Bowhunters - not a big impact?

[gouch]

I know that bow hunters do wound and loose an animal every now and then. However, I was watching this show on the TV yesterday about Montana game wardens. People were hunting cow elk with rifles. The nearest I could tell is that in Montana you drive around until you see a big herd of elk, then you get out and empty your magazine into the herd. If an elk falls while four or five others limp off, you celebrate your success. If five or six limp off with none falling right away, you moan about what a bad shot you are while reloading to go find another herd to repeat the prosses.

I don't think bowhunters are the problem.

 

[The Hedgehog]

I know that bow hunters do wound and loose an animal every now and then. However, I was watching this show on the TV yesterday about Montana game wardens. People were hunting cow elk with rifles. The nearest I could tell is that in Montana you drive around until you see a big herd of elk, then you get out and empty your magazine into the herd. If an elk falls while four or five others limp off, you celebrate your success. If five or six limp off with none falling right away, you moan about what a bad shot you are while reloading to go find another herd to repeat the prosses.

I don't think bowhunters are the problem.

FFS - Glad you could tune into the Emmy award winning program “wardens” and now you’ve got a clear picture of how elk hunting works in MT.

Original post shows data, not estimates, that tally over 100% the rifle quota to archery kills- that’s in addition to rifle quota, which has ZERO to do with any wounding guesses.

Back to the point - archery hunting tallies up dead animals in a way that makes a big impact. Regardless of poaching, wounding, or any other jackassery - FWP around the state better start getting a grip on archery impact as the deer and elk numbers in general units don’t usually keep score like some animals/harvest are tracked in limited quota areas.

 

[TOGIE]

christmas morning came early.

love a good thread detailing how big of a problem bow hunters are.

and it ain't just in montana.

 

[338win]

I know that bow hunters do wound and loose an animal every now and then. However, I was watching this show on the TV yesterday about Montana game wardens. People were hunting cow elk with rifles. The nearest I could tell is that in Montana you drive around until you see a big herd of elk, then you get out and empty your magazine into the herd. If an elk falls while four or five others limp off, you celebrate your success. If five or six limp off with none falling right away, you moan about what a bad shot you are while reloading to go find another herd to repeat the prosses.

I don't think bowhunters are the problem.

Bow hunters are great at driving elk to private land and wounding animals. If archery has no impact, Colorado wouldn’t be cutting tags and wy might have more seasons. When archery was a fringe group up until the 2000s your belief might have been correct. Those days have long since given way to flat brimmed turds with GoPros and $2000 “bows”.

 

[Forkyfinder]

christmas morning came early.

love a good thread detailing how big of a problem bow hunters are.

and it ain't just in montana.

Lol well i think the problem in Montana is that you can do both....

 

[The Hedgehog]

It’s antelope season on Facebook again..

Log into Facebook

Log into Facebook to start sharing and connecting with your friends, family, and people you know.

www.facebook.com

 

[SAJ-99]

christmas morning came early.

love a good thread detailing how big of a problem bow hunters are.

and it ain't just in montana.

All I can think is threads like this don’t do the hunting community any good with the general population.

 

[TOGIE]

Lol well i think the problem in Montana is that you can do both....

well, whether or not you can do both still means you potentially killed 2 or 3 bulls on one tag before putting one on the wall. i think if we could truly know exact numbers across all methods of take and species we would see this happens less in rifle than in archery.

another reason otc archery in colorado should probably go away across the board.

All I can think is threads like this don’t do the hunting community any good with the general population.

probably not. but the masses of archery hunters struttin around with their "most ethical hunter" hats and crying foul every time a game agency tries to limit their impact is no good for anyone, including the resource.

 

[Bigjay73]

All I can think is threads like this don’t do the hunting community any good with the general population.

The general population isn't logging into HT

 

[Bigjay73]

well, whether or not you can do both still means you potentially killed 2 or 3 bulls on one tag before putting one on the wall. i think if we could truly know exact numbers across all methods of take and species we would see this happens less in rifle than in archery.

My ethics say that my hunt is over once I've drawn blood. Should that be a law? I may support that

 

[SAJ-99]

The general population isn't logging into HT

You would be surprised and where some orgs look to form arguments to judges against things.

 

[Forkyfinder]

You would be surprised and where some orgs look to form arguments to judges against things.

There are more than a few topics where HT is early in google results - including for non HTers.

 

[SAJ-99]

My ethics say that my hunt is over once I've drawn blood. Should that be a law? I may support that

Probably unenforceable. Proving someone drew blood and then shot another animal would seem to be difficult. But I agree it is a good ethical rule. There are two issues going on in this thread that have evolved beyond HH's original post. 1) is the ethical component that hunters have or should have and 2) is the inclusion of wounding in harvest estimates. I believe that for waterfowl, that wounding is included in total harvest, but that is off memory which isn't what it used to be. LOL. It goes back to the view that harvest/wounding doesn't matter for season setting models. What matters is the number of animals from one year's count to the next year's count. The model is just a model. What matters is the number of animals surviving from one year to the next.

 

[Dubz337]

I know that bow hunters do wound and loose an animal every now and then. However, I was watching this show on the TV yesterday about Montana game wardens. People were hunting cow elk with rifles. The nearest I could tell is that in Montana you drive around until you see a big herd of elk, then you get out and empty your magazine into the herd. If an elk falls while four or five others limp off, you celebrate your success. If five or six limp off with none falling right away, you moan about what a bad shot you are while reloading to go find another herd to repeat the prosses.

I don't think bowhunters are the problem.

Ridiculous post. The people who do this (who are in the overwhelming minority) get lambasted by the hunting community, and are also a priority to be stopped by F&W. Did the fact that you were literally watching a show about wardens not clue you into this?

The difference is that in archery wounding an animal is considered 'part of the experience' and has the potential to happen a whole lot more, and does. Its also being exacerbated by in full Sitka with bows that have draw weights they can't handle taking ridiculous shots way too far away cause they saw Rogan or Hanes do it. Lot of archers I know do not punch their tags if they wound an animal and can't find it after. I personally have got a elk before that had, near as I can tell, a healed-over arrow wound. The shitty thing is that archers buy all the gear and wank off about how much more 'pure' and 'skilled' their type of hunting is, and think this entitles them to be experts and take stupid shots. They are no different than some of the long-range rifle guys. Just people with too high an opinion of themselves.

 

[cgasner1]

My ethics say that my hunt is over once I've drawn blood. Should that be a law? I may support that

Supporting and enforcement are two totally different things

 

[cgasner1]

christmas morning came early.

love a good thread detailing how big of a problem bow hunters are.

and it ain't just in montana.

As a Montana resident this will be my 15th year of taking a bull if I even elk hunt this year. I’ve only ever killed one in this state with a rifle. I’d say archery hunters have an impact. Both the smart and dumb ones

 

[Bigjay73]

Supporting and enforcement are two totally different things

Completely agree. I wonder though how many, especially new hunters, have never even considered punching a tag once you've hit an animal? Maybe some just need a little guidance?

 

[Bigjay73]

You would be surprised and where some orgs look to form arguments to judges against things.

Fair enough

 

[cgasner1]

Completely agree. I wonder though how many, especially new hunters, have never even considered punching a tag once you've hit an animal? Maybe some just need a little guidance?

Given the situation I don’t have an issues with not punching the tag and continuing to hunt. That’s your ethics not mine. I hit a bull in the knuckle one morning and double lunged one that afternoon. I also hunt to bring meat home and going home empty handed when I’m sure I just gave an elk an education is no reason to leave my freezer empty.

 

[gouch]

FFS - Glad you could tune into the Emmy award winning program “wardens” and now you’ve got a clear picture of how elk hunting works in MT.

Original post shows data, not estimates, that tally over 100% the rifle quota to archery kills- that’s in addition to rifle quota, which has ZERO to do with any wounding guesses.

Back to the point - archery hunting tallies up dead animals in a way that makes a big impact. Regardless of poaching, wounding, or any other jackassery - FWP around the state better start getting a grip on archery impact as the deer and elk numbers in general units don’t usually keep score like some animals/harvest are tracked in limited quota areas.

I actually agree with you on the fact that bow hunting has a large impact on wildlife. There does need to be an honest and detailed account of that impact when setting seasons and tag allocations. But this thread has degraded into the primal, "bow hunting bad, rifle good" BS.

The fact is that regardless of poaching wounding or any other jackassery, the impact of rifle hunting is hundreds of times greater than that of bowhunting. So, if the goal is to reduce the impact on the wildlife, then it only makes sense that it will be the rifle hunter that has to take the brunt of the burden.