Primitive hunting methods

[Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang]

I would see at least one valid environmental reason : less lead and heavy metal pollution.

[Felya]

If anyone wants to show how manly they are I suggest they go wrestle bears with their bare hands.

Yawn... I’ve seen drunk pro wrestlers do that... your expectations of manly are very low, step it up. A real man would fight two bears. Rip the hands off the first bear, then defeat the the second bear, using only the bear hands you just ripped off. A real man, defeats a bear, using his own bear hands.

[Ripster42]

Yawn... I’ve seen drunk pro wrestlers do that... your expectations of manly are very low, step it up. A real man would fight two bears. Rip the hands off the first bear, then defeat the the second bear, using only the bear hands you just ripped off. A real man, defeats a bear, using his own bear hands.

And, as americans, it's our 2nd amendment right.

[Felya]

And, as americans, it's our 2nd amendment right.

Only if the bear hands can shoot.

[Thekri]

I would see at least one valid environmental reason : less lead and heavy metal pollution.

Well that, and it results in a lot less animals being killed over all. The success chance of a hunter with a scoped rifle is extremely high, if you see a deer/elk/bear that you want, there is an extremely high chance you can kill it (Or mess it up and wound it, which has the same result for the animal, just with more pain).

With a bow, it is far more likely you will not be able to get a shot on the animal. It is inherently more difficult to kill with a bow. A Spear/Atl-atl is even more difficult. There is a reason humans upgraded, and the more primitive the tools, the less likely animals are to be overhunted.

Yes, I understand the "Unnecessary suffering" angle, but human hunting methods are far less torturous than the ways many predators hunt. This doesn't necessarily make it better, it just puts it in perspective, because ethical hunting practices should act as a replacement for natural predation. We killed off so many wolves and big cats, that in much of the world the natural predation cycle is broken, and hunting is a valid way to keep herds healthy. Advanced hunting tools like Rifles have a huge disadvantage in this, because they are so effective, there is little difference in hunting the strongest, most healthy members of the herd, rather than the weaker ones that would normally be preyed on. Rifles break natural selection, and they break it hard, because humans have the tendency to kill the most healthy members of the population, the ones that are supposed to survive and breed.

You can enforce ethical hunting practices with regulation, but hunters tend to strenuously object to not being allowed to kill the "best" trophies. It is one of the reasons I am strongly opposed to trophy hunting in general, it is unnatural and breaks the natural cycle. However, limiting the technology level creates a self regulation. By making humans closer in capability to natural predators, you force hunters to hunt what they can actually actually kill. A Old Doe is a substantial trophy if you hunted it with a spear, so the hunter is satisfied, and deer herd is much healthier because the effect is closer to natural predation.

[Thekri]

That is not the point. More animals would suffer from being wounded as spears have shitty accuracy compared to firearms.

The point is not the absolute quantity of animals, it is the specific animals targeted. A human with a spear is only a little more successful that a wolf pack at hunting, and tends to have a pretty similar selection of prey. With a gun, you pop out into the woods, shoot the largest, healthiest, best members of the herd, and are back in your Truck before lunch time. That is far more damaging to a population than spear hunting, even if the individual animal felt less pain.

Over-hunting with guns can cause massive problems for populations. In some areas of the United States, irresponsible hunting has killed so many male deer, that the surviving Bucks, which are usually immature Bucks that normally wouldn't have a chance to mate, have so many does that they will literally mate themselves to death. They won't eat or sleep, because they are surrounded by dozens of does in estrus, with no competition for them. This is destructive, irresponsible, and dangerous.

Good hunting regulations should stop that, but unfortunately, as with almost everything in the US, money comes into play. Many rural communities derive a lot of their income from seasonal hunting, and not allowing hunters to get their trophies means they will go elsewhere. Short term greed comes into play, even if proper management leads to better herds over time (And there are plenty of places with good wildlife management as well). Primitive weapon hunting is a nice tool to alleviate this. It is still challenging, much more natural to the threats the game animal is evolved too face, and healthier for the herd.

Another argument in favor of primitive hunting is the behaviors it encourages in game animal populations. A natural defense for grazing animals is to stay in the open, away from cover that conceals predators. This is the opposite of the way to avoid gun hunting. By putting selection pressure on the herds with guns, the creatures most vulnerable to hunting (Primarily large adults) are forced into the opposite of their natural lifestyle. This leads to explosions of parasites and disease, since animals are in more constant contact with bushes to transmit and acquire ticks.

Bows have less of an effect, because they don't shoot as far, but any method limiting humanities completely overpowered ranged advantage exerts more natural pressures on prey animals. Predation is good for prey animals, it is what they evolved in concert with. Unless we reintroduce a substantial number of predators to all areas they live in (Which is a pretty decent idea, but problematic for social reasons) then human hunting is an acceptable substitute, but making humans hunt more like natural predators is a good thing.

[Thekri]

I agree that trophy hunting is wrong. We don't really have that in Finland so I didn't factor it in. What kind of animal you can shoot is tightly regulated, though hunters of course would rather kill the elk with 16 pronged antlers than the one with "just" 6 prongs.

If we moved to spear hunting for elks, the number of people who die in car crashes with elks would sky rocket as the median age for hunters is approaching 50 or 60. Those old geezers wouldn't kill the broad side of a barn with spears.

True, and I don't have any problem with gun hunting per se, when used responsibly to control population in a healthy manner. However, I do think primitive style hunting has its valid place, and I think some areas should adopt it as the only legal option. In areas that need a lot more animals harvested to control populations, gun hunting is necessary just to remove the sort of numbers that are necessary. Many herd animals such as elk and caribou produce far more offspring then are sustainable, and without large numbers of wolves, bears, and big cats to eat them, they can be incredibly destructive until sufficient numbers of them starve. Which is a lot crueler then shooting them.

[Milchshake]

Naw primitive hunting is overly romanticized. Relies more on baiting and dogs. Not my idea of fair chase.
Where does it stop... lets just herd animals into a paddocks or canyons and just throw big rocks at them. /s

[Thekri]

I still disagree that spear hunting could be used in areas where the animal population has been over hunted. Just, like, ban hunting there. :|

The one conditions I'd allow it is for guided tours where there is game warden or someone like that with the group that is armed with rifle all the time. You can't even eat animals that die of wounds hours or days later after being wounded.

If overhunted so the population is too low, sure. But selective overhunting is as common as just killing too many animals. In the example of killing too many Bucks in American deer populations, there still maybe an enourmous number of does around, far more then is healthy. The natural balance of deer populations is about 1 adult Buck to 2 adult does, but some areas get that ratio skewed to 1/20 or even worse. In those cases, primitive hunting can't really help balance that population initially, but it can be a good long term solution to preserve a healthy balance. Because hunting with spears and other primitive weapons mean you take what you can get, and it isn't really likely that you can kill 19 times more bucks than does. With guns it is easy, you can kill any individual deer you want.

This is sort of how it works with indigenous whaling in the Arctic. They are allowed to hunt with traditional methods, even though the whales in question are protected, because if you are hunting whales from a hide boat, you don't want to be targeting the biggest and healthiest ones. Whales were almost wiped out by much more modern technology, the population can easily support neolithic level hunting, but from about the Enlightenment Age on, animals just can't survive that sort of harvesting. It is just far too much, and far too different from any other animals predation.

[dwightyo39]

I understand the need to get food, what i really don't understand is the pleasure of killing, in this case animal's, when you can just walk into a supermarket and buy all stuff there. And stuff at supermarkets comes from animal's that are raised for that. So why allow a sport whose goal is killing animal's for sake of it?

I do understand that some species sometimes go out of controll, like wild boars, but other then that, killing for sport shouldn't be a thing.

So just eat farm raised animals, because no animals were harmed in the process of putting those steaks in the meat cooler.

Anyway, I bow hunt. Elk is delicious and organic. No, I don't fap to the idea of killing animals. I do take a sense of pride in being able to even get close enough to have a bow shot at a wild elk on public land. Sort of like knowing I can provide for myself if shit hit the fan.

- - - Updated - - -

Naw primitive hunting is overly romanticized. Relies more on baiting and dogs. Not my idea of fair chase.
Where does it stop... lets just herd animals into a paddocks or canyons and just throw big rocks at them. /s

You cannot legally hunt elk in Idaho with bait or dogs. Some states allow bait for elk and deer. I don't know any that allow dogs to be used on anything other than bear and mountain lions.

[Tuor]

For fuck's sake... It is more ethical to raise animals for slaughter than to kill a wild animal?

I don't like it, but people need to eat. Also, hunting wild animals, often, puts in danger the ecosysthem. For example, if you hunt all the rabbits in a area, what are the local Lynx's going to hunt? This is getting problematic to the point that species that normally don't get close to humans, such has wolfs, start hunting cattle because they no longer have anything else to hunt.
And then there is the sport hunt, that thing wiped Bears and almost wiped Wolfs from my country.

So yeah, i'd rather have raised animal's to eat, otherwise we risking the whole echosysthem.

- - - Updated - - -

So just eat farm raised animals, because no animals were harmed in the process of putting those steaks in the meat cooler.

That wasn't what i implied. What i implied was that there is absolutely no need to keep such activities.

[Stelio Kontos]

I'm fine with hunting for food and to keep animal populations in check. There are some cases where not hunting an animal actually harms the environment, like deer in some places.

That said, I wouldn't want to make an animal unduly suffer if hunting, but I also keep in mind that the natural world is a harsh mistress, and animals make each other suffer without hesitation. We're a part of that natural order, so, in a situation where I need to eat, or have children to feed, I don't care how many times I'd need to stab or shoot an animal. This goes doubly so if it's protecting myself or mine from predation by animals as well. My survival and the survival of my kids would matter far, far more in that situation than any care about the animal's suffering, and that is how it should be, as a hungry bear or wolves wouldn't care about my suffering as they tore me to pieces.

[Tuor]

You put the ecosystem more at risk by consuming mass produced meat.

Some say yes, some say no. My PoV is that those procrieted animal's normaly die with low sufering.

My main point its still sport hunt, almost no one hunts to eat, they hunt because they like to kill... Even that almost all hunters normally end eating what they hunt.

[smityx]

How far do you take it. How about trapping. Things like spring loaded foot traps, cage traps, deadfalls, etc.

[Ripster42]

My survival and the survival of my kids would matter far, far more in that situation than any care about the animal's suffering, and that is how it should be, as a hungry bear or wolves wouldn't care about my suffering as they tore me to pieces.

In the situation the OP was talking about, you get to choose if you want to increase the likelihood of suffering the prey animal, or decrease that likelihood. In your situation you get to choose between a higher likelihood of suffering (both the animal and your family) or decreasing that likelihood. So would you choose primitive hunting methods, or a rifle?

That being said, not a fan of bow hunting, but I enjoyed target archery as a kid, and I'm hoping to get some moose jerky in 6 months or so as a friend lucked out on a tag after 17 years in the lotto.

[Stelio Kontos]

Yes, but we as humans are in a unique position because we hold ourselves above animals. We acknowledge suffering, so we should strive to not cause it.

Sure, and if given an option I'd not make an animal suffer. But I think, as with most people, my compassion would be tied to my options.

[dwightyo39]

Some say yes, some say no. My PoV is that those procrieted animal's normaly die with low sufering.

My main point its still sport hunt, almost no one hunts to eat, they hunt because they like to kill... Even that almost all hunters normally end eating what they hunt.

Wild animals are not often given the luxury of a nice peaceful death. If they live long enough they either starve/freeze to death in the winter or they are ripped apart and eaten, while still alive, by wolves or bears. That's right, the "cute" wolves, anti hunters are so eager to see introduced to states they don't live in, devistate elk/moose populations. I guarantee an arrow in the heart or lungs is a lot faster way to go than being hamstrung, and having your guts ripped out your ass by a pack of wolves.

Also, does it matter if a hunter enjoys the kill? Do you think the prey cares?

[Tuor]

Wild animals are not often given the luxury of a nice peaceful death. If they live long enough they either starve/freeze to death in the winter or they are ripped apart and eaten, while still alive, by wolves or bears. That's right, the "cute" wolves, anti hunters are so eager to see introduced to states they don't live in, devistate elk/moose populations. I guarantee an arrow in the heart or lungs is a lot faster way to go than being hamstrung, and having your guts ripped out your ass by a pack of wolves.

Also, does it matter if a hunter enjoys the kill? Do you think the prey cares?

The prey obviously doesn't understand, the fact that people enjoy killing for the sake of it does botter me.

[Milchshake]

The prey obviously doesn't understand, the fact that people enjoy killing for the sake of it does botter me.

Ya, it's weird that people would brag about enjoying the kill. Like admitting they're a sociopath. But hey, in the Bubba Wallace thread there's a few people bragging about how much they like nooses as a conventional knot.

As a Hunter, I would avoid people that brag about enjoying killing. Virtually all shooting accidents in hunting, involve the partner or group member.

[the game]

How far do you take it. How about trapping. Things like spring loaded foot traps, cage traps, deadfalls, etc.

many states do allow trapping.