The point being how much better can equipment get? Gear we consider dang-near primitive was good enough to kill an elephant, yet you know as well as anyone even the most up to date bow, arrow, and broadhead can fail on much smaller game.
I don' tknow that the gear is that much better at all ........ wasn't we talking about how we've " grown " as a whole, bowhunters being influenced by ARA's etc now have to do much more in the way of "ethics" that we use to ? Thats not gear related LBR, thats personal choice and how we choose to be in the woods.
I never said or implied the end justifies the means.
No, I'm asking if it does.
Of course it doesn't matter to the ARA's how a human kills and animal, except they can get more press by exposing "cruelty"--and who is the press meant for? Those who are neutral or undecided--the same ones we hunters need to leave a good impression on, because they vote and can play a role in the future of hunting, whether they participate or not.
Anymore I wonder if thats true. I was in Colorado when bear hunting was banned (spring & dogs). How as it done ? It was a huge lie, propoganda running sows with cubs as being the ones killed. It had nothing to do with the truth behind hunting. You can do everything right ..... and the ARA's will lie, and the stupid public will vote agianst hunting anyway.
What hunter's have to deal withto protect the sport has changed a lot. We have to adapt or become extinct.
What happens on the back 40 when you shoot a buck isn't in the limelight though, is it ?
That book I read recently ........ one of the well known bowhunters of today, and he took a lot of shots that isn't considered "ethical" on the bowhunting forum. You'd get SLAMMED for taking those shots.
And he took them, and he made some and he missed some.
I've taken broadside shots, and made some, and missed some.
Whats the difference ?
This author and I both took shots to kill game. We both had success, both had failure, Fred did too.
Whats it matter what KIND of shots that were taken ?