ORIGINAL: TEmbry

I think some guys took it differently than I did (the original question).IMO, It was about making the KILL optional...not whether or not it was an option for you to choose to kill a certain animal. Like, a 150 inch buck walks out and you know you want to shoot him. If possible, would you opt for him to keep living afterwards (tranquilizer type deal, suction arrows..idk how) or would you kill him anyway to end your successful hunt? In other words, if your arrows could strike without causing harm, would you do this instead of a razor sharp broadhead to put him down for good? I hunt to kill, and when I draw my bow on an animal I have been hunting for and makes me happy, I want to put it down for good. For the success, for the meat, for the trophy, and most of all for the memories. Just my opinion.

I too love trying to photograph animals...and on ones I have no interest in shooting, I find it a rush to get pics/film as well. I was more referring to only the animals you would shoot with your bow. You guys are talking about photographing animals you don't really want to shoot in the first place. Would you be reaching for your camera or bow if a 200" buck walks out? That should answer whether or not you would want the kill optional.


Will, I LOVE that pic of Rob. I'm not sure how he got it, who took it, or the details...but that is by far hands down the COOLEST bowhunting photo I have ever seen. I would love to get a print of that made. Talk aboutup close and personal. I have it saved on my hard drive for good since the last time he posted it up. I agree, he won on that day...but in a different way. I'm sure Rob was hoping like hell he could skewer an arrow through that huge billy. You don't have to kill everytime out to be successful or enjoy your experience, but without the occasional kill...it takes away the hunting aspect of it. I enjoy a fruitless day in the woods just as much as the next guy, but I know I enjoy it a heck of a lot more when I have an animal taking a dirt nap afterwards.