AgySkeet06 said:
Check out the hernia on that buck.
Its always a bit of a rush being that close to deer when hunting.
Also fyi dont try to shoot the buck in the head/neck with a crossbow.....
Congratulations. Get some LED nock. They help in finding your bolt and are easy to installjmazz said:
Bolt not yet found.
Colt98 said:
Congrats on the TOT. Always a rush to take a deer with an arrow. Even if you're cheating.
I've been trying to be a kinder, gentler AC and not come in and crap on people's crossbow threads, but since we're going to have this conversation now, we might as well have it.SteveBott said:
jmazz congrats on the hunts.
I thought the crossbow smack would of came in 24 hours of posting so I was surprised by the restraint showed by the bow hunters but...I knew it would come here or another thread.
And I just don't get it. An arrow hunter has to do about 95% of the same work regardless of method. Compared to a gun kill an arrow kill is quite an accomplishment. As many as stated an arrow kill is more of an even fight between hunter and the hunted.
And I do not hunt with arrows as of now but considering the change over as of next year.
This has always been my hang-up with crossbows as well.AggieChemist said:The REAL challenge of bowhunting is GETTING TO FULL DRAW AND HOLDING IT FOR THE RIGHT SHOT in that moment when you've got a whitetail within 20-ish yards. You are in that deer's zone of awareness and it can be tough... it can be nigh impossible to get drawn and get a good shot on some animals, especially one that's aware something isn't right.SteveBott said:
jmazz congrats on the hunts.
I thought the crossbow smack would of came in 24 hours of posting so I was surprised by the restraint showed by the bow hunters but...I knew it would come here or another thread.
And I just don't get it. An arrow hunter has to do about 95% of the same work regardless of method. Compared to a gun kill an arrow kill is quite an accomplishment. As many as stated an arrow kill is more of an even fight between hunter and the hunted.
And I do not hunt with arrows as of now but considering the change over as of next year.
Getting to full draw has often proved impossible for me! Until you know the feeling of being busted and watching that buck walk out of bow range, you don't know bow hunting!AgEng06 said:AggieChemist said:
The REAL challenge of bowhunting is GETTING TO FULL DRAW AND HOLDING IT FOR THE RIGHT SHOT in that moment when you've got a whitetail within 20-ish yards. You are in that deer's zone of awareness and it can be tough... it can be nigh impossible to get drawn and get a good shot on some animals, especially one that's aware something isn't right.
jmazz said:
I don't doubt there's a difference between bow and crossbow hunting (methods, skills, etc). For me and for the land/set up I have...crossbow was the better choice to take advantage of bow season.
Next time I'll just get in a ghillie suit, lay under the feeder and knife the animal. Surely no one can bash that.
AggieChemist said:Quote:
The REAL challenge of bowhunting is GETTING TO FULL DRAW AND HOLDING IT FOR THE RIGHT SHOT in that moment when you've got a whitetail within 20-ish yards. You are in that deer's zone of awareness and it can be tough... it can be nigh impossible to get drawn and get a good shot on some animals, especially one that's aware something isn't right.
Good conversation.
I actually agree with you. However, the downfall of bow hunting elitist in general is they don't understand that a large portion of the hunting population doesn't care about this. There is still a lot of people who are hunting for the meat and this generally only applies to trophy hunting because it defeats the purpose of doing everything you can to bring home meat. When the bow hunting community tries to put bow hunting on a pedestal all their doing is unnecessarily dividing the hunting community. There's no benefit to it other than personal ego stroking for someone with the mental confidence of a circus performer.
I'd much rather work to get closer or to kill a specific animal than to use a specific weapon. I can shoot anything anytime, but I can't always hunt a specific game species or animal whenever. Especially if I'm paying to travel west to hunt elk or mule deer. I don't have the disposable income to be OK with not doing everything possible to bring meat back to my family. And a lot of other hunters are the same.
The other issue I have with crossbows is that many rifle hunters view it as an easy way to get into archery season without having to undertake the discipline of archery and its learning curve.
I don't agree with this argument at all. First you preclude hunters of other weapons from hunting during peak times or have special seasons. And then after you've pranced around flaunting a bow and arrow and patted yourself on the back, in most states those same bow hunters are using other weapons in later seasons. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Bow hunters shouldn't be allowed to have both the rut or limited competition hunting season and then hunt other seasons with other weapons. If bow hunting is so pure, then stick with it.
AgLA06 said:AggieChemist said:Quote:
The REAL challenge of bowhunting is GETTING TO FULL DRAW AND HOLDING IT FOR THE RIGHT SHOT in that moment when you've got a whitetail within 20-ish yards. You are in that deer's zone of awareness and it can be tough... it can be nigh impossible to get drawn and get a good shot on some animals, especially one that's aware something isn't right.
Good conversation.
I actually agree with you. However, the downfall of bow hunting elitist in general is they don't understand that a large portion of the hunting population doesn't care about this. There is still a lot of people who are hunting for the meat and this generally only applies to trophy hunting because it defeats the purpose of doing everything you can to bring home meat. When the bow hunting community tries to put bow hunting on a pedestal all their doing is unnecessarily dividing the hunting community. There's no benefit to it other than personal ego stroking for someone with the mental confidence of a circus performer.
I'd much rather work to get closer or to kill a specific animal than to use a specific weapon. I can shoot anything anytime, but I can't always hunt a specific game species or animal whenever. Especially if I'm paying to travel west to hunt elk or mule deer. I don't have the disposable income to be OK with not doing everything possible to bring meat back to my family. And a lot of other hunters are the same.
The other issue I have with crossbows is that many rifle hunters view it as an easy way to get into archery season without having to undertake the discipline of archery and its learning curve.
I don't agree with this argument at all. First you preclude hunters of other weapons from hunting during peak times or have special seasons. And then after you've pranced around flaunting a bow and arrow and patted yourself on the back, in most states those same bow hunters are using other weapons in later seasons. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Bow hunters shouldn't be allowed to have both the rut or limited competition hunting season and then hunt other seasons with other weapons. If bow hunting is so pure, then stick with it.
That's widely understood. That however, has nothing to do with allowing those advantages to be doubled down in later seasons with other weapons. If it was truly about limiting the harvest, that wouldn't be allowed. It has nothing to do with that and everything to do with maximizing license sales. And in my opinion cheapens most of the mantra coming from the bow hunting community. Don't rub bow hunting is better in my face and fluff up your facebook page in the early season only to push me off a mountain later with a rifle because you suck at bow hunting.AgEng06 said:
In most western states, part of the reason bow hunters are allowed to hunt animals during the rut is because the efficacy of bowhunting is lower. Bulls and bucks are at their most vulnerable during the rut, and if rifle hunting was allowed, there would be many more animals killed. The states are (or should be) in the business of managing the herd while attempting to allow as many people the opportunity to hunt as possible (as well as maximizing revenue).
For example, assume for a particular unit that 100 bull elk needed to be killed and assume the rifle success rate is 30% and archery success rate is 10% (rifle success is probably higher, actually). The unit could support 1000 archery hunters to achieve the desired kill rate or 333 rifle hunters. Allowing archery only during the rut provides more opportunity for the public, while also bringing in more revenue - the cost of the tag is the same regardless of method of take, except the state would sell 3x as many tags to archery hunters. Rifle hunting is then allowed after the rut (or right at the end) so that enough elk can still be killed to hit the
It's not really an argument of what's fair, it's a complex system based on lots of factors.
(and yes, I got most of this from the MeatEater podcast several weeks ago)
I'm not understanding what you're saying here. Advantages of what? And what wouldn't be allowed?AgLA06 said:That's widely understood. That however, has nothing to do with allowing those advantages to be doubled down in later seasons with other weapons. If it was truly about limiting the harvest, that wouldn't be allowed.AgEng06 said:
In most western states, part of the reason bow hunters are allowed to hunt animals during the rut is because the efficacy of bowhunting is lower. Bulls and bucks are at their most vulnerable during the rut, and if rifle hunting was allowed, there would be many more animals killed. The states are (or should be) in the business of managing the herd while attempting to allow as many people the opportunity to hunt as possible (as well as maximizing revenue).
For example, assume for a particular unit that 100 bull elk needed to be killed and assume the rifle success rate is 30% and archery success rate is 10% (rifle success is probably higher, actually). The unit could support 1000 archery hunters to achieve the desired kill rate or 333 rifle hunters. Allowing archery only during the rut provides more opportunity for the public, while also bringing in more revenue - the cost of the tag is the same regardless of method of take, except the state would sell 3x as many tags to archery hunters. Rifle hunting is then allowed after the rut (or right at the end) so that enough elk can still be killed to hit the
It's not really an argument of what's fair, it's a complex system based on lots of factors.
(and yes, I got most of this from the MeatEater podcast several weeks ago)
And I would do none of this, nor understand what you mean about pushing you off a mountain?Quote:
Don't rub bow hunting is better in my face and fluff up your facebook page in the early season only to push me off a mountain later with a rifle because you suck at bow hunting.
AgEng06 said:I'm not understanding what you're saying here. Advantages of what? Specialized seasons with limited competition and none from other weapons.AgLA06 said:That's widely understood. That however, has nothing to do with allowing those advantages to be doubled down in later seasons with other weapons. If it was truly about limiting the harvest, that wouldn't be allowed.AgEng06 said:
In most western states, part of the reason bow hunters are allowed to hunt animals during the rut is because the efficacy of bowhunting is lower. Bulls and bucks are at their most vulnerable during the rut, and if rifle hunting was allowed, there would be many more animals killed. The states are (or should be) in the business of managing the herd while attempting to allow as many people the opportunity to hunt as possible (as well as maximizing revenue).
For example, assume for a particular unit that 100 bull elk needed to be killed and assume the rifle success rate is 30% and archery success rate is 10% (rifle success is probably higher, actually). The unit could support 1000 archery hunters to achieve the desired kill rate or 333 rifle hunters. Allowing archery only during the rut provides more opportunity for the public, while also bringing in more revenue - the cost of the tag is the same regardless of method of take, except the state would sell 3x as many tags to archery hunters. Rifle hunting is then allowed after the rut (or right at the end) so that enough elk can still be killed to hit the
It's not really an argument of what's fair, it's a complex system based on lots of factors.
(and yes, I got most of this from the MeatEater podcast several weeks ago)
And what wouldn't be allowed?
Hunting other seasons with other weapons to expand the hunt longer and increase the odds of success.And I would do none of this, nor understand what you mean about pushing you off a mountain?Quote:
Don't rub bow hunting is better in my face and fluff up your facebook page in the early season only to push me off a mountain later with a rifle because you suck at bow hunting.
Great. That's the way it should be, but the average bow hunter does. The worst part of rifle hunting is to get miles in from a trail head in the dark only to have other hunters walk right through the area after day light. Especially if you find out they've been hunting for months before your only weak long season started and probably sucking just as bad the entire time.
