Why do we do it ?

[Tsalagi]

Originally posted by Buckwheaties:
"I wonder if the archers of old, flinging a quiver full of arrows at 100yds at a deer, had thoughts like are expressed here? I guess time changes ethics? I'll bet that over the last thousands of years of man taking game with a bow, thoughts of ethics were even nonexistent."

 Well, hunter-gatherer cultures were supreme woodsmen of a type that didn't require making those shots. If you've ever made a primitive arrow from total scratch (shoot or cane shaft you had to cut-season-sand, fletching cut from a feather, stone point you knapped, sinew you processed and all this with stone tools), then you know one arrow could have several hours of work in it. You won't be just flinging those about at animals 100 yards away. Good arrows were labor-intensive. Hunter-gatherers wouldn't do that for two reasons:

1.) Too many lost arrows and too time-intensive to replace for little gain.

2.) Wouldn't hit the animal and easier to stalk, because you don't survive as a hunter culture without hunting skills that don't involve "spray-and-pray". "Spray-and-pray" is a modern construct. It doesn't have a hunter-gatherer equivalent.

Remember, these are folks that didn't live in chemical environments of modern soap, perfume, aftershave, laundry detergent, gasoline, oil, and what-not. Their odor didn't give them away, for one thing. For another, there was a lot more game back then than now. Remember, there was a time in this land a buffalo herd could take several days to pass a given point.

While they didn't have "ethics" per se as we know them, they did attach a religious reverence to the animals they hunted. The Plains tribes and the buffalo, for example. Certain right behavior and certain pre-hunt taboos were observed. Read Joseph Campbell.

  That's not to say that there wasn't something called the "Buffalo Jump" where a herd of buffalo was stampeded off a cliff. But, again, there were religious ceremonies involved in that, too.

  Yes, we call them "ethics" now. But take a look at some posts here. People have "lucky" bows or favorite bows or name their bows. People have this or that lucky talisman or doo-dad. There is nothing new under the sun. We're hunters.

[Turkeys Fear Me]

Originally posted by Tsalagi:
For another, there was a lot more game back then than now.  

I'd have to disagree with you on that one. That may be true for buffalo but over all, there are many more game animals today than there were at that time.  We, as managers (hunters) can be thanked for that.  That and the reduction of old growth forests that provide little or no value to game animals and the conversion of this land to crops and natural new growth.

Gone are the days of feast and famine due to disease, overpopulation, uncontrolled predation, etc..  In terms of numbers, the absolute best thing to happen to game animals is, simply put...US.

I also tend to disagree with the idea that if an animal is wounded and goes unrecovered, that is always the fault of the hunter.  We can be as prepared, and ethical as we can possible be and the fact still remains that the animal has as say in the process also.  As much as we want to play the role of predator, they want to play survivor more...MUCH more.  As much as we practice, as much as we take only "high percentage" shots, etc., things still happen that are totally out of our control.

Ethically speaking, what we "owe" the animal is our best attempt at one thing.  Before we release an arrow, or fire a bullet, we need to be reasonably sure that we are capable of a quick, humane, kill.  Once the arrow or bullet is gone, we have no control over the outcome.

For all intents and purposes, game animals really only have 4 or 5 ways to die.  Old age (starvation), predation, disease, acdidents and at the hands of a hunter.  I would maintain that although it's not always pretty, dying at the hands of a hunter is by far the most humane.

[phil_des_bois]

My motto is : "don't do to others what you wouldn't like them do to you", this apply for everything, and therefore I owe a quick and clean kill to the animals I hunt.

[riivioristo]

My few cents:
Despite of past generations, history and habits I think this way:
I owe respect for the nature in all, because of:
What I eat, breath, drink etc. comes from nature and if I spoil it I and especially generations after me will suffer for my bad behavior.
Be it anything around us in nature, we have some realtionship to it and if we nursih that relationship good things will come. If we dont care about that relationship, bad things will come.
(And if we look in history, this is so true and easily to prove looking back)
I want to nurish my relationship to my surroundings partly with hunting. My family likes to eat meat, so I hunt, because of wild meat is more healty and sometimes stock animals conditions are not so good...
I owe to animals I hunt, that I try to kill them cleanly, for the respect of the food they prowide to me and my family.
I owe the respect to nature in all forms, because of I live in times, where I can make my own rules, without creedy and bloodthirst attitude.
And here too: as a bowhunter, towards the big nonhunting growds, I owe to the bowhunting community too, that my ethics are solid and I can discuss about those ethics with anyone I meet on the trail...
Take care !

[Bowwild]

T Salagi reminds me of something my Dad used to tell me. He grew up in Kentucky in the mid-30's-40's. His dad would give him 1-3 shotgun shells and send him to the woods to kill food. Dad wouldn't even think about taking a shot that wasn't nearly guaranteed to result in a kill. If he could kill more than one with a single shot he would do it (not deer or turkey because there weren't any).  Dad wasn't a bowhunter -- but he sure was interested in my bowhunting. The first several years I bowhunted he would call family far and wide to tell them "Roy got another deer with that bow!"  He thought the first couple I killed were "tame".

One of the posters above reminded us that not all wounded animals are the "fault" of the hunter. While I certainly agree with that statement, I also know if one really dissects the decision/shot that produced the wound, the hunter might have been able to do something to prevent it. This is one reason I won't take a long shot on live game that I might feel very comfortable on a target. The greater the distance the better the chance that a random movement by the animal can change the intended result.  If I took a shot like this and the animal "moved", I would blame myself for the result.  This is just one example (too long shots) but the longer the shot the more "luck" involved even if you are an Olympic archer that never misses.  Running shots are another one I just can't bring myself to take, no matter how close. I've seen videos of this being done by some folks who are terrific bowhunters, great spokepersons for bowhunting, and although I've never met em, are considered fine folks. They must practice these types of shots in order for them to be nearly guaranteed.  I admit I am far too conservative a shot, and now my son is even more conservative. I only take a shot that I consider a "gimmee". I always hope the iffy shot will get better -- right now or tomorrow. Of course many times they don't but I don't regret the decision.

Another thing I've noted in these replies is the impacts of our religious upbringing upon our beliefs. I tend to think, especially in hunting circles our beliefs are similar but of course they are not. I wish we could all be right about this, but I'm taught and firmly believe we are not.  While I shouldn't need and don't need proof, He gave it to me in a dream in the spring of 1997.

I don't mean to be preachy here but I'm a bit saddened (not for our quarry) by some of what I've read. I hope post #339 isn't my last. I know this forum isn't the place for these kinds of opinions but I am compelled to provide this witness. If I didn't do it the cock would begin crowing.

[Turkeys Fear Me]

I only take a shot that I consider a "gimmee".  

Same here, but in over 30 years of hunting, I have had a few of "gimme's" go bad.  It's part of hunting.  If you haven't had it happen to you yet, give it time.

I've yet to have a 3D target jump the string, and I have yet to shoot at a real animal that was stuck to the ground with re-rod.

[Tsalagi]

Turkeys Fear Me said:
"I'd have to disagree with you on that one. That may be true for buffalo but over all, there are many more game animals today than there were at that time. We, as managers (hunters) can be thanked for that. That and the reduction of old growth forests that provide little or no value to game animals and the conversion of this land to crops and natural new growth."

 I have to respectfully disagree with you there. Certain species went entirely extinct here after 1492. The Passenger Pigeon is one. The Carolina Parakeet is another. The elk here in Northern Arizona are not native. The native elk were wiped out here around 1900. This was due to recklass hunting. Now, as far as deer, that's debatable whether or not there are more now than prior to 1492. We don't have game count assessments from then.    But we do know several pre-1492 civilizations subsisted on game, since they did not practice animal husbandry. So, I would tend to think there was more game then. But there is more game now than there was in 1880, yes.

  But one thing I can tell you is that clearing old growth forests is a disaster, regardless if it creates more deer or not. Old growth forests are part of the natural order we hunters are supposed to accept and love. There are species in old growth forests that may disappear entirely by clearcutting these forests. Like the Pacific Yew people like for their bows, for one. Like Port Orford Cedar for arrows, for another. I'd rather have old growth forests than a couple extra deer, thanks.  

  Cropland does not increase game, it usually reduces it. Especially in most of the monoculture agriculture practiced over most of the U.S. I've seen cropland where not a sparrow was to be seen on it. I've seen cotton fields that not even an insect lives on. Now, yes, in some corn fields you've got a lot of deer out there. But you won't see that in an onion field in Camarillo, California or a cotton field in Pemiscot County, Missouri. Remember, it was the desire to free up the Plains for agriculture here that required wiping out the buffalo in the first place (among other reasons.) Loss of habitat is one of the biggest causes of animal species decline and/or extinction.

[Tsalagi]

Just a couple more things. I'm not saying that Native Americans always were more "ethical" hunters or that they were always better stewards of the land or however one wishes to say that. We know from archaeologists that the Anasazi probably were not very good stewards of the land. And, they paid the price for that: Their culture disappeared and probably a large percentage of their population died out. It seems the Anasazi had built this huge trading/commerce empire and then proceeded to outstrip the natural resources in their area to keep it running. Things that make you go hmmmm. They didn't get too alarmed until a huge drought hit and crops failed. It was all downhill from there. I understand there was once a Ponderosa forest up in the Four Corners area that the Anasazi had totally stripped bare to get wood for fuel.

In pre-1492 times, if you stripped your land of resources (including game), you died. It was as simple as that. In places that grew corn, beans, and squash, you could get by without game for some time. But let there be a drought and then your entire civilization collapses. These lessons were learned in real-time and with no emergency plans of action.

[Bowwild]

Much of the disaster that befell US wildlife populations before the 20th century was driven by economics and government policy. Government policy to starve and destroy native American culture had much to do with the near extirpation of the American bison.  Those were the days of market shooting (I wouldn't call their methods or ethics hunting as we know it today) when a person was motivated to kill all he could because there was a market for it. We knew too little about the biology of wild animals or their habitat needs. The passenger pigeon for example was a species that could not thrive in solitude or even flocks of hundreds. When hunters like Teddy Roosevelt (to just name the most famous) decided recreation and heritage was more important than making money they demanded (almost too late) that game laws and enforcement of same be implemented. Scientific management, paid for by hunters and fishermen is a huge success story on this continent - it is called the "North American Model".  It is generally accepted that original deer herds probably numbered in the range of 12-25 deer per mile of mixed mesophytic forest (eastern hardwoods). These days most eastern deer herds are at levels greater than 40/mile. Mostly because old growth has been replaced with mixed age stands of timber, brush, and fields. In the east we lost our native elk herds, woodland bison, timber wolf and eastern cougar. By the way the wolf and cougar (and nearly the black bear) were eliminated because city folks feared them. Some hunters also felt these predators were too much competition. If you live in the west you may have a different perspective because habitat (especially places like AZ) is very limiting and is such that over-hunting is possible -- thus very strict rationing of harvest opportunity.  It is true the AZ elk herd was reinstated by the translocation of 270 animals. I was the director of Ky's restored elk herd which received elk from 7 western states (1,549) and now totals between 10,000-12,000 animals -- thanks to hunters paying the bills. As someone who just concluded a career in wildlife management I can attest, that as far as most wildlife species goes, especially game animals and  nongame closely associated in their habitats, these are definitely better days than the past 100.

As hunters we should be extremely proud of our record these past 11 decades. Europe for example didn't learn our lesson so quickly.

[Turkeys Fear Me]

Good stuff Bowwild and I totally agree, and thank you for your years spent improving what we all enjoy.

[Tsalagi]

Good post, Bowwild. This reminds me. Whenever I hear people saying hunting should be banned, I say, "So, you're ready to pay a 14% excise tax on all camping gear, hiking gear, and mountain bikes?" Why, no, why should we have to pay a tax to enjoy the wilderness? Well, for one thing, because hunters have been paying through a 14% excise tax for years for the wildlife you enjoy seeing while you're out camping-hiking-mountain biking. So, if you ban hunting, someone has to pick up the slack. That'll be you guys, right?

Silence is golden, LOL!!!

[mrpenguin]

I find the answer to this question in "Primal Dreams"... it all boils down to a love for Nature and respect for the animals we kill and eat.  Just that simple for me...

[Pointer]

Some interesting stuff here fellas...but I think what Biggie was talking about was us presenting ourselves in a positive light, in general, ...not because we have to justify what we do but because we will not necessarily be the ones who get to decide if we can keep doing it. That's unfortunate but it't the way of the world in which we live. It's the special interest groups who are the best financed and who scream the loudest that get to have undue and disproportionate influence on virtually all things that are passed down as laws in this country. If they can sway the disinterested...those folks who really have no opinion on hunting one way on the other, then we could be in trouble.

As far as our ethics are concerned and how we treat the animals we hunt, I am trying to kill that animal, whatever it is...but I absolutely try to make that kill as humane as possible. I prefer it that way, not because I think I'm being cruel otherwise, but because I think taking the life of any animal is meaningful. It's just the way I feel about it, that's all.

[Bowwild]

I think most hunters are very thoughtful, responsible, and self-reliant people. In fact, these are among the attributes I think hunting hones in a person making this a great thing for young people to get involved in. We are imperfect human beings. It is tough for us not to be conflicted about some aspects of the hunt, the kill, and some of the lessons we have to learn from our mistakes.  However, what makes hunters such great caretakers of the natural world is that we spend so much of our waking moments supporting and taking part in conservation.  A favorite quote I heard many years ago, "Hunters prefer to be a part of nature rather than apart from it."  We participate rather than simply spectate.

[Tsalagi]

Bowwild said:
"A favorite quote I heard many years ago, "Hunters prefer to be a part of nature rather than apart from it." We participate rather than simply spectate."

 

[Bonebuster]

This thread has provided some very good reading.

I feel proud to be in such good company.

Famous words from a native chief. "all things are connected, whatever befalls the earth, befalls her children" (something like that)

The start of this thread asked "Why we do it"

I think it is for the connection...to everything.
Some of us simply MUST be a part of "it".

A toddler, when he/she first lays eyes on a butterfly, smiles...and then the chase is on.
They simply MUST!