It's a serious question. It's the reason no bow hunting is allowed in many European countries: because the voting public, most of whom do not hunt but do eat meat, have been convinced that bow hunting is not humane and causes unnecessary suffering to animals. The same thing could happen here. In a democracy, if enough people vote to end hunting, legal hunting will end. Period. Actually, it's a testament to the spirit of fairness that must still exist in the American people that we are still allowed to hunt, when more than 50% of the people are personally opposed to hunting, but nonetheless think those who do want to hunt should continue to have the right to do so.
Anticipating that the day will probably come when we will be asked to vote on it, it is incumbent on us to prepare our case as well as we can, as there won't be any time to prepare a case between the time a measure to ban hunting qualifies for the ballot and the time it is voted on. Between now and then we must do whatever we can to ensure that a 30-40% loss rate is never allowed to happen. I don't know how we can ever stop someone out in the field with no other hunters or game wardens in sight from taking a 50 yard shot at an animal with a traditional bow, or, for that matter, from taking a 20 yard shot at an animal when he is only capable of getting 2 out of 5 shots in a pie plate at 20 yards. But that is what we should be thinking about, because that is what can cause such a loss rate to happen, and we need to stop that from happening, not only in our own personal ethics, but in any other hunter, whether trad, compound, X-bow, or black powder, who goes into the field.
Topic: 30-40% loss rate: Would you keep hunting? (Read 4035 times)
