Where is the line on humane hunting?

FisheadgibFisheadgib Senior MemberPosts: 5,686 Senior Member
I woke up about three AM and couldn't sleep so I got up and did some paperwork with a hunting show on the TV in my office. Some woman was in a foreign country somewhere (their speech was obviously dubbed) and wanting to take a moose with a bow. For starters, the hunt didn't look very challenging as they pretty well just walked up to the moose. The guide held a pair of plywood moose antlers out in front of him while they slowly walked up to the moose, who was laying down facing them and just watching them the whole time. They got within about 30-35yds and the woman took a shot and missed. (bear in mind moose are pretty dang big) The moosed didn't jump or run off, it just kept staring at them. The guide decided to get her closer so that she might be able to hit it. He got her up to about 15yds and she let another arrow fly and this time she connected. The moose got up and walked away after being hit and they followed it around for an hour and a half waiting for it to die. Once the moose finally expired, there were high fives and congratulations on taking such a wonderful trophy.
Now I'm sure that most of you that hunt try to harvest any animal you take as humanely as possible but how many of you would consider this humane or even "hunting" for that matter? Most of the guys I hunt with also bow hunt and I have no problem with it but for me personally, it doesn't seem to be the most humane way of harvesting an animal. Especially when you have to follow it around for an hour and a half waiting for it to die. The guide and the hunter both acted like this was SOP and someone along the line thought the whole ordeal was worthy of broadcast on television. Personally, I like a little challenge to a hunt and I guess that I don't understand what demographic a show like that is targeted towards.
snake284 wrote: »
For my point of view, cpj is a lot like me
.
«1

Replies

  • MileHighShooterMileHighShooter Senior Member Posts: 4,768 Senior Member
    Using the fake antlers as a kind of "blind" I've heard of before. I don't see this as being any different then using a blind or tree stand on a trail that has been watched with a game cam, or setting up over a man made feeder. You may even be able to include full camo, scent blockers and/or attractant. In certain circumstances, the blinds and such are just a necessity to be able to get close enough for a shot, especially with a bow or ML.

    As to the bow part....I just don't know. It is obviously effective on animals...eventually. But then again, animals shot with a rifle aren't always DRT either. In fact I would venture to say that any animal shot, bigger then an average white tail, the number of DRT kills are probably astronomically overstated online and in fact are extremely rare. Moose are exceptionally large animals, and I'm guessing it takes quite some time for them to bleed out from what is to them in scale, a fairly small incision from a broadhead.
    Wambli Ska wrote: »
    Once again, please refrain from cutting short any baseless totally emotional arguments with facts. It leads to boring, completely objective conversations well beyond the comprehension ability of many.
  • breamfisherbreamfisher Senior Member Posts: 13,101 Senior Member
    Different countries, different standards of "humane." In conjunction with that MileHighShooter said: I know a fellow who lives in MT. He went moose hunting with another fellow, and the other guy shot a moose in the heart with a .300 WSM. Three times. Each time the moose shuddered slightly, looked at them, then went back to eating. It wasn't until it tried to move forward that it slowly collapsed. A necropsy showed the heart to be shredded, it just didn't know to die.

    That being said, an hour and a half to wait on the critter to die does seem long, but I wonder if it was in any real pain or suffering?
    Overkill is underrated.
  • gunrunner428gunrunner428 Senior Member Posts: 1,018 Senior Member
    I've heard this before - that bowhunting puts the animal in a lot of agony and pain.

    Outdoor Life had a story decades ago by a bowhunter who was accidentally/negligently shot by another archer, and the story wrapped up with his view and answer for anti-hunters who came up to him and said "Now you know the pain the animals go through."

    His response, in effect - "I think broadheads and archery are very humane. When the arrow hit me (in the thigh from a quartering-rear direction) I didn't FEEL a thing. I brushed it with my hand at first, and wondered how I got my pants caught on a stick." Sure, he had a rush to ER for removal and stopping the bleeding, but when the videos show a deer bolting at a bowshot, it's typically RESPONSE TO STRING NOISE and not because of the arrow's impact - the deer react the same to a hit or a miss. Keep the pressure off, and a good shot on a deer will put it down shortly as it relaxes and goes back to daily life; chase it, and the adrenaline can keep it moving a good ways.
  • FisheadgibFisheadgib Senior Member Posts: 5,686 Senior Member
    It kinda reminded me of those big monitor lizzards that bite an animal and then follow it around for a few days until it dies from an infection caused by the bacteria in it's saliva. The animal wasn't running or trying to evade them and they were just walking behind it. It really isn't what I would call hunting as they rode around in a boat, spotted an animal, pulled the boat up on the bank, and walked up to it and stuck it with a pointy stick. It looked about as much like hunting as the guy that tried to poke a water buffalo with a spear. My friends hunting cabin is next to a pasture and you couldn't get as close to the cattle as these people got to that moose.
    Oh and MHS, thanks for the hunting lesson.
    snake284 wrote: »
    For my point of view, cpj is a lot like me
    .
  • Six-GunSix-Gun Senior Member Posts: 7,343 Senior Member
    One thing you have to keep in mind with the expiration rate for an arrow-struck animal is size. A moose is huge with a large blood capacity, not to mention that penetration may not have been as deep with those heavy ribs. It makes sense that it would take a long time for it to expire. The last deer I saw shot with a modern broadhead didn't make it 140 yards. Also, I don't know if you've ever had the displeasure of cutting yourself with a broadhead, but you may not ever realize you did it until you see blood showing up on your clothes. Many critters get hit and don't even realize it or go right back to feeding after flinching. It may take them a while to expire, but the arrow simply doesn't inflict the massive inernal trauma that a bullet does. It DOES however make for a damned good bleeder. I honestly think it's very humane, as the theme of humane hunting is to limit animal suffering. The critters I've seen go down either die quickly or hardy look bothered by the hit,
    Accuracy: because white space between bullet holes drives me insane.
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 21,851 Senior Member
    One point everyone here seems to be missing is to the radical extremist bunny hugging animal rights fanatic, it doesn't really matter to them whether the animal suffers or not. It's the fact that we kill animals and this is now against the left's agenda. Why? Because it takes a deadly weapon to kill an animal, whether that be a bow, a handgun, or a 460 Mag. Wby. They don't care. The left's true agenda is to disarm the masses and make us sheep again.

    I, for one, believe that it is our God given right to harvest animals for food. That's Biblical, and being Biblical is another point the left hates. The left will divide us too. They like to sit back and act as though bow hunting is ok since it doesn't require a gun. Don't fall for that one, because once they take our guns, then they'll take our bows. All hunters, whether you hunt with a rifle, a bow, black powder, whatever, we must stand together on all the issues, the 2nd amendment, hunting, fishing, all of it, or we will lose these rights one at a time.
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • olesniperolesniper Senior Member Posts: 3,759 Senior Member
    Look at the bright side...........she coulda shot it with a .270. :jester:
    Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death,
    I will fear no evil: For I carry a .308 and not a .270
  • JayhawkerJayhawker Moderator Posts: 15,050 Senior Member
    olesniper wrote: »
    Look at the bright side...........she coulda shot it with a .270. :jester:

    Yep, probably would have staggered off and been all healed up in a couple of days....
    Sharps Model 1874 - "The rifle that made the west safe for Winchester"
  • JerryBobCoJerryBobCo Senior Member Posts: 6,545 Senior Member
    Jayhawker wrote: »
    Yep, probably would have staggered off and been all healed up in a couple of days....

    Aw, c'mon guys. Give the .270 a little credit here. It would have at least made the moose mad.
    Jerry

    Gun control laws make about as much sense as taking ex-lax to cure a cough.
  • U TU T Member Posts: 405 Member
    First, I don't know what SOP is? I didn't see the show, and don't know how long or how many days she was moose hunting, but if it was a nice bull, and was what she wanted, that is perfect. I've not moose hunted, but have seen on tv, moose in rut being fooled by fake antlers, and they don't see that well, so it is a common and I feel ethical practice. As far as your opinion of archery not being the most "humane" way of killing an animal, if the shot placement is good, and penetration is good, I say it would be quick and relatively painless. She obviously either had bad placement or penetration, and that is why it took so long to die! That can also be the same case with a poor shot from a rifle. If you don't want an animal to suffer "AT ALL", then head shots with a gun are the only alternative that I can think of, but not real ethical, since so many hunters can't even hit the vital organ that are bigger than a football. I don't understand what you mean what demographic a show like that is targeted towards? Obviously, it's targeted towards hunters! Seems like it was fair chase, and not like a high fenced tame deer hunting show?
  • FisheadgibFisheadgib Senior Member Posts: 5,686 Senior Member
    By SOP I mean standard operating procedure. Like it was a normal thing for them to have to follow a shot animal around for a long period of time while waiting for it to expire. As for the comment about demographic, all my friends that hunt also like the hunt to present a challenge. The greater majority of my hunting friends also bow hunt because it presents a much bigger challenge than hunting with a firearm. Being able to walk up to within 15 yards of an animal while it is staring at you and it not even flinch when you miss a close shot is not what I would call a "hunt". All they did was kill an animal for it's head. When they took the trip back to their camp in their boat, all I could see in the boat was the cape. I spend a lot of time in the woods and I let quite a few animals walk. If I could walk up to within 15 yards of a deer that was lying there staring at me, I would find something else to hunt. Apparently there's a few folks here that would just have more mounts on their wall.
    snake284 wrote: »
    For my point of view, cpj is a lot like me
    .
  • 1965Jeff1965Jeff Senior Member Posts: 1,611 Senior Member
    Regarding bow and arrow kills, my experience is an arrow kills just as quick as a bullet; if the hunter puts the projectile in the vitals. As to following a moose around waiting for him to drop(?) that was her hunt, her money... Why they didn't put an anchor shot in him I don't know, I wasn't there. Would I put that on a show for the world to enjoy watching- no way. You can't project your morality on to the world
  • jbohiojbohio Senior Member Posts: 5,508 Senior Member
    I guess my question is, would anyone's thoughts on the matter be any different if she had done the same thing, but with a rifle? Would it be more or less ethical if a rifle was used?
    People miss with rifles, too. People make bad shots with rifles all the time, wound animals. Probably ten times more often than bows.

    Making a good shot with a bow is infinitely harder to do than with a rifle, to be sure. Most good archers practice constantly.
    I'm sure I would have been disgusted watching the show, also. Sounds like the "hunter" wasn't prepared.

    I know the deer I've shot with my bow have died much more peacefully than any I've ever shot with a gun. With a good bow, and razor sharp (not been shot into a target 50 times) broadheads, the deer have no clue what happened. They tend to trot 10-15 yards, and fall over dead.
    Granted, I've made good shots, and haven't had to see the flip side of the coin.
  • BigslugBigslug Senior Member Posts: 7,038 Senior Member
    A moose may not be the best example. I've heard of them taking minutes to succumb to a round of .375 to the boiler room. They aren't going to get any deader, but the message seems to take awhile to arrive with these critters.

    I've hung out with a lot of hardcore bowhunters. The consensus among them seems to be that if the shot is good, they die every bit as fast as when shot with rifles. A main artery is a main artery, and it doesn't matter too much what clips it.
    WWJMBD?

    "Nothing is safe from stupid." - Zee
  • FisheadgibFisheadgib Senior Member Posts: 5,686 Senior Member
    I realize that bad shots happen regardless of the weapon but what kinda got me was the guide acting like having to follow the animal for quite a while was a regular occurance. I don't really know if a "bang flop" is even possible on a moose with an arrow. I know the guys that I hunt with usually collect their deer close to where they shot them when they use their bows, except for hogs. I'd estimate that they recover about one out of three or four of the hogs that they shoot with their bows. I believe that they didn't want to get close enough for a finishing shot for a fear of being charged by the animal so they just followed it around.
    snake284 wrote: »
    For my point of view, cpj is a lot like me
    .
  • MileHighShooterMileHighShooter Senior Member Posts: 4,768 Senior Member
    Makes you wonder how many guides are actually used to people who can't shoot well, regardless of weapon choice.
    Wambli Ska wrote: »
    Once again, please refrain from cutting short any baseless totally emotional arguments with facts. It leads to boring, completely objective conversations well beyond the comprehension ability of many.
  • jbohiojbohio Senior Member Posts: 5,508 Senior Member
    Makes you wonder how many guides are actually used to people who can't shoot well, regardless of weapon choice.

    My guess would be quite a few. You don't have to be a good hunter to be able to afford a guide, unfortunately.
  • U TU T Member Posts: 405 Member
    Fisheadgib wrote: »
    I'd estimate that they recover about one out of three or four of the hogs that they shoot with their bows.

    If they are only recovering 1/3 to 1/4 of hogs that they shoot, I'm wondering what they are doing wrong? They are apparently getting much better results on their deer, so are they taking unethical/long shots on hogs? Are they afraid to track it, or are they putting effort into tracking? Maybe they look at hogs as a nuisance animal, so they take shots on them that they normally wouldn't take on deer?
  • FisheadgibFisheadgib Senior Member Posts: 5,686 Senior Member
    Hogs are exceptionally tough animals. No matter how powerful of a bow you have, It's tough to get a passthrough if you're aiming for vitals. Along with that, Their fat acts like fix-a-flat and seals the wound pretty quick and stops the bleeding. Also, the terrain where we hunt is covered with pretty dense foilage and hogs and deer can run through stuff that we couldn't crawl through. I've mentioned in the past that on our lease, if an animal makes the treeline, your odds of recovering it are greatly reduced.
    snake284 wrote: »
    For my point of view, cpj is a lot like me
    .
  • CaliFFLCaliFFL Senior Member Posts: 4,719 Senior Member
    Fisheadgib wrote: »
    Being able to walk up to within 15 yards of an animal while it is staring at you and it not even flinch when you miss a close shot is not what I would call a "hunt". All they did was kill an animal for it's head. When they took the trip back to their camp in their boat, all I could see in the boat was the cape. I spend a lot of time in the woods and I let quite a few animals walk. If I could walk up to within 15 yards of a deer that was lying there staring at me, I would find something else to hunt. Apparently there's a few folks here that would just have more mounts on their wall.

    Methinks you speculate too much!

    You have never hunted moose. This particular animal didn't jump to its feet and charge the hunter, but they do. Cows are worse than bulls. It is very possible that the animal had never seen a human. Moose are not skiddish whitetail. Think about walking within 15 yards of an antlered horse. You may not view this as "challenging" but getting that close to to 1200-1500 lbs of unpredictable IS the point.

    Second, you have no idea what the hunters did with the meat, off camera. She was with a guide. He most likely called in the crew to haul the meat out of the woods. They just filmed the money shot in the canoe.
    The question isn't who is going to let me; it's who is going to stop me.

    Ayn Rand
  • QuinianQuinian Senior Member Posts: 707 Senior Member
    Doesn't matter if it's knife, spear, bow, or rifle it's all about placement. I'd say the only truely inhumaine things would be if it were gut shot and you had the chance to plug it again but said screw it and let it wander for a while. That and maybe leg snares on large game. I know I know it's been used for a long long time and is a pretty handy method for survival but I still think it puts too much stress on the animal, and of course IIRC it's illigal most places
  • AiredaleAiredale Banned Posts: 624 Senior Member
    Amen, Snake.
    My thoughts exactly.
    Not so sure there's anything in the Bible about the left wing being haters. Remember, the Pharisees were the right wing back then.
    Jim
  • jbp-ohiojbp-ohio Senior Member Posts: 9,554 Senior Member
    Quinian wrote: »
    Doesn't matter if it's knife, spear, bow, or rifle it's all about placement.

    Yes and no. Placement counts, but with an arrow broadhead sharpness also counts. With a properly sharpened broadhead in the right place, a 45# recurve will kill a moose quickly.

    One reason I don't like short carbon arrows with an overdraw. They don't have the mass to drive the broadhead.....
    "The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not." Thomas Jefferson
  • FisheadgibFisheadgib Senior Member Posts: 5,686 Senior Member
    Wambli Ska wrote: »
    Then it seems to me that given those parameters hunting hogs with abow is just not very ethical. I personally would not do it if I only was able to recover 1 out of every 4 I shot.

    I agree. (at least where I hunt) A few years ago, a couple of the guys were on a mission to get a hog with their bows. Once they got one, they said they had no need to try again but I think it's because the hogs went nocturnal and they haven't had an opportunity.
    snake284 wrote: »
    For my point of view, cpj is a lot like me
    .
  • FisheadgibFisheadgib Senior Member Posts: 5,686 Senior Member
    CaliFFL wrote: »
    Methinks you speculate too much!

    You have never hunted moose. This particular animal didn't jump to its feet and charge the hunter, but they do. Cows are worse than bulls. It is very possible that the animal had never seen a human. Moose are not skiddish whitetail. Think about walking within 15 yards of an antlered horse. You may not view this as "challenging" but getting that close to to 1200-1500 lbs of unpredictable IS the point.

    Second, you have no idea what the hunters did with the meat, off camera. She was with a guide. He most likely called in the crew to haul the meat out of the woods. They just filmed the money shot in the canoe.


    I'd like to think that they went back and recovered the meat as you're right, I don't know. I do know that I never said they were in a canoe and that they were in a motorboat that had room in it for some of the meat.
    Now I guess I see the challenge of moose hunting, not getting charged by a large animal. So since I speculate too much (I've proven this before) How many folks here have horse or cow heads mounted on their walls?
    snake284 wrote: »
    For my point of view, cpj is a lot like me
    .
  • JerryBobCoJerryBobCo Senior Member Posts: 6,545 Senior Member
    Fisheadgib wrote: »
    How many folks here have horse or cow heads mounted on their walls?

    Does a Shetland Pony count?
    Jerry

    Gun control laws make about as much sense as taking ex-lax to cure a cough.
  • FisheadgibFisheadgib Senior Member Posts: 5,686 Senior Member
    JerryBobCo wrote: »
    Does a Shetland Pony count?

    It would if you experienced an adrenaline rush when it charged.
    snake284 wrote: »
    For my point of view, cpj is a lot like me
    .
  • QuinianQuinian Senior Member Posts: 707 Senior Member
    jbp-ohio wrote: »
    One reason I don't like short carbon arrows with an overdraw. They don't have the mass to drive the broadhead.....

    I only shoot wood shaft, self made arrows for that very reason. They hit like a sledge hammer with a 1.5" razor on it
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 21,851 Senior Member
    All of the above is why I like Siearra, Nosler, and Hornady arrows. They have the proper mass.
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • FisheadgibFisheadgib Senior Member Posts: 5,686 Senior Member
    Quinian wrote: »
    I only shoot wood shaft, self made arrows for that very reason. They hit like a sledge hammer with a 1.5" razor on it


    Interesting concept. I know very little about the mechanics of bow hunting equipment but I see that there are separate schools relating to the projectiles just like there are with firearms. I've shot deer with quite a few different calibers and projectiles and my personal preference is a fat bullet lumbering along at a moderate velocity. It works best for me while some of my friends prefer a light bullet moving at a blistering velocity. I never thought about applying the same arguments to bow hunting. Virtually everyone that I know that bowhunts is obsessed with speed. They all cut their arrows as short as possible to keep them as light as possible and they all use carbon fiber arrows. I don't know what different broadheads weigh but the greater majority of my bowhunting friends also swear by Rage broadheads. It's interesting to learn that there are different schools on arrow weight.
    snake284 wrote: »
    For my point of view, cpj is a lot like me
    .
Sign In or Register to comment.
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Guns & Ammo stories delivered right to your inbox every week.