Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
You know I get pissed off at people who tell me that archery hunting is somehow more ethical than hunting with a rifle.Thankies, Ernie. I understand and I agree.
most bow hunters are lazy fucks who arent that good and will let the animal go when its too hard to find....i dont mean live...i mean their lazy fat asses track it for a few hundred feet and then give up...letting the animal suffer a long slow death....
my opinion and mine alone
My housing association is just crawling with deer, and it is inside the city limits of Cleveland. An area suburb considered -- then abandoned -- a plan to permit hunting with bows and arrows (I'm not clear on why this is thought to be superior; can't you kill a person with any weapon that would kill a deer?).
When wildlife encroaches on urban areas, what is the ethical response? These animals are too big to trap and relocate.
most bow hunters are lazy fucks who arent that good and will let the animal go when its too hard to find....i dont mean live...i mean their lazy fat asses track it for a few hundred feet and then give up...letting the animal suffer a long slow death....
my opinion and mine alone
I agree. I just dont get it either.
Send the deer and the coyotes to me. We are avid deer hunters here in Centrl PA. and since the coyotes will run the deer, we shot them for sport. Shooting coyotes is also an excelent way of keeping the marksmanship skills honed for deer season.
I used to work as a desk agent at a posh motel, located in the foothills amongst pine trees and a creek running behind it. We had guests from all over book there, because it stated facts...."nature at it's best". We were on the outskirts of town and had plenty of wildlife. Even a few species of birds would hop in the lobby for their daily crumbs of breakfast roll, then hop back out and go their way. We also had a female bear that would pass by in the early evenings on her way from or to her den.
So imagine my surprise when soon after being hired to work there, those who wanted "nature at it's best" would come waddling in the lobby complaining of a bear passing through and what if it came to their room to eat them? And those nasty birds! Can't we get an employee to stand outside and shoo them away from all the trees? What if bird poo gets all over their jaguars?
I can get pretty mouthy. I finally had enough and told a few guests one day that yes indeed, the bear WOULD get in to eat them because I would make sure to leave a trail of honey right to their slider door and the glass is sooooooo thin, it wouldn't stop that bear. Plus, I would set up a buffet table in the lobby for raccoons, LOTS of birds and maybe another bear or two so they could partake of the continental breakfast. Then I grabbed my purse and headed for the door.
Best thing I ever did.
Buncha snotty whiners.
I've been within 20 feet of the last 2 deer I've shot. I don't find that to be that big of a challenge. My problem is with bow hunters that can't or won't track a wounded animal.most bow hunters are lazy fucks who arent that good and will let the animal go when its too hard to find....i dont mean live...i mean their lazy fat asses track it for a few hundred feet and then give up...letting the animal suffer a long slow death....
my opinion and mine alone
I agree. I just dont get it either.
You are both sooooo wrong.
It takes skill to track and hunt a deer close enough to get within 20 - 30 feet from it and actually nail the shot.
Ive done it and its not easy.... of course I was too big of a puss to actually release my arrow (was just too damn pretty ) but it was a challenge to get so close to the animal.
Oh, and the deer does'nt suffer. Many times they drop right there, and when they dont... they have to track it down. That does'nt sound like a lazy mans way to get dinner.
A rifle is the lazy mans method
There is a difference between going to where the wildlife live and then bitching, compared to the wildlife coming to where people live.
It's not an ethical question. It's about risk to people in an urban setting. If an arrow misses it's target, it falls harmlessly to the ground in a hundred yards or so. A bullet from a high powered rifle can penetrate the wall of a home a half mile away and still kill a person.Bowhunting is the best answer.
Poison will render the meat useless.
If they try to trap them, they'll have to put most of them down anyway. Trapping deer never goes well, unless you're right there to release or gut them when they become trapped.
Bow is where it should wind up, with the meat going to shelters. It is the safest, most effective solution in that scenario.
I'm assuming the homeowners are more concerned with their lawns than they are the deer, and aren't willing to just let the deer be deer.
The deer do quite a bit of damage to landscaping, yes, but they are traffic hazards and can be aggressive to humans on foot.
Why is hunting them with bows more ethical than shooting them?
I would turn loose some experienced hunters with shotguns loaded with rifled slugs. Clean kill at up to 80 yards or so and pretty harmless after 200 yards.
Bow and arrow, while safer for people in populated areas is an inefficient method of killing deer. Probably 50% of deer hit with arrows don't die quickly, many succumbing to infections days or weeks later.
From a standpoint of a warped sense of sportsmanship, a deer does stand a better chance against a hunter armed with a bow, but my hunting ethic demands a clean kill so that the animal suffers as little as possible.
About 15 years ago I was forced to shoot a once magnificent buck that had probably lost 1/3 of it's body weight due to an arrow that was through it's esophagus. The wound was badly infected and the carcass was useless. Bow season had been over for 2 weeks at that point so the poor animal hadn't been able to eat for maybe 2 to 4 weeks. That left a lasting impression on me and a contempt for bow hunters.
a plan to permit hunting with bows and arrows (I'm not clear on why this is thought to be superior; can't you kill a person with any weapon that would kill a deer?).
I recall reading/hearing somewhere that deer kill more people in our country than all other animals combined - including sharks, bears, wolves, coyotes, and snakes. Can anyone verify this?
My housing association is just crawling with deer, and it is inside the city limits of Cleveland. An area suburb considered -- then abandoned -- a plan to permit hunting with bows and arrows (I'm not clear on why this is thought to be superior; can't you kill a person with any weapon that would kill a deer?).
When wildlife encroaches on urban areas, what is the ethical response? These animals are too big to trap and relocate.
a plan to permit hunting with bows and arrows (I'm not clear on why this is thought to be superior; can't you kill a person with any weapon that would kill a deer?).
they are probably using bow and arrows so slugs from high powered rifles aren't zinging into populated areas around the burbs..............not all Billie Bobs are good shots...
Some parts of the country are beginning to see coyotes in urban areas. I can't imagine what else could be done except to shoot them.
I like animals as well as the next person, but Disnefying a coyote in your own yard seems nuts to me.