not the more exotic animals Ted N. has taken.
but if you need to completely eviscerate me for suggesting that a decent bow hunter can learn when to take a shot and when not to… i guess that is up to you.
(btw @zieroh what exactly are we arguing about?)
4 Likes
Yeah- that. You have an agenda here now, not just an opinion. Your statement unfortunately shows me you don’t care to discuss reality, even if it’s painful for you or the subject of your derision. Because that would mean seeing other points of view, that include points you are not willing to accept, even though they may be true.
Don’t worry- unlike some others who comment, I will not rip you apart. I will be nice with you.
Ted Nugent is an awesome guitarist. His other traits are less desireable- see [this.][1] That article alone shows the man is not a hunter. He’s a bloodthirsty monster. Even people who are wrong get some things correct- while killing 455 feral hogs with a machine gun from a helicopter is completely insane, he is right about feral hogs destroying land throughout Texas. And culls of them are encouraged. But even if it’s legal, and I assume with that many bullets, death for most was quick, he fucking killed 455 wild hogs from a helicopter, with a machine gun. The motherfucker is not a hunter- he’s a pig assassin.
If you want to make a man like that the representative of bow hunters, you are only an agenda deluded person. No sane person would ever claim someone like that is representative of a population.
Sad thing is, aside from his blind NRA love, I loved Ted Nugent’s insanity with guns, on his own property, until I read that. Now, I just think he’s taken nuts too far, that is, if he wants to claim to represent anything from the perspective of a sane man.
Psychopathy is often the playground of the malaised rich.
And you don’t seem to know anything about bowhunting. Because plenty of people kill deer every year with a normal bow. Plenty more with crossbows. You don’t shoot a running deer with either. You stalk. You hide. You wait. And a bow has further lethal range than you think. Even so, if you miss- it’s near silent. You can fire again. I personally know some people who have bowhunt, using a traditional recurve mind you, for bear. People hunt elk and moose with them as well- animals big enough to easily kill you if you get close and scare them, big enough to completely total entire cars like accordions at full size. Yet a well placed arrow with large broadhead drops them like a rock. It does seem to take a few seconds or a minute longer than a gun. But it is pretty quick if done correctly.
Methinks you need to do a Hercule Poirot, and use your little grey cells a bit further. If you understand what you hate, and can debate it rationally, and not with men that kill hundreds of pigs with machineguns from helicopters, you might have a rational and fruitful arguement with someone.
[1]: HuffPost - Breaking News, U.S. and World News | HuffPost"THIS.
1 Like
ya know i’ve never met a hunter up here that used a crossbow? hides, sure. compound, yeah. bear recurve bow? all. over. the. place. my mother in law used to make hunting bows from yew trees.
the several people in my family and extended family that hunt with guns either use bolt actions or something so close i can’t tell the difference.
the people with the ‘fancy’ guns take old televisions up into the woods and target them like jackasses.
2 Likes
That further proves Ted has absolutely no grasp of reality. There is an entire industry built around bowhunting for deer alone.
Maybe he’s ignoring reality ala Homer in the Simpsons when he tried to turn on his TV with a handgun. Maybe he’s totally bought into the idea that only guns can modify his reality. I don’t know. He’s just crazy.
2 Likes
I did bowhunt- once. I trained with a bow for years, just never had the urge to hunt with one. It was more of a I want to target shoot without bullets kinda thing.
Then I inherited an old handmade Canadian recurve 60 lb. draw hunting bow- that looks very similar to that one.
I never saw anything that year, and it didn’t hold my interest.
So I went back to target shooting in my yard.
1 Like
How is it cruel or inhumane? You said earlier you aren’t against hunting. A broad head arrow to the vitals is a lethal as a rifle round. Are you making an assumption there are less “good shots” with a bow, because I don’t know if you have the data to back up the assumption.
ETA - you don’t eat the antlers. You can eat all the meat and still display the antlers.
1 Like
My only agenda here is to point out that bow hunting is cruel and the people who do it are douchebags. I’m not clamoring for legislation or anything nearly so organized as that. If you want to call that an agenda, you go right ahead.
You want reality? Okay. No problem.
In a major study done in 1989 by Glen Boydston and Horace Gore, wildlife biologists at the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, they compared data on archery and gun wounding losses gathered at four wildlife management areas in Texas from 1972 through 1985. During this period, archers bagged 128 deer and wounded and failed to retrieve 130 others, for a crippling loss exceeding 50%—revealing that for every deer legally killed and recovered by a bowhunter, at least one or more deer were wounded and left to die in a slow and painful manner. Gun hunters killed 2,266 deer and wounded 150 others for a crippling loss of 7%. Thus, only 1 out of every 14 deer shot with guns was not retrieved.
Want more?
In a 1983 study of wounding loss in Iowa, H.L. Gladfelter, confirms Benke’s contention and reports that crippling is not correctable by increased training or field experience and is a by-product of the sport.
How much would you pay now?
At Rock Cut State Park in Illinois in 1988, bowhunters killed 53 deer and left at least 42 others injured in the woods.
I could go on and on. The supply of these data points is virtually endless. But let’s switch to what I think is a much more interesting facet of bow-hunting: the bow hunting community, in fact, knows that it has a problem. The problem isn’t so much that they are maiming animals and subjecting them to a slow and painful death – the problem is that if the general population discovers this inconvenient fact, people will be mean to them and call them douchebags. But don’t take my word for it – let’s let the community speak for itself:
Bowhunter Magazine
An article entitled “Bow Wounding Losses THE BIG MYTH” by David Samuel states: It is disquieting to know that we probably wound one deer for every animal harvested. Samuel also states: The only reason I can think of is that bowhunting is difficult, more so than gun hunting. Some non-thinking bowhunters apparently feel it’s better to say that they at least hit a deer than admit they didn’t harvest one. That’s really dumb logic and every time someone says they wound a deer to anyone else, even a bowhunter friend, it gives the wrong message to anyone who is listening.
Western Bowhunter Sept. 1991
A guest editorial – “Responsible hunting Starts With You!” by Larry D. Jones states: Don’t talk to anyone about wounding animals, especially in public places or among non-hunters. Jones also states, If you videotape your hunts, don’t show bloody kill scenes, rough handling of animals and animals struggling, kicking or quivering as they go down, to non-hunters or anti-hunters. No one including myself, enjoys seeing animals suffer.
Archery World March/April 1988
An article entitled “Hit or Miss” by Glenn Hegeland states: Why do so many
bowhunters think just hitting an animal with an arrow is the pinnacle of success? I heard a guy the other night brag that “I hit four tonight.” Then he sort of mumbled in his soup that he couldn’t find any of them.
Bowhunter 1989 Big Game Issue
An article entitled “A Call for Accuracy” by Dwight Schuh states: Our sport can’t stand forever in the face of growing hatred. Archers must work to counteract that sentiment and build bowhunting in a positive light. The first step should be obvious. Don’t brag about hitting and losing animals. He goes on to say, There’s nothing honorable about hitting and losing an animal; it just means you screwed up. Don’t brag about it. Just shut up.
–
So don’t lecture me about an “agenda”. I find it beneath contempt that, faced with an actual problem, the bow-hunting community seeks to change perception rather than the root problem. The ones with an agenda are the ones doing as advised in the articles above – lying about their incomplete kills.
4 Likes
Can you find more recent studies than 25+ years ago? I am not a bow hunter, but I know the bows they make now with their quick release pulls and various sighting systems are considerably more accurate and easier to use then anything made back then.
2 Likes
oh man, this will get dark, if you want to talk about literally the murder of animals and how much pain different methods cause.
18% wound rate for archery
~30% wound rate for high powered firearms
handguns are similar to high powered firearms
shotguns are the highest level of… it hurts to even say it… injury to death ratio.
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/1997/02/24/knives-00006/
this study is with humans though.
modern compound bows are pushing 50%, wound versus kill.
http://www.archerytalk.com/vb/showthread.php?t=542758
however if it is your goal to maximize kill versus wound… no-one should stalk a deer without a wide spreading shotgun or jump down on it with an enormous knife. kill from the shock of a shotgun, or kill from hitting an artery.
cows have a 100% kill rate due to a bolt in the head.
i may have to fucking go back to being a vegetarian after this.
2 Likes
You know how close you have to be with a bow to make a kill? Do you know how fast a lion is at 40 yards?
Big game hunting with a bow carries a significant risk to the hunter. Many of hunters have had lions die literally on top of them using high powered rifles.
1 Like
my house cats can run almost 30mph.
so… maybe big game hunting is… kind of stupid? elk can run 45pmh. i can run, like four.
(a lion can hit 50mph btw. that is faster than i usually drive on highways)
That’s a fair point. That said, guns have improved in that time too. The goal is 0% wounded. Why make it any more difficult than necessary when the target could suffer for days or weeks if you miss?
(The thread that japhroaig linked to is interesting – bow hunters on both sides of the debate, agreeing and disagreeing with the high wound rate).
1 Like
Ok, I learned a few things. From studies that are maybe not outdated, considering the tech, but old.
I’m not shooting you down based on that. I’m not here to shoot anyone down, period.
I have been an actual hunter most of my life. I’m guessing…you haven’t. That doesn’t make your view wrong. But it does mean I have more credibility than you off the bat through sheer experience with the subject. I’ve lived it.
Here’s one thing that bothers me- no matter liberal, conservative, or otherwise, when you frame your position with insults like “want more”, any truth you actually have to convey is lost on pissing people off. The entire world is constantly guilty of this, and I have been plenty too. Truth conveyed with ridicule may be truth, but all it does it maim, just like you claim of the bows you hate. It does not hit the target, and achieve much. It’s just wounding the animal, people, to wander off, pissed off, and avoid you.
If you can hold insult back when something is truly important to you, to get the meaning across and actually change people’s opinions, you will have outstanding success comparatively. This is what I have found. It’s easy to hate, mock, point fingers. Anyone can do it. It’s harder to try to understand why others feel the way they do. If you have truth like that, speak of it without snark and self-righteousness, and people will just see it as new information, and not manipulation. They will change their own minds if they are intelligent.
I never said anything about the people who maim with bows. To be honest, I just didn’t know to the degree you have found evidence of. Now, I am more informed. I also never claimed that people didn’t do the same thing with guns- I openly admitted and regretted that in my 1st post here. I am not without sin.
What I found contentious about your arguement was purely infactual and illogical issues- your choice of making Ted Nugent the face of bowhunting, after what he has done. Your blind insult of bowhunters as “douchebags” without a proper clarification. Insults are a plenty on BB- we’re not angels. But when I insult someone, if I do, I try to explain why. Like the new DEA head.
Dude, chill. I saw through the anger and learned a little from you.
Final note- since those reports, new bow tech has added triggers, sights, and tons of actual advancements on bows. I’d be surprised if those numbers were still the same.
No one ever said people always hit the target. That’s why I said “uncomfortable truths for both parties” earlier. I included myself. It’s easy to break up people’s words, too, into sentences, or even a couple words, and frame them as something easily attacked using quotes and point by point quips out of context. You kinda like doing that. It’s a common tactic of trolls- though I don’t think you quite are one. But please refrain from that, ok?
For now, without writing a new chapter in the outrage bible, can we all just agree that Ted Nugent is completely nuts? (-see machine gun assassination story above-)
2 Likes
Riddle me this how much money is raised for conservancy outside of hunting versus hunting? Teddy Roosevelt set the example, Leopold expanded the use of hunting as conservancy. Until the day non-hunters give the lion share (pun intended) of conservancy dollars, the health of all the animals in the area rely on “trophy” hunters to make sure the rest of the ecosystem is protected.
