how do you know? who knows it may have enjoyed a few warm weeks on the sand dunes before blowing back south or it could have wandered to a habitable territroy and found a mate or finished its life cycle. It might have adapted! :eek: :smack: :dubious:
I disagree. You don’t know why the wolf, or the human, takes the prey. For some humans is food for others is trophies, but they are predators same as any other natural agent.
Huh. I always thought it was just an alternate spelling.
Albino: The Other White Meat
It’s a red herring anyway (If you catch one of those, you should definitely alert the media). Ask your friendly neighborhood NYSDEC officer, and he’ll tell you that herd management is accomplished through controlling the doe tags, which had a lottery about fifteen years ago, but are now available to any hunter. There’s no shortage of healthy bucks living into old age.
How do requirements for bow hunting in the States compare to the requirements for that Swedish study? e.g:
Because I have to say point number 2 of your earlier quote (“Regarding the capacity to harvest middle-large class 1 game, the efficiency of the bow and arrow is fully comparable to the hunting tools presently permitted today.”) seems patently ridiculous.
The vast majority of archers in developed countries use compound bows that fling an arrow with enough force to carry through the animal entirely. The arrow heads are surgical steel blades that have a cutting diameter of approximately 1.5" - 2.5". A shot the the vital organs (heart, lungs, liver), neck, or spinal cord will cause the animal to bleed out or be stopped in place much like from a rifle.
In short, the Swedish study findings are completely analagous to domestic conditions. Nothing patently ridiculous about it.
Sorry, but no fucking way. I have no doubt that an arrow can kill something but to say that their “efficiencies” are “comparable” to modern weapons would require comparable range, stopping power and forgiveness for inaccuracy. Your study included only extremely dedicated hunters so don’t try to tell me that everyone in the States who gets a bowhunting license has jumped through the same hoops.
Then it’s your turn to provide some citations.
You’re going the apples : oranges route. The study did not argue that you could take a bow and arrow at 150 yards and achieve the same stopping power as you could with a 30-.06. The average shot distance was approximately 19 meters. This fits my experiences as a bowhunter at a variety of sites in the United States over several years of hunting. To get a clear shot, you’ve got to be within 30 yards of the target. Within 30 yards of the target, the stopping power of the bow is comparable to the stopping power of a rifle. You do have a point about inaccuracy; it’s a two-way street, though: rifle hunters typically shoot over longer distances and wound their share of game.
Not my study. Their study. And that’s not what I’m saying. amarone has agued in two threads that archery is a much more cruel way to hunt; I’ve provided citations that show otherwise, rather than pulling opinions out of my nether-regions.
But I’ll pull an opinion of my own n.r. since that seems to be the way you want to play this game. My experiences of almost 20 years as a natural resources professional (including working with wildlife biolgists at universities and in the field) indicate that archers *are * a much more dedicated class of hunters than rifle hunters. It is amazingly difficult to position yourself within 30 yards of your prey. That alone weeds out those who are interested in just shooting something.
Also, as I mentioned upthread, the hunters I’ve personally interacted with over the years have all expressed their desire to minimize the chances that they’ll wound, lose, or cause excessive distress to an animal.
What personal, professional, or research-based experiences are you relying upon to draw the conclusions you’re making in this case?
All that Swedish study says is that very skilled, educated and experienced hunters are just as efficient at hunting with a bow as with a gun. I don’t know why I need cites to point that out when it says it plainly enough itself. I will note that at least according to the Minnesota fish and game people only 15 states and 3 provinces require “Bow Hunter Education Certification”. As levdragon mentioned on page 2, the educational requirements to hunt in Europe are quite stringent. If amarone is being completely categorical in her pronouncement, ie it’s always crueler, then I guess she’s probably wrong. But you are the one doing apples and oranges when you compare experienced well educated European hunters to what generally happens during an average American hunting season.
I should say, Ivorybill, that I take you at your word that most regular bow hunters ARE generally more dedicated. Any hunter I’ve talked to has said the same and it’s logical as well, since it’s got such a higher frustration level. You still have to contend with the wannabes with too much cash who just try it out for a couple seasons before giving up.
In Illinois, one must pass a class to obtain a Hunter Education Certificate of Competency if you were born on or after 01/01/80 to obtain a hunting license of any kind for any reason. This would include rifle, shotgun, or bow hunting. This isn’t a rare exception anymore either.
I take from your final statement that you believe that American hunters have inferior skills and education compared to European hunters and that American hunters are therefore more apt to wound, lose, or injure game. I don’t know of any research that compares the those two populations. I would further assume from your statement that you are anti-hunting, and that you believe that American hunters are reckless and are likely to commit acts of cruelty - - either willfully or negligently - - because you believe that hunting is poorly regulated.
According to this site, 49 states require training for all hunters. This site offers written courses and examinations for 14 states that require extra training for bowhunters beyond the basic training.
I’ve not argued that **every ** American hunter who uses a bow and arrow is a better, safer, more accurate, and more humane hunter than **every ** American rifle hunter. I am arguing, based on nearly 20 years’ first-hand experience, that archery hunters as a class are more careful about their hunting techniques than rifle hunters.
Again: What personal, professional, or research-based experiences are you relying upon to draw the conclusions you’re making in this case?
There are bad apples in any bunch of people, be they animal rights activists who destroy laboratories or “hunters” who really only care about body counts. I would much prefer that we do a better job getting rid of that category of hunter and hunting.
I didn’t know albino deer were so rare. There was one at my boyfriend’s parent’s house all summer last year, it hung out there with their horses and they took lots of pictures of it. I don’t know why no one in his family ever thought to shoot it so that we could look at it anytime we wanted to and help save the deer population from its tragic sickness.
Sorry - didn’t see your response in the previous thread.
I can’t say that I am impressed by a cite from a bowhunting organization that only refers to “well-trained bowhunters”. What about the other 99%?
Given your source, I can feel free to cite Peta (pdf):
As for “many countries” banning bowhunting, I guess that depends on your definition of “many”. Certainly this archery organization recognizes that bowhunting is banned in “many” of the countries in which it is published.
Here is a video showing some bowhunting (click on the main video) - although bowhunting is not the actual focus (Canned hunts are). How anyone can enjoy taking part in something that results in multiple arrows sticking into and through a wounded animal like the ram shown is beyond me.
amarone that completely unreferenced PETA mention isn’t remotely as good a cite as Ivorybill’s. There’s not even a name of a researcher or organization. Sheesh. The study he linked did seem to show that a skilled bowhunter can be just as humane as a rifle kill.
I agree with you that bowhunting has the potential to be ugly but Ivorybill is right that it generally attracts a more skilled hunter. The question is how does it average out in real life? Can’t you find which studies this Peter Singer might be talking about.
And I didn’t click on your canned hunt link because I already hate them and it’s pretty unfairly prejudicial to link it in this discussion, IMHO. I’m sure I could find a few videos on there of guys taking half a dozen bad rifle shots off to kill something as well.
And I am not denying that it “can be”. The question is: in practice is it?
I didn’t look - I’ll spend a bit more time on it.
It shows a ram still running around with two arrows sticking out of its body and one going right through its upper leg. I don’t regard canned hunts as fundamentally different from regular hunting, but maybe that’s a different thread.
I know it’s not Amarone’s, but I’d reeeeealy like a cite on this figure. A 50% non recovery rate for arrow wounded animals? I call buck shit.
I don’t know which he is referring to for sure, but this site cites eight studies. I have not attempted to track them down.
I also came across the following quotations about bowhunting from hunting magazines:
These quotes from actual hunters on how you need to allow the animal plenty of time to bleed to death support my view that killing with a bow is more cruel than with a rifle.