Aught six, Im not making any excuses. I am giving you valid reason for why these hunters hunt the way they do. You may not agree with these reasons. But going by your logic no one is ever right as long as someone else disagrees. Just because you find it an outrage or revolting doesnt make it wrong. If you arent willing to admit that these people simply institute a different strategy from yours than you are being a hypocrite. A PETA member will tell you that you are wrong for eating meat much less killing the animal. You have to realize the saying " to each his own" makes a lot of sense. Unless they are knowingly breaking the law you really cant do anything about it other than plead with them to change their ways. But you arent doing that you are just bad mouthing them.

B&C,
I agree to a point - ethics are individual. That is why we call them ethics and not laws. That being said, everything we do in the woods effects everyone else in the woods. To use someones example, that deer with the arrow in his butt walked through some old ladies yard last night and now she thinks that everyone who hunts is a heartless SOB out to hurt animals. I think that if you can make the shot, take the shot but if there is a doubt, do me and every hunter a favor and hold off. Mistakes happen but by the way some people talk, many could be avoided in the first place.

[:@]Now as far as bowhunters wounding more game, I' ll find the stats on that one. I know that that is absolutely false, both from personal experience and from the wounding studies I' ve read. Speaking personally, at 30 yards and less, I can shoot as accurately as anyone on this board. You use your gun and I' ll use my bow! Put hair on the target and get our hearts pumping and I' ll bet both of our groups get bigger. I' ve wounded two deer in the last six years with my bow. (Yes, I am embarrassed. I' m not bragging!) When you consider that I' ve shot six deer a year with my bow over that time, those numbers (36 and 2) don' t say that I am out wounding game.

Greg

" It' s wrong to tell others that they are wrong"

Read the above line carefully and think about it. That' s what moral relativism teaches. It' s a self refuting statement. A logical absurdity.

Everyone struggles with ethics. No one is on a " holier than thou" high horse. But if we can' t express our opinions about what is ethical and what isn' t, how will anyone learn?

Yes, SOMETIMES the lines are blurry, but most often they are not. Someone posted recently that his buddy lost a deer because HE HAD TO SHOOT THROUGH BRUSH.
Had to? I' ve shot through brush before. It was not right for me to do it and it' s wasn' t right for him.

We need to keep discussing ethics and even arguing about it. A hands off, don' t say anything cause you' re not perfect approach will only encourage more people to do stupic, unethical things.

Going by this logic people who disagree whole heatedly against hunting are equally as right as you are. That is simply self centered backwards logic. What makes the style you were taught correct.

I am going to take it a step further.....

I cant believe all these filthy hunters who shoot deer in the lungs and the heart. If you cannot gaurentee that you shoot the deer in the brain stem than you are a sloppy filthy hog of a hunter. It is the only humane instant death tactic to take a deer by. If you shoot a deer any other way you are a slob.

Disagreeing with statement trumps your entire argument. ITs a matter of interpretation and understanding that people do things differently.

By your logic that statement makes the style of hunting you were taught obselete, unethical, and wrong. Im sorry but you are going to have to understand that your opinion does not trump anothers beliefs. Im not expressing my opinion here. I am stating a factual argument and getting peoples opinions in response.

Let me clear the confusion here. I agree that injuring a deer isnt a very responsable thing to do. But all im saying is that its none of your business how others legally hunt. Who are you to tell them their method is WRONG!

YOu can express you opinion but please dont hide behind the guise that your opinion is somehow factual and that they are wrong for that reason. That would be ignorant.

Ethics are NOT relative.

B&C, you can justify laziness and incompetence all you want with your pseudo-logic, but the point is this: if it' s bad for the deer and bad for the hunters, then it' s wrong. Grazing a deer in a fit of impatience or taking pot shots that could wind up killing another hunter are by no means justifiable.

Hunting is a not a timed event. If at first you don' t succeed, then come back the next day or the next year. The deer aren' t going to disappear completely in one season.

Well, the old saying beauty is in the eye of the beholder comes to mind. I guess one could say that ethics can be viewed in the same light.

Tomster, You are way out in the clouds on this one and it is OBVIOUS you are not a bowhunter or KNOW ANYTHING about bowhunting for that matter! That has to be the biggest load of crap I have ever read on the site. You say and sounds like a sure fire clean kill to me. If you don' t have first hand knowledge don' t slander on a topic you have little knowledge of. Thanks![:@]

....It makes it wrong to me...I guess you just " don' t get it" ....
and the Subject " Ethics are relative" is not true. If you violate ethics, then how can anyone say it' s ethical? Shoot-happy nitwits is what we' re talkin about here. If anyone in my camp ever hunted as you described above, I would tell them one thing..." There' s a front door and a back door...Pick One!"

Hey guys,

I' m not trying to slander anyone or the sport of bow hunting. Many people and yes most bow hunters are very ethical.

I also know or have heard of several times where people have stated seeing a deer with an arrow stinking through them. It' s not ften you see a deer with a bullet hanging from them.

If I see a deer while hunting at 70 yards, I know I can safely put a hole in that deer and it is meat in my freezer, with a rifle. If I were to shoot at that same deer at 70 yards with a bow, of course I could not do that. Now it is also possible that the ratio between the number of wounds from rifles to deer is greater than that of a bow, that is definetly yes. Why because there are more rifle hunters in the woods during rifle season than bow. It' s all relative speaking.

OK, let' s look at a 30 yard shot with a bow versus rifle. At that range are you sure where you place your sight with a bow versus a rifle, who will make a kill and who may only wound. I believe a rifle wins that match as well.

Now I' m not saying bow hunters are unethical. I just believe that the accuracy of shooting a deer at 10, 20, 30 or 70 yards comparing a bow versus rifle, that a rifle wins.

Archery is a great sport and I applaud anyone that can successfully go into the woods and bring down a deer at the distances you have to work with.

Sorry, I did not mean to offend anyone and this is my opinion.

Tomster