Why do we try to make killing a deer "harder"?

Neighbor walked over the other day while we were running the disc on one of our plots and we talked for awhile about last year and the one coming up. Nice guy and we get along very well. Great neighbor. We chat about bucks we saw and killed last year and he ends up telling us he wounded 2 bucks both of which he guessed at over 130" and knowing him for 4 years and seeing some of the bucks he has killed I trust his eye.

I ask him what happened and he says he hunted all year with a recurve because he always wanted to take a good buck with traditional gear. Shot one in archery and one in gun season. I was polite and shared my fake condolences for him but inside my guys were twisting thinking only of what a shame it is to have 2 good bucks like that wasted on nothing more then the selfish actions of someone who is bored or trying to prove something to himself or others. Just misguided ignorance.

I should have stated to start that I have never and will never consider the manner in which a deer was taken to have ANY bearing whatsoever on the level of accomplishment, skill of the hunter, or quality of the animal. I couldn't care less how someone kills a deer as long at it was legal and free range they are all the same to me. There isn't a single method of deer hunting that I know of that impresses me even a little bit as requiring immense skill. Technology has tipped the scales so far in our favor that it's not hard to see why outsiders laugh when they see a guy in a heated shooting house over a cut corn field with a dozen bucks in it on TV blast one with a high powered rifle with state of the art optics and then go back to the cabin for a gourmet dinner and some NFL action on the dish while chatting up how sacred and important "fair chase" hunting is to him.

So my question is what is gained by making a deer "harder" in our minds to kill? The deer certainly doesn't care and they don't look any different on the wall or taste any different on the grill.

The only thing that comes from trying to make killing a deer "harder" is more wounded and lost deer. There is no valid excuse for that. If all the ways guys try to make themselves feel more "challenged" resulted in clean misses when they gag then fine, have at it. I would be all for it and in fact encourage it, but that's never the case. It always ends up with an arrow or bullet through the guts or hams and a wasted animal.

It's not even limited to self inflicted silliness. Hunting regulations all over the country go out of their way to make stupid rules under the false pretense that it makes it more "fair" to the deer. LOL. No illuminated sights, no scopes, no rifles, no crossbows, no draw stops, no lighted nocks, no projected laser sights, no mechanical calls, etc. I get that you don't want guys blowing deer up with heat seeking missiles but what do all those restrictions on weapons and sights really accomplish?? LESS accuracy, LESS quick, clean kills and MORE wounded and lost animals.

It makes no sense. The accomplishment of hunting an animal has NOTHING to do with killing it. Every single guy that has taken a perfect photo of a big buck has the exact same bragging rights as the guy who has one on his wall IMO. The fact that one chose to carry a camera and one a weapon has no effect on the accomplishment of sneaking in undetected to that animals world and getting close enough for the shot (photo or gun).

I say once you have done your part and slipped into a deer's home turf undetected then you win and wounding that animal so it can go suffer for no reason serves no purpose at all. I think the KILLING part of hunting should be made as easy as humanly possible, that way the wounding numbers would go way down and more deer would be harvested at a much more efficient rate.

Everybody wins. For some reason this logic escapes many hunters in general as well as those regulating the activity.

 

I mostly disagree with you....not that it matters because you have obviously pondered this sentiment for quite some time. Your post was incredibly well thought out and very well articulated. Your points are, as a matter of opinion, valid and lucid. I disagree on one fundamental premise. There is a HUGE difference in harvest methods. I hunt deer with archery tackle because I appreciate the hard work and diligence it takes to get within 30 yds of a thinking breathing animal. I dont sit on food plots...not because I wouldnt if it were a plausible option for me. I suppose an apple orchard or an oak grove could be considered a food plot but i conciously do hunt IN feeding areas, I hunt routes to and from feeding areas. Thats just how I hunt...not saying its right or wrong but it works for me.

I do, however, agree with the states ability and tendency to regulate the technology we as hunters can use to makes those quick and humane shots. There seems to be some misguided and ill faded attempt to think that all that technology is unfair...but the fact that we have guns and the deer do not doesnt offset the playing field from the start. Oregon has such policies and its more annoying than anything else. I like going out as equipped as i can, but all the technology in the world doesnt help if I cant get close enough to an animal......just sayin....

I really enjoyed your post and I think its very relevant.

 

I guess my life of hunting deer with all sorts of weapons has certainly shaped my views of the subject. Maybe it's the WAY I hunt or more accurately the way NY land dictates I hunt that is the greater influence. Doesn't really matter I guess. The bottom line is I have killed deer with a gun MANY times that were in bow range. I have killed MANY deer with a bow that were way "easier" to kill than ones I've taken with a gun. Sometimes I'm in the stand for 15 minutes and sometimes it's 15 weeks. The weapon I tote around has never been anything but a nice change of pace to me. Honestly, my opinion which I have stated many times over the years is that in NY anyways it is WAY easier to kill a deer (good buck, doe, whatever) during archery season. It's really not even a close race.

The comparison of picking off a deer at 300 yards from a shooting house vs archery always comes up and while I appreciate the face value of such a statement the true depth of each situation is much more then meets the eye. I reload my rifle ammo with a Rainman like attention to detail and I invite ANYONE who thinks shooting sub MOA groups at 300 yards with a deer rifle is as simple as throwing a scope on and grabbing some ammo at WalMart to bring their wallet to the range and be ready to go home broke. Add nerves, adrenaline, wind and a less then perfect anchor for that gun into the mix and a miss is a twitch away.

Nothing is simple and it all deserves respect. Nothing is overly complex either and we shouldn't kid ourselves into believing we are winning some sort of primitive battle with the deer when we take one with a bow. The technology we posses makes any such notion laughable.


This wasn't meant to be bow vs gun. As I said I couldn't care less what someone uses. What I do care about is when someone or the state tries to handicap the process by putting some idiotic limits on the lethality of that weapon. Once that deer is in the sights and the spot is picked the game is over IMO. You won and the deer lost. Hang the head, make some sausage and tip your beverage of choice. To go through all that though and then wound the animal because you are trying in vain to convince lord knows who that you are doing something in a way you perceive as more difficult or "challenging" is just plain stupid IMO.

Ever notice very few if any guys try to "challenge" themselves by going out in plain clothes and no camo. They never seem to want to brag about killing a buck after sitting on stand all day in sandals mid January. I don't ever recall someone wanting to "challenge" themselves by standing on the ground in plain sight with no warm clothes on and no food or drink or electronic gadgets. It's always just a silly limit on the weapon of choice that seems to matter to some people in the field and even those in the regulations offices.

I'd be WAY more impressed if a guy killed a buck in a sleeveless t shirt, shorts and sandals in January up north after standing on the ground for 9 hours vs a guy who sits in a treestand 20 feet up tucked into a cloak of branches while in full camo and head to toe gortex and thinsulate with a cell phone, range finder, back pack full of food and hot coffee with rattle antlers, a grunt tube and bleat can in his pockets and a scent trail conveniently dragged 20 yards from his perch. Couldn't care less which weapon they had.

My main focus is that delusional weapon restrictions don't help the deer by making things more "fair". You don't want the killing of the deer to be fair, you want the pursuit of the deer to be fair. The killing should be astronomically UNfair. In other words once the game is over the kill should be devastatingly fierce, quick and ridiculously lethal. THAT is what we owe something we choose to kill for sport. A quick, clean death..........EVERY time.

Put laser sights on bows, allow rifles everywhere, do whatever you have to do to make the killing of a deer as successful as possible. People seem to strive for the opposite in some misguided attempt to either stroke their own ego or out of a horribly uninformed attempt to level the playing field.

You want to level the playing field and make it more "fair" for the deer? Outlaw boots, camo and treestands/blinds. Let's not continue to pretend the things we employ do anything more then result in higher numbers of wounded animals and that is something that is unacceptable for any reason. Allowing it to continue for the reasons we do is nothing short of embarrassing.

We can and should do much better. Our goal should be 100% efficient, quick and clean kills while focusing any efforts towards "fairness" on maintaining and in fact elevating the integrity of the pursuit.

 

As with your last post, you have incredibly valid points! I suppose i am institutionalized to say bowhunting is fundamentally and regularly "harder" to be successful as population of each method would predict. There are several more gun hunters than bowhunters. But I undestand that isnt the point of the thread.

But to agree and at the same time disagree with your actual point, if the technology existed that allowed me to harvest an animal at 300 yds with sub MOA accuracy with my bow existed, it should not be regulated by any governing agency to keep it "fair" to the deer. It started out and will remain dynamically "unfair". However, I believe I have reached the limit of my hypocracy with my Heli-m....as I try to remain "traditional". I still use a TC Hawken during muzzleloader season....but all of this is how I choose to participate in hunting. I will NEVER dog another hunter on his/her methods unless its poaching or otherwise unethical. Quite honestly I am just happy to see that the sport isnt dead at the behest of the more liberal folks making us out to be murderers. Not to get political.....

States...stay out of it!!

And I'm spent...thanks for keeping my brain occupied atlasman...good stuff!!

 

I know in nh the shotgun only zones are for safety reason not to make it harder. as for the weapon anyone wants to use it is up to that person to get good with it if they want to hunt with it. I shoot my bow 3 to 4 times a week so when I do go hunting. i know I have put my time in. your neighbor my have done the same. when hunting stuff happens. all the tech in the world will not stop that. if you have never lost a deer you are lucky sooner or later it will happen. I have been lucky in 42 years of hunting I have only lost one but their have been some close calls

 

In some states when muzzleloader hunting, not only can you NOT use a scope (which would greatly enhance accuracy, lethality, and ultimately safety....obviously) you cant even have luminous sights pressed or affixed to your weapon. Those regulations apply to bows as well. but for some strange reason not high powered rifles....seems backwards. For reasons of fairness to the animals...which I believe is atlasmans point. In 25 years of hunting I have made marginal shots....admittedly they were MY fault...not because my judgement on the shot was flawed but because i was young and inexperienced. I have been lucky as well and i have lost only 3 deer...but those were sleepless nights and i made every effort in the days or in some cases weeks to follow to target that animal. I was only ever successful with that approach once. I do believe we are as we should be, good stewards and conservationists. i am certain everyone will agree with that.

 

Atlas, I could not agree more...too much truth in your posts for most to handle though.

I mean, you HAVE to keep up with the Jones'... right? It can't be a gun or a crossbow...can it?

Sometimes I think many would respect a hunter that wounded and lost a big buck more than one that cleanly killed a crossbow buck...

 

Why do people climb mountains?
Sail across the ocean?
Free dive?
Run triathlons?

Everyone is in the woods for different reasons. Some want meat. Some want antlers. Some want adventure. Some love the process.

It's unfortunate that 2 deer were wounded, that's on him, just as the three deer I've wounded in my hunting career are on me. However, I seen enough jackwagons taking shots with rifles they never should have to know that choosing traditional gear is not whats at issue here.

Heck, I see a time in the near future where I hunt with a longbow, possibly made by my own hand. If that happens, it's for my own enjoyment. Nothing more, nothing less.

I guess I just don't understand why you're getting worked up over this.

 

I don't want to minimize the loss of game, but seems to me that is the unfortunate possibility every time we take a shot with whatever weapon we are using at whatever game we are hunting. the best we can do is be as proficient as we can, hunt within the capabilities the weapon and our skill with it, and be knowledgeable about anatomy so when we get a shot we know where to shoot to get a quick kill. I've hunted in Europe where we have a guide along on every hunt, telling you when to put the round in the chamber, which animal to shoot, where to shoot it, and when to shoot it. And oh by the way archery hunting isn't allowed. This does result in a lot less lost game and is fine for the experience that it is. But if that that was the only way we could hunt here I'd likely do a lot more fishing.....

 

This discussion gave me a headache! I will add that it ain't the weapon that wounds an animal, it's the guy behind the weapon that wounds an animal. I have not wounded a deer with my bow in well over 10 years, maybe 20, but a guy I know wounded two, just last year, with a magnum rifle.
Poor shot selection, and attempting shots that exceed our ability, and our weapon's ability, be it gun or bow, is the problem.

 

Wow that's some good reading. I like the fact that folks on this forum put some good thought into what they write rather than just espousing a bunch of hollow rhetoric.

 

For me it was never about making the hunt "harder", it was about making the hunt more gratifying for myself. I have taken deer with a rifle, a shotgun, a compound, and traditional bows (both recurve and longbows, many I made my self). I find shooting a deer at 200-300 yards extremely unsatisfying. I feel way too disconnected from the hunt. The process has ALWAYS been more important to me than the result. For that reason I choose archery equipment. We all hunt for different reasons. Sure if my only goal was to only fill the freezer with meat I'd be slinging lead. Hunting, to me, is much more than that.

The first deer I ever shot and lost was with a rifle (1988, spike buck, .30-.30 Winchester). You can't blame the equipment, but the user.

 

I could care less what weapon someone uses. I tried the recurve for two years because it was fun. There are plenty of trad hunters who have a higher recovery rate on deer than gun hunters.

 

Some of the weapon regulations in Illinois are designed to protect people, not to make it harder to kill deer.

 

I appologize to the thread...and atlasman...I unwittingly pushed a point that he specifically mentioned WASN'T the point, and that was that this isnt about gun vs bow or which one is harder or whatever.....the reference was strictly the states involvement in regulating the equipment we use and how the result could make us less lethal...but its turned into something different...sorry brother...apparently its a topic that leads to discussion though...semper fidelis

 

All the things you listed are and can be done to whatever extreme you choose. The consequences of your failure will be solely yours to suffer. Not so with clowns trying to entertain themselves by passing laws or restricting themselves to inferior equipment. The deer suffer the consequences for this EVERY time. The hunter just loads up another bullet or arrow and waits for the next victim of his ignorance to wander by. Sooner or later he will get the job done and what a glorious celebration of his manhood there will be. No mention of the half dozen he wounded trying to be a self glossed hero surely will not be made.

Forget the homemade bow if you want to "challenge" yourself. Leave your boots and jacket at home instead, that way your analogy will hold and only you will have to deal with the results of your self inflicted handicap. The deer won't have to do it for you.

I can steer my car with my feet but that doesn't make it a smart idea or very safe for others on the road.

 

Couldn't agree more. That means you take the MOST lethal weapon you have and you end the kill as quick and humanely possible.


Ask yourself a serious question. If YOUR life depended on it (in other words if you were hunting dangerous game) would you take a different weapon. If the answer is yes then you are hunting with the wrong weapon.

I laugh when I see the wussies on TV in Africa with big bore armed guides behind them in case they get attacked. If you need an army behind you to protect you then you have the wrong weapon or no skill worthy of that task. I say let him learn the lesson the hard way.......don't bring a knife to a gunfight.

 

There is no cure for stupid..........but I'd rather have a moron toting the most deadly weapon he can find (assuming he at least can ID a target). That way the weapon can hopefully make up for his incompetence. Give him a weapon with little to no margin for error and it's a disaster waiting to happen.

 

Fair enough. As I stated before I don't understand how or why anyone would feel more "gratified" with a kill based on what weapon they used. I couldn't care less what trigger I pulled. I draw no "gratification" from the kill, it is merely the final step in what REALLY drives me to hunt.........the pursuit. EVERYTHING leading up to that moment is all I care about. I don't see how something that lasts 2 seconds can overpower all the hours, days, weeks and years that lead to that moment but to each his own.

Again, if other peoples search for "gratification" only effected them I wouldn't care in the least. But reality is everyone else and the deer are the only ones who truly suffer the ill effects of such misguided quests for entertainment.

 

I couldnt agree more!!! If at the end of a successfull hunt I could breathe life back into that animal and let him be on his way...and retain the meat obviously....I would. But alas there is a finality to it all. I suppose I could employ the very same tactics that I use to get 50 ft away from a deer but in the end I click a photo....or pull the trigger on a crossbow, or a rifle....but if I am going to kill it I should use the most lethal method possible to ensure a quick humane death...and not be regulated by a states attempt to retain "tradtional" roots. I get that some states have safety concerns and dont allow certain harvest methods...thats fine...but not to tell a hunter that he should remain traditional.