Bow Hunters

[~J~]

search for a local archery club

im actually on hunt for a nice recurve bow myself (no pun intended)

Although I think discontinued now, I've had my Marksman Meteor for about 10 years and it's still in excellent condition. Not used as much as it was when I was back home, but certainly gets used a few times a month in the back garden.

Definately would recommend you hunt (no pun intended either) around the a good bow, although I probably could get better with a compound, it just didn't feel right and so stuck with the recurves.

 

[HummuH1]

You don't naturally die from an arrow shot at you. You naturally die from cancer. It was left to bleed to death by a retard. Impossible to kill a big animal straight off with an arrow.

No it's not. You just don't use a £10 bow and arrows with suckers on the end.

Have a look at some of the hunting done in the states with Bow's and you'll see that you can kill big animals effectively and ethically with a bow and arrow. Just need to know what your doing and have the right equipment.

 

[RDM]

There's nothing natural about poking a big hole in something and then waiting for it to slowly bleed to death, whilst suffering pain and fear for the duration...

That is pretty natural to be honest. Ever seen how big cats hunt? Death is generally a while coming for the prey animal.

I agree that it's natural to be killed by something higher in the food chain, but when we have the means to provide a swift death with minimal suffering, and the knowledge to know what suffering is, this behaviour is just unnecessary and cruel.

But it could be quite easy to take the "It is only an animal" train of thought. The suffering is probably no more than it would suffer from another wild animal attack, less if the hunter has disabled it and then kills it quickly with a knife once the animal is down.

 

[V4NT0M]

which is natural. hunted by somehting further up the food chain.

Whilst I get where you're coming from I think the problem here is that you're referring to technology as natural.

It is also not generally "natural" to hunt beyond your needs. You don't need to hunt, the only reason for you to do so is for personal gratification.

I'm no pussy bleeding heart liberal but please do not belittle animal "rights" YOU ARE AN ANIMAL!

 

[RDM]

It is also not generally "natural" to hunt beyond your needs.

Foxes quite often do. There are quite a few examples of animals killing more than they need or will be able to eat.

You don't need to hunt, the only reason for you to do so is for personal gratification.

I'm no pussy bleeding heart liberal but please do not belittle animal "rights" YOU ARE AN ANIMAL!

Only in a biological sense, in a legal sense we aren't so animal rights do not apply to us.

 

[V4NT0M]

Foxes quite often do. There are quite a few examples of animals killing more than they need or will be able to eat.

But not for self gratification. They do it as a biological prerogative. It's also the exception rather than the rule.

Only in a biological sense, in a legal sense we aren't so animal rights do not apply to us.

I didn't say they did.

 

[RDM]

But not for self gratification. They do it as a biological prerogative. It's also the exception rather than the rule.

What is self gratification if it isn't a biological prerogative?

I didn't say they did.

But that makes you statement pointless then. Why should we care about animal rights because we are an animal? They don't apply to us and human rights shouldn't apply to animals. For quite a few people animals are just another commodity.

 

[V4NT0M]

What is self gratification if it isn't a biological prerogative?

A by-product of "consciousness", it serves no biological or evolutionary function, it is superfluous.

Why should we care about animal rights because we are an animal?

I don't wish to cause offence but that statement is grossly ignorant. I would assume that people may have some understanding of what is right and wrong. Just because an animal falls outside our species does not mean that they are not important and cannot suffer. Would you think it acceptable to say "Why should I care about black rights because I am not black?".

For quite a few people animals are just another commodity.

That can't argue with, but it doesn't mean that it's right or wrong.

 

[Helium_Junkie]

That is pretty natural to be honest. Ever seen how big cats hunt? Death is generally a while coming for the prey animal.

Big cats kill using the most efficient (least energy expended) and effective methods at their disposal. They do what they can. If they could use a high powered rifle, I imagine they would.

We are not big cats.

We have the choice, means and the ability to make an informed decision based on empathy, we can't excuse our behaviour with the need for survival. Letting an animal slowly bleed out is not an acceptable practice.

That said, I have nothing against hunting. But only when it's done within the bounds of ethical guidelines.

 

[HummuH1]

That said, I have nothing against hunting. But only when it's done within the bounds of ethical guidelines.

What makes this form of hunting unethical?

 

[Von Smallhausen]

this country really does suck in some ways. Especially when it comes to hunting.
Any idea what the reasoning for it was? or can I guess at silly animal rights.

My guess would be there is a risk of unneccessary suffering if the animal bolts and makes off with an arrow stuck in it.

Hunting per se is not illegal but certain methods of doing it are.

As I recall, it was illegal to hunt with handguns in the UK when they were legal.

 

[RDM]

I don't wish to cause offence but that statement is grossly ignorant. I would assume that people may have some understanding of what is right and wrong.

But the understanding of what is right and wrong varies considerably. Many feel it is wrong to kill animals for food, after all we don't need to. For some the pain an animal suffers due to hunting might be perfecting acceptable for the gratification they get from the hunt. Much like the suffering animals can suffer being reared for food is acceptable for those that eat them. It is nothing more than different degrees of acceptance.

Just because an animal falls outside our species does not mean that they are not important and cannot suffer.

But it is the level of importance you put on that suffering. If you think it is less important than your desire to hunt you aren't going to have a problem with it. Much like the animals suffering during rearing and slaughtering is less important than my desire to eat meat.

Many people are quite happy to slowly poison creatures they consider vermin (rats, mice, ants, flys, slugs, snails, the list goes on) so why is there a problem with doing similar (but generally not as slow) to larger animals?

Would you think it acceptable to say "Why should I care about black rights because I am not black?".

But this falls into the "human rights" category. I do not care about black rights, white rights, yellow rights or whatever. I care about human rights and think all people should be entitled to them. I am a specist.

That can't argue with, but it doesn't mean that it's right or wrong.

And that is the thing, it is neither right nor wrong. If an animal is just a commodity killing it for pleasure isn't a moral question.

 

[Helium_Junkie]

What makes this form of hunting unethical?

I am referring to the woman bowhunting the elephant, and then not checking that it had died until the next day. Leaving 12 hours in which the animal could have been suffering - which is generally against ethical hunting guidelines.

I've already said this further up.

I am not generalising bow hunting, just the method of the woman in the article in not confirming that the animal was dead. Maybe we arent getting the whole story though, the article is heavily biased! Perhaps she did confirm it but waited for the herd to dissipate. Who knows.

 

[Walkerie]

I thought they used poison tip arrowheads to slowly sedate the creature then slit its throat, but it seems im wrong.

 

[Xinn]

shooting arrows at painted targets is the only thing that bows should be used for.

What if you paint the animal first, does that count?

 

[Helium_Junkie]

What if you paint the animal first, does that count?

 

[~J~]

LOL!!!!

 

[HummuH1]

I am referring to the woman bowhunting the elephant, and then not checking that it had died until the next day. Leaving 12 hours in which the animal could have been suffering - which is generally against ethical hunting guidelines.

I've already said this further up.

I am not generalising bow hunting, just the method of the woman in the article in not confirming that the animal was dead. Maybe we arent getting the whole story though, the article is heavily biased! Perhaps she did confirm it but waited for the herd to dissipate. Who knows.

Sorry, my bad. Should've known given you play The Hunter!

 

[Viper²]

It's legal to kill someone with a bow inside the walls of Chester. Or something like that...

 

[~J~]

It's legal to kill someone with a bow inside the walls of Chester. Or something like that...

Only if they're Welsh!

And likewise same for York if they're Scotish.