dentist taking heat for lion kill

[Ace_on_the_Turn]

Arrow hunting big game isn't barbaric... It's challenging as hell. Good hunters pull it off year after year. This dude wasn't using an arrow, he was using a bolt, from a crossbow. He may be an idiot, but it's still not barbaric... he's just a very poor shot.

It's challenging to the hunter. It's barbaric (unnecessarily cruel) to the animal. What percent of game hit with an arrow is ever recovered? What's the average time to die? Even a good hit results in the animal suffering for no good reason.

Some sources say it was a crossbow. Maybe it was. But, in several pictures the guy has with big game he's killed, he damn sure used a bow and arrow.

 

[TwoForFlinching]

It's challenging to the hunter. I personally feel it is barbaric (unnecessarily cruel) to the animal.

FIFY... and there's nothing wrong with having that opinion. But you know it may not be shared by others.

What percent of game hit with an arrow is ever recovered?

There isn't any hard data out there to answer this question. Sure, some websites will say 50%, others will say 90%, but the truth is this... The science has not be done. Personally, I can't even give an example or ballpark number, as I don't find the idea of bow/crossbow hunting alluring. I may romance the idea when the cold of Fall hits, but hunting my open country isn't ideal for it. I think a proper answer would be the percent of game hit with an arrow is always 100% recovered by skilled and successful hunters.

What's the average time to die?

Again, the science hasn't been done. Some studies debate whether death comes within seconds or minutes, but it's based entirely on the success of a competent hunter. I've watched deer take off and dash 150 yards, discovering upon inspection the complete absence of a heart. Hunting deaths are rarely instant, but such is the circle of life.

Even a good hit results in the animal suffering for no good reason.

I'm not sure if you're trolling or not...

Some sources say it was a crossbow. Maybe it was. But, in several pictures the guy has with big game he's killed, he damn sure used a bow and arrow.

It's irrelevant what method he used. Both are fine weapons suited for the job of killing even big animals. The success rate lies solely with the skill of the hunter.

 

[Ace_on_the_Turn]

FIFY... and there's nothing wrong with having that opinion. But you know it may not be shared by others.

No, it's not my opinion. It's literally the definition of barbaric.

There isn't any hard data out there to answer this question. Sure, some websites will say 50%, others will say 90%, but the truth is this... The science has not be done. Personally, I can't even give an example or ballpark number, as I don't find the idea of bow/crossbow hunting alluring. I may romance the idea when the cold of Fall hits, but hunting my open country isn't ideal for it. I think a proper answer would be the percent of game hit with an arrow is always 100% recovered by skilled and successful hunters.

So, if a few hunters recover 100% (and none do) it's okay if most, or even some, don't?

Again, the science hasn't been done. Some studies debate whether death comes within seconds or minutes, but it's based entirely on the success of a competent hunter. I've watched deer take off and dash 150 yards, discovering upon inspection the complete absence of a heart. Hunting deaths are rarely instant, but such is the circle of life.

No one is debating the fact that even a well placed rifle shot may not result in instant death. But, the wound channel of even a poorly placed rifle shot is massive. Saying that the unnecessary suffering of an animal, because the hunter wanted the thrill of taking an animal, with an inferior weapon, is the circle of life is, in my opinion, asinine.

I'm not sure if you're trolling or not...

What a surprise.

It's irrelevant what method he used. Both are fine weapons suited for the job of killing even big animals. The success rate lies solely with the skill of the hunter.

That's simply not true. You can take down a large animal by using poison. Or dynamite. Neither is a good method. But both are suited for killing a large animal.

There is simply no way we are going to change each others mind, or anyone's mind, so I will allow you the last word as there's no need for further debate.

 

[stick4]

 

[Oklahomabassin]

Some seem to be missing the point, or just don't care. I have no issue with these type trophy hunts. Killing an animal just for the thrill of killing is screwed up, but, it's legal and we kill millions of animals each year for food an clothes. But, in this case, an animal was illegally lured out of a protected area. And then shot with an arrow. A f**king arrow. 40 hours later they found the animal, still alive but suffering, and finally killed it with a firearm. Anyone that thinks that hunting large game with a bow and arrow is not barbaric is an idiot. This guy has hunted illegally before. I have zero doubt in my mind he knew what he was doing was illegal. Send him back, let them deal with him, and we can all move on to the next story.

It's challenging to the hunter. It's barbaric (unnecessarily cruel) to the animal. What percent of game hit with an arrow is ever recovered? What's the average time to die? Even a good hit results in the animal suffering for no good reason.

Some sources say it was a crossbow. Maybe it was. But, in several pictures the guy has with big game he's killed, he damn sure used a bow and arrow.

 

[dennishoddy]

Obvious troll. Its typical of what the anti gun, anti hunting community puts out for talking points.

 

[TwoForFlinching]

Obvious troll. Its typical of what the anti gun, anti hunting community puts out for talking points.

Brilliant troll. If I reply, I'm the stubborn guy that desperately needs the last word... If I don't respond, I'm obviously butthurt. It was well played lol

 

[SoonerP226]

No, it's not my opinion. It's literally the definition of barbaric.

I checked the OED, and, strangely enough, it didn't mention hunting with arrows at all in the definition of "barbaric," so it turns out that it's literally just your opinion.

 

[Ace_on_the_Turn]

I checked the OED, and, strangely enough, it didn't mention hunting with arrows at all in the definition of "barbaric," so it turns out that it's literally just your opinion.

Of all the idiotic things that have been posted in this thread, if not on this site, that has to rank right up near the top. ISIS decapitating people with a knife is not barbaric, right? Hutus hacking a million Tutsi to death with machetes is not barbaric, right?

BARBARIC
1
a : of, relating to, or characteristic of barbarians
b : possessing or characteristic of a cultural level more complex than primitive savagery but less sophisticated than advanced civilization
2
a : marked by a lack of restraint : wild
b : having a bizarre, primitive, or unsophisticated quality

You should have just called me a troll, the internet equivalent of saying, "I don't have an intelligent reply but I want to insult you".

 

[druryj]

He paid several guides and they lured him off the land with meat? Didn't even finish him off with a bow.... they shot the lion later.

He's a douche and not a "hunter."

Well, we found something we can agree on! Yes!