BAN THE BOWSITE!!!!
R Hillis
protest the closure of spring bear hunting. SHOW YOUR SUPPORT FOR HUNTING
AND BAN THE BOWSITE. That's right, I said ban the Bowsite, punishing
hunters for successful anti-hunting actions is the STUPIDEST thing I've ever
heard if. Let's get some one out there who's willing to do something
positive for hunting!
Bowbuff
R. Hillis:
You are out of your damned mind. Go ahead and hunt Ontario if you want. Just
remember that you can't hunt bears there.....because the anti-hunters WON this
round!!!!! A boycott of non-resident hunters might mean that the Ontario
politicians would face losing all non-resident moose license revenue as well as
all the money that all non-resident hunters would spend on outfitters, food,
supplies, etc....as well as, the bear license and associated revenues that they
voted to give up.
So, in your mind, POSITIVE for hunting means we should all go there to hunt?
Something besides bears, I presume, since they are illegal game now.
Exactly how do you think THAT will help regain bear hunting in Ontario or
retain any hunting privileges anywhere else?
Yours is an insane arguement.....meant to undermine the Bowsite and it's good
efforts to keep all of us informed about threats to hunting. I'll bet you are
one of those damned anti-hunters yourself, and your post is just meant to
confuse the issue!
BRUCE J. SMITH
Instead of a boycott against a particular Website, It would be
more benefitial to remember what has happened in 2 US states with
such bans in both the past and present:
Pennsylvania - Deerhunting Ban - 7(?) killed, numerious
injuries and property damage.
California - Mountain Lion hunting ban - 3(?) killed and
several injured.
BTW: This the loss of human life,etc.
It would benefit all(hunter and non-hunter) to start a campaign of
Factual Information concerning bear habitate and habits. Especially during
the spring when births, new cubs, hunger, etc occurs in concentrated
efforts.
--
Phil
read many accounts of people bowhunting where they talk about using 6-10
arrows to kill an animal. It takes me a good 10 seconds to shoot even a
reasonably aimed arrow, assuming other people take a similar time to
shoot then it means the animal is suffering for 1-2 minutes, which is
totally unacceptable to any true sportsman.
I am not anti-hunting, but reall hunting is killing an animal with a
single shot not making it suffer for a long time ( which is barbarism ).
Hunting with a suitably powerful firearm, that you are skilled in using,
is humane and in many cases essential to the survival of a group of
animals. Making the animal suffer by filling it with arrows is cruel,
barbaric and is not the act of a real sportsman.
Phil
Razorhead1
is considered a "no shoot" because it is such a small target.
Arrowed deer sometimes just stand there, oblivious to the fact they have been
mortally wounded.
A suitably powerful firearm, as you put it, is also a pipe dream. For it to
posess the properties you suggest, the recoil would be substantial enough to
inflict pain to the shooter, therefor, reducing the time the shooter would
spend practicing with his weapon, and reducung his proficiency. What good would
the most powerful rifle be if you couldn't shoot it?
Be careful, Phil, you could be classed as an "anti-hunting hunter" with remarks
like that.
John Dickmon
http://members.aol.com/Razorhead1/home.html
The views and opinions expressed here are the views and opinions expressed
here.
Flames will be viewed as a challenge for Celebrity Death Match. Get in the
Ring.
Mopar57106
>How the hell can hunting large animals with bows be ethical???
I'd say it's more ethical to make a well placed shot at under 30 yards than
some fool throwing lead in the air at an animal 400 yards away. There was a
show on the Outdoor Channel the other day that showed an idiot that missed a
deer lying down at 400 yards...the deer ran after the first shot, so what did
he do? The damn fool shot at him 3 more times while he was on the run. If you
can't hit the frickin' animal when it's lying down, how the hell are you going
to hit it on the run at 400 yards? These are the fools you should be harping
on. No one worth their salt at archery would attempt such a foolish long range
shot such as that.
>I have
>read many accounts of people bowhunting where they talk about using 6-10
>arrows to kill an animal.
These people should not be hunting with bow and arrow if they are that poor of
shot.
***********************************************************************
Second place is the first loser.
Ron Kooken
would realize that death is by leaking of the cardiovascilar systen. In
other words the brain is deprived of oxygen and goes to sleep. I contend
that if the shot is placed correctly, and you wait for the animal to lay
down and die, this is one of the most humane methods of harvesting an animal
there is.
Ron Kooken
are totally igornant
Phil wrote in message <36A454...@mcmail.com>...
>How the hell can hunting large animals with bows be ethical??? I have
>read many accounts of people bowhunting where they talk about using 6-10
Jeff Scott
>
> How the hell can hunting large animals with bows be ethical??? I have
> read many accounts of people bowhunting where they talk about using 6-10
> arrows to kill an animal.
While possible, I have a hard time beliving this. A single arrow
to the
chest cavity taking out the lungs and or heart is more than
adequate.
I don't have any first hand knowledge of bear taken with a bow,
but of
the deer I know of all were taken with one shot.
> I am not anti-hunting, but reall hunting is killing an animal with a
> single shot not making it suffer for a long time ( which is barbarism ).
> Hunting with a suitably powerful firearm, that you are skilled in using,
> is humane and in many cases essential to the survival of a group of
> animals. Making the animal suffer by filling it with arrows is cruel,
> barbaric and is not the act of a real sportsman.
If your aren't anti-hunting, then you are just plain ignorant. To
rail
against other peoples methods without good information is just
what
the anti's would like you to do. Divide and conquer.
--
Jeff Scott
Visteon Safety Products Development
jsco...@visteonetnospam.com
(remove nospam to reply)
holm...@pop.mpls.uswest.net
back by Greyhair, a man who had been shot and severely cut on several occasions.
He said that being shot by a rifle was more painful than getting cut, not even
knowing that he had been cut until he saw the blood. I, and I know that others,
can attest to this, having been cut and not knowing until the blood was seen.
Craig H
Phil wrote:
> I have read several magazine articles and other accounts of bow hunting,
> while the 6-10 arrows may only be the act of utter fools I have not yet
> read a single account of any animal much above rabbit size being killed
> by a single arrow.
> A high velocity rifle in the hands of a skilled marksman would kill a
> deer sized animal instantly with a chest shot. Due to the velocity of
> the bullet the energy transferred to the thorasic cavity is so great
> that the internal organs are quite literally disintegrated, killing the
> animal instantly due to massive shock and trauma.
> Having read various accounts and having a sound knowledge of mammalian
> anatomy and physiology I totally stand by my opinion that bowhunting of
> large animals is unethical, which is why it has been outlawed in the UK
> for many years. If anyone wish to enter into a serious debate about the
> subject I am more than willing to listen to them. If all they can do is
> throw insults around then I will be forced to conclude that they are
> unable to justify their "sport".
>
> Phil
Ron Durall
Razorhead1 wrote in message <19990119065537...@ng98.aol.com>...
>Hey Phil...nothing produces an "instant kill" except a shot to the brain,
which
>is considered a "no shoot" because it is such a small target.
>
>Arrowed deer sometimes just stand there, oblivious to the fact they have
been
>mortally wounded.
>
>Be careful, Phil, you could be classed as an "anti-hunting hunter" with
remarks
>like that.
>
>John Dickmon
Ditto John, I agree that a well placed arrow can be a painless way to die.
Have you ever had a very bad cut? I severed my calf muscle many years ago
while skiing and didn't realize it till I saw the blood. The only thing
that hurt was the shot before getting it stitched up. My wife also was
impaled from the thigh to the knee by a 3/4 " diameter branch when a Horse
fell over backwards on her and she never felt much pain. It was 10 inches
deep and the only time it hurt was when she was in the emergency room and
people would bump into the two foot portion of the limb that was sticking
out of her leg. But then again if the arrow hits bone all bets are off.
That hurts.
Ron
Phil
Phil
>
> Phil wrote:
> >How the hell can hunting large animals with bows be ethical???
>
> some fool throwing lead in the air at an animal 400 yards away. There was a
> show on the Outdoor Channel the other day that showed an idiot that missed a
> deer lying down at 400 yards...the deer ran after the first shot, so what did
> he do? The damn fool shot at him 3 more times while he was on the run. If you
> can't hit the frickin' animal when it's lying down, how the hell are you going
> to hit it on the run at 400 yards? These are the fools you should be harping
> on. No one worth their salt at archery would attempt such a foolish long range
> shot such as that.
>
> >read many accounts of people bowhunting where they talk about using 6-10
> >arrows to kill an animal.
>
> shot.
I agree with everything you have said. I have no problem with people
hunting with bows, as long as they can be certain that they will kill
any animal they shoot at. Animals the size of bears, caribou and other
large deer can not realisticly be killed by a single arrow. Therefore I
consider it unethical. As for the person you described, idiotic thugs
like that should not be allowed to possess firearms.
Phil
Phil
>
> Hey Phil...nothing produces an "instant kill" except a shot to the brain, which
> is considered a "no shoot" because it is such a small target.
Using a high velocity rifle at a suitable range a shot to the chest
causes such massive damage to an animals internal organs that death is
instantanious due to shock and trauma.
>
> Arrowed deer sometimes just stand there, oblivious to the fact they have been
> mortally wounded.
>
> A suitably powerful firearm, as you put it, is also a pipe dream. For it to
> posess the properties you suggest, the recoil would be substantial enough to
> inflict pain to the shooter, therefor, reducing the time the shooter would
> spend practicing with his weapon, and reducung his proficiency. What good would
> the most powerful rifle be if you couldn't shoot it?
Modern firearms are more than capable of producing enough kinetic energy
to disintegrate an animals internal organs with a single shot, without
injuring the shooter.
I agree that a top quality weapon in the hands of an inexperianced or
inept shooter is no use at all, which is why I stated that it should be
a suitable weapon that the shooter is skilled in using.
>
> Be careful, Phil, you could be classed as an "anti-hunting hunter" with remarks
> like that.
>
Firstly I do not hunt, but strognly support the rights of others to do
so unless the cause unnecessary suffering to any animal.
Secondly, to be quite frank I dont really care what I am classed as. I
view some hunting as ethical and some as unethical, I class bowhunting
of animals that can not be killed with a single shot in the latter
class.
Phil
R Hillis
I find it amazing that you are telling me that I'm an anti when some jerk
named Phil has gotten everyone else completely off the subject. The
appropriateness of boycotting hunting in order to further hunting. (thats
an oxymoron)
I don't know how you figure that taking resources away from the very people
who need them to fight this current attack is going to help solve the
problem. Like I said before, you are punishing the very people that need
your help the most! Boycotting the Ontario guides & hunting lodges isn't
going to do anything other than strengthen the anti's position. We have to
have people actively benifitting from hunting & fishing in order to
strengthen
support for it. If you want to hit the anti's look at who sponsored the
closure on the spring bear, I don't think you'll see any hunting and guiding
operations in the list, after all they stand to lose the most by this
action.
Bowbuff wrote in message <19990118233137...@ngol07.aol.com>...
R Hillis
I have 2 bones to pick with you now:
1. Your posts are completely off topic and distracting from the real debate
here
2. Your posts contain complete dis-information in regards to killing
ability of the bow.
Now if you don't mind the rest of us would like to finish our argument!
Bowbuff
>Having read various accounts and having a sound knowledge of mammalian
>anatomy and physiology I totally stand by my opinion that bowhunting of
>large animals is unethical,
Well, Phil, did you ever hear of pneumothorax? When you let the air out of
them, they die quickly and with only one arrow. Apparently you believe your
"friends" who brag about shooting 6-10 arrows into an animal....they're sick
puppies too(assuming this was not a fabrication). I can understand why you
would be put off by anyone who would boast about that degree of incompetence.
However, you are very wrong about the efficiency of a well placed arrow with a
razor sharp broadhead. It might enlighten you to take a Bowhunter Education
course-but then again, probably not.
Now as far as your concluding "that they can't justify their sport".....it is
offensive that you think I have to JUSTIFY anything to you at all. This
pompous attitude is what's wrong with the world today. People draw their
conclusions by sitting at home and watching television[or in your case,
listening to stories told by incompetents and reading books on mammalian
anatomy(!)] ....instead of learning the facts about something and drawing a
conclusion based on real experience. You made some sort of judgement based on
the fact that it takes you 10 seconds to shoot a "well aimed arrow"....well,
maybe you're just not good enough at it!
I agree with you: you'll be happier shooting at paper. But don't be pushing
your faulty logic as justification to take something away from others.
Bowbuff
In article <Xcap2.8962$Kg6....@news2.telusplanet.net>, "R Hillis"
<arr...@telusplanet.net.no_s_p_a_m> writes:
>
>I find it amazing that you are telling me that I'm an anti when some jerk
>named Phil has gotten everyone else completely off the subject. The
>appropriateness of boycotting hunting in order to further hunting. (thats
>an oxymoron)
>
>I don't know how you figure that taking resources away from the very people
>who need them to fight this current attack is going to help solve the
>problem. Like I said before, you are punishing the very people that need
>your help the most! Boycotting the Ontario guides & hunting lodges isn't
>going to do anything other than strengthen the anti's position. We have to
>have people actively benifitting from hunting & fishing in order to
>strengthen
>support for it. If you want to hit the anti's look at who sponsored the
>closure on the spring bear, I don't think you'll see any hunting and guiding
>operations in the list, after all they stand to lose the most by this
>action.
>
Well, I'll agree with you that Phil's not playing with a full deck. If he is,
he's definitely not on our side(....and maybe we should be wary of him?)
Well, back to your points: Gosh, I'd say the Ontario guides and lodges pretty
well screwed it up by now. They are truly the ones with the most to lose BUT,
they-and their resident hunters- didn't stop it in their own government, so
maybe I should do my part and go stay in one of their lodges for a week of
relaxation .....without all that tiresome bear hunting? Sure, I could still
moose hunt there, but it seems a bit risky to make the deposit because their
damned parlaiment might ban moose hunting before I can get there! No, I think
I'll go somewhere else and hope that their parlaiment gets the message that a
loss of MONEY will be the result of their action.
Of course, you could be correct, and it might not happen, but all I can do is
follow my conscience. I have good friends in Western Canada and these are good
people...I enjoy visiting them...and hunting with them. I think that their
leaders are betraying them by making stupid decisions based on emotion. And,
when their dollar is weakening almost daily, a decision to boycott sending
license money to those leaders could be especially effective. Politicians are
pandering simps. If their constituents get mad enough, they'll kiss up in any
way they have to. AND: they won't forget exactly what sort of issue brought on
the trouble! Why do you think Social Security is a taboo issue with our
politicians? Because any hint of messing with it brings down the wrath of a
huge number of old voters. Man, I'd love to see bowhunting get that kind of
reputation-here and in Canada!!!!!
Bowhunters are private, let-me-alone-to-do-my-thing kind of people. But, I
don't think we'll save bowhunting by being nice....or private......or by
turning the other cheek. We might save it by being a powerful, very vocal,
fiscally-focussed special interest group. Politicians DO listen to those.
And by the way, inferring that you are an anti is no different than your call
to BAN THE BOWSITE......if not for the Bowsite, no one outside of Ontario would
have even noticed this thing happening! If you're against bowhunter
networking on this subject , then you're not on the same side I am.
Phil
Yes I have heard of pneumothorax, and it can take many minutes for an
animal to die from it. A fact that anyone who has ever punctured a lung,
or suffered a badly broken rib is very grateful for
You made some sort of judgement based on
> the fact that it takes you 10 seconds to shoot a "well aimed arrow"....well,
> maybe you're just not good enough at it!
I am sure I am no good, I have only been shooting a couple of months.
But the world class archers where I shoot take even longer.
As I have already said I have no problem with bowhunting an animal that
is small enough to be killed by a single arrow. But in cases where it
takes more than 1 or in very rare cases 2 then I think it is cruel.
How come some of the people who have responded to my posts have been
able to use reasoned arguement and others have had to result to insults
and abuse??? Hmmmmm, geee, I wonder.
If you wish to protect your sport then you will have to use much better
arguments than calling people jerks. But, as for the comment about
justifying the sport you are right it was pompous and I shouldn't have
said it. I was just a tad pissed off at some of the more abusive
responses I have recieved.
Ok, I am totally finished on the subject now, unless anyone decides they
feel the need to hurl any more childish insults at me.
Phil
Phil
> he's definitely not on our side(....and maybe we should be wary of him?)
Hmmmmm, more petty insults. For the last time, I have based my opinions
on reading articles in bowhunting magazines (some of which are online so
you can go and read them yourself), listening to what I admit is the
more unsavoury element of bowhunters and my knowledges of physiology.
So, if anyone wishes to present me with facts different to those I have
already read then I will be more than happy to listen to them. If I find
their arguments convincing then I will change my opinions on bowhunting
and happily admit I was wrong.
Phil
paulw...@my-dejanews.com
> As for the person you described, idiotic thugs
> like that should not be allowed to possess firearms.
>
> Phil
>
BugBear.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Xringx3
Taking a chance that where you shoot is a club or facility of some type, the
archers I'm sure take more time, after all the X-ring isn't going anywhere and
if not precisely accurate, the target still won't suffer. If any of them hunt
as well I would be curious to know if they differ their shooting style by
speeding up or slowing down.
Learn from others mistakes, life is too short to make then all yourself.
holm...@pop.mpls.uswest.net
course and find out the truth about them. Craig H
JODIE hICKLE wrote:
> Let me start by saying that I am a bow hunter and enjoy the sport very much. I
> do see Phill's point to some degree however if you are that concerned about the
> big game animal suffering then you should be asking for every state to allow
> hunters to use arrows tiped with poison. Although my state of TN does'nt allow
> it I hear that the animal goes down quickly and suffers much less.I consider
> myself a more than adequate shot but have made poor shots in my life. I saw a
> hunting program on TV in which they had a world champion archer hunting for deer
> even he made a poor shot. What you are impling is everyone is perfect and no one
> would ever make a poor shot. It is obvious to me that you are not a hunter at
> all. Even a marksman can and will miss.Perhaps we should ban vehicles, they
> don't kill instantly either.
JODIE hICKLE
Archeryrob
>> do see Phill's point to some degree however if you are that concerned about
>the
>> big game animal suffering then you should be asking for every state to
>allow
>> hunters to use arrows tiped with poison
I would not want to accidently cut myself while hunting with a poison tipped
arrow. Consider that one. Also if you used a poison that was not destroyed by
digestion and was only a blood poison you could get sick or worse eating the
meat.
Rob
My Primitive Web Site: http://hometown.aol.com/archeryrob/index.htm
"If you are not working to protect hunting, then you are working to destroy
it." Fred Bear United Sportsmen Defense Network
http://members.aol.com/ussportmen/index.htm
Christopher Lollini
Phil.
In an earlier post you claimed that you've never hunted, and it sounds as if
you've just begun shooting a bow, and understand the difficulty in learning to be
proficient enough to ethically hunt. Most bowhunters I have met spend an enormous
amount of time practicing, so that their kills are one-shot kills. Still, there
are many variables that play into actually killing a large animal that your simple
comparison between rifles and bows do not even begin to touch.
If people on this list are upset at you it is because they believe that your
opinion is lacking sufficient grounds. Just researching bowhunting on the internet
as a basis for your opinion proves to me that your research is a bit thin. I have
no problems with an opinion, however I would prefer to see then adequately
supported, which yours does not seem to be.
This is not a mean-spirited poke at you, just a friendly reminder that you should
do more of your homework before posting your opinions....unless you like receiving
insults. I'm sure that there are many on this group who feel that your lack of
research warrants a short, insulting response....and they are entitled to do so.
Chris
>
>
> How come some of the people who have responded to my posts have been
> able to use reasoned arguement and others have had to result to insults
> and abuse??? Hmmmmm, geee, I wonder.
> If you wish to protect your sport then you will have to use much better
> arguments than calling people jerks. But, as for the comment about
> justifying the sport you are right it was pompous and I shouldn't have
> said it. I was just a tad pissed off at some of the more abusive
> responses I have recieved.
>
> Phil
Travis Dalton
antis. Everyone knows divide and conquer. I don't agree with some tactics
or types of hunting however I believe everyone has the right to hunt however
he/she wants. As long as it is legal. We need to ban together as a group
of hunters not as seperate factions trying to protect our particular style
of hunting.
R Hillis <arr...@telusplanet.net.no_s_p_a_m> wrote in message
news:G%Qo2.8633$Kg6....@news2.telusplanet.net...
R Hillis
hunting (i.e. attacking hunting) is going to be productive. Boycott
whitewater rafting, Boycott plain old camping in ONT, boycott going across
the border and shopping etc. But boycot hunting? That's counter productive
and only serves to HELP the anti's keep hunters OUT of the woods.
Travis Dalton wrote in message <78aahv$3pi$1...@news3.infoave.net>...
Travis Dalton
continuosly pass laws that I do not agree with that is why I will not go to
Canada to hunt. However that does not mean that I won't go hunting. I will
continue to hunt in the good ol U.S.A.. So tell me how is that boycotting
hunting. When Canada starts to see how much money they are losing they
will pay more attention to what the hunters have to say.
Phil
> If people on this list are upset at you it is because they believe that your
> opinion is lacking sufficient grounds. Just researching bowhunting on the internet
> as a basis for your opinion proves to me that your research is a bit thin. I have
> no problems with an opinion, however I would prefer to see then adequately
> supported, which yours does not seem to be.
>
> This is not a mean-spirited poke at you, just a friendly reminder that you should
> do more of your homework before posting your opinions....unless you like receiving
> insults. I'm sure that there are many on this group who feel that your lack of
> research warrants a short, insulting response....and they are entitled to do so.
>
> Chris
Chris, have you read my more recent posts?? I have admitted I was way
off on the bowhunting. I was basing my opinions on the "worst case
scenarios" which the anti's love. It was a tad stupid of me, as I get
seriously pissed off at other people for doing exactly the same.
I agree that people had a right to disagree with what I said, especially
as it was wrong. But I do not believe they had a right to email me with
abuse. These people are far more likely to destroy the sport rather than
protect it. If a bill goes before the Govt trying to ban bowhunting then
people are gonna have to do a lot better than "shut up and go away" and
petty insults. The reasoned argument and first hand accounts convinced
me I was wrong, the childish insults made me think people were unable to
defend their sport.
Phil
Christopher Lollini
Travis Dalton wrote:
> It is not boycottig hunting it is more about boycotting Canada. They
> continuosly pass laws that I do not agree with that is why I will not go to
> Canada to hunt. However that does not mean that I won't go hunting. I will
> continue to hunt in the good ol U.S.A.. So tell me how is that boycotting
> hunting. When Canada starts to see how much money they are losing they
> will pay more attention to what the hunters have to say.
> ----
The only people that stand to loose the most money in Canada over hunting is the
people who support hunting....the outfitters, the guides, etc...
Most Canadians I know support hunting. Canadian Politicians, however, should be
considered game...they are the problem.
CL
dw...@my-dejanews.com
To really have any political clout. And, possible effect on the Canadian
Government. We as AMERICAN hunters. Should boycott all hunting HERE as well.
DON'T BUY JACK. Force EVERYONE, in the hunting industry to apply pressure.
OH, and this would include the web. Particularly any site with a hunting
format. This way our politicians will become involved and effect some pressure
on the Ontario system.
But, this would be to much of a cause to support. So the BOWSITE mearly
request we boycott Canada. With letters from every Tom, Dick, and Harry, who
may not even hunt in Canada. Smooth move EX-LAX. Why don't you get some more
people who don't matter...I.E. homeless people, crack heads, winos, and the
Southern Baptist Convention, to write letters too. This is a common practice
among lobbyist. Just get the names. What they stand for, or care about, is
irrelavent. Shot gun methods like this, make the end process harder for those
of us who would actually work to save our sport.
I refuse to stand shoulder to shoulder with some idiot that doesn't even
know the cause he supports. He has the potential to do more damage than good.
It would seem to me. The above metioned method, would bring about FASTER
results.
My wife left!!
Wonder who's gonna clean this deer now?
Travis Dalton
collects a gun registration fee at the border? While traveling in Canada
don't you have to buy gas, food etc. Sure it will hurt the outfitters but
I'm more concerned about being able to hunt in Canada without going through
a lot of red tape.
Christopher Lollini <colo...@ra.rockwell.com> wrote in message
news:36A8DEF2...@ra.rockwell.com...
DICKSAGE
heard of an incident where six to ten arrows are used to kill an animal. Think
about it, how would a bowhunter have the opportunity to get six arrows into a
single animal unless the animal was immobile? And, if immobile, a single
additional arrow would certainly finish the job. Essentially all bow kills
involve a single arrow. You have accessed one of the typical uninformed
anti-bowhunter sources that spread misinformation. dick...@aol.com
Muddy Hans
i did miss the origional post, and i'm not going to claim any great knowledge
here, but it seams to me with a low poundage bow, a good hit might not
penetrate all the way. meaning the animal would possibly be slowed enough for a
second shot, but wouldn't be killed.. probally wrong here, but from my limited
knowledge this is the only thing i can think of...
-Doc (yes its still me, new loggon though)
Richard Geffert
that you have gotten off track a little. It seems to have turned into a debate
about how many arrows are needed to kill large game. The real issue at hand is
that the anti-hunting people have won. Is this just the beginning. When will
bans be placed on hunting in the U.S. ???? It's just a matter of time. We as
hunters need to get off butts and start doing something about it. We need to
promote our sport of hunting. Write letters to newspapers about posotive
hunting experiences. Not just the kill but the thrill of just being out in the
wild. Start doing something to counteract the anti hunting threat in your
area. If you just sit by and wait for the next guy to do something then you are
to blame. Set up a website to promote hunting. It is not hard to do and you
can get free server space on the web. I certainly don't want to lose my right
to hunt so I am doing all I can to insure our hunting future. If you have good
ideas about promoting and defending our sport I challenge you to post them here
or email me directly.
R. Geffert
R Hillis wrote:
> The Bowsite has just announced a plan to boycott all hunting in Ontario to
> protest the closure of spring bear hunting. SHOW YOUR SUPPORT FOR HUNTING
> AND BAN THE BOWSITE. That's right, I said ban the Bowsite, punishing
> hunters for successful anti-hunting actions is the STUPIDEST thing I've ever
> heard if. Let's get some one out there who's willing to do something
> positive for hunting!
--
Rich or Marie Geffert
Visit our Web Sites:
and